CANOD_BLD20131341.pdf
MEMORANDUM
Date:
December 1, 2014
To:
File CRA20130128and BLD20131341
From:
Kernen Lien, SeniorPlanner
Subject:
City Park Spray Pad
_____________________________________________________________________________
The City of Edmonds passed Interim Ordinance 3935 on August 6, 2013 which allowed
development within physically separated and functionally isolated buffers.
rd
The City of Edmonds is proposing a project at City Park (600 –3Avenue South) that is within
the 100-foot buffer of a Type II wetland. The building permit for the spray pad project
(BLD20131341) was submitted while Interim Ord3935 was in affect and vested to the provision
of Interim Ord. 3935. The project area is physically separated and functionally isolated from the
wetland bya paved parking area and road as determined by a wetland report prepared by Landau
Associated dated November 22, 2013.
While Interim Ordinance 3935 allowed development activity within a physically separated and
functionally isolated buffer, mitigation is required in order to enhance wetland functions.
Landau Associates prepared a wetland report and enhancement plan for the City Park Spray Pad
project. 1,100 square feet of wetland buffer will be enhanced with the Spray Pad project
consistent with Interim Ordinance 3935. The Landau Wetland Report is attached.
Critical Areas Report
City Park Play & Spray Revitalization
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, Washington
November 22, 2013
Prepared for
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, Washington
130 2nd Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
(425) 778-0907
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Edmonds (City) is proposing to build an interactive spray area and replace worn-out
playground equipment at City Park, located within the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County,
Washington. The goal of the project is to improve, update, and diversify the play features at the park.
The spray feature will include a water system for water re-
wading pool, which has been closed since 2007.
Wetlands, waterways, and/or their buffers can fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) under the State Water Pollution Control Act, and the City under the Critical Areas
regulations of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). This report provides results of the
critical areas study, including wetland delineation for one wetland and reconnaissance-level investigation
of one stream; assessment of project-related impacts to the wetland and associated wetland/stream buffer;
and a description of the proposed compensatory mitigation for those impacts in order to satisfy both of the
critical areas regulations.
The project will result in wetland/stream buffer impacts, which will be enhanced as part of project
construction.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
iii
MITIGATIONFACT SHEET
Site Information
Location Wetland Impact & Mitigation Sites (same)
Site Names
City Park
County
Snohomish
City Edmonds
Section, Township, Range Section 26, Township 27 North, Range 3 East
Latitude, Longitude (GIS-verified)
47.805708 N lat./ -122.381777 W long.
Watershed Cedar-Sammamish
WRIA
8
Is the mitigation site(s) off of the project development site?
Proposed onsite buffer enhancement
Construction schedule (development site and compensation site\[s\]): TBD.
Summary of project, including proposed type and location of work, discussion of avoidance and minimization measures, goals
and objectives, wetland functions, impacted and mitigated (note assessment method used), and the general design concept
(include where it has been done before).
The City of Edmonds (City) is proposing to build an interactive spray area and replace worn-out playground equipment at City Park.
Impacts to the adjacent stream and wetlands are avoided; however, impacts will occur to wetland/stream buffer. The buffer impacts
occur in an area of the buffer separated by the adjacent wetland/stream by existing parking lot and driveway. The area of impact is
existing landscape area consisting of lawn. Buffer enhancement is proposed in an area immediately adjacent to the wetland.
Wetland/Waterway Impact Sites
Rating Water
Feature Impacts Hydrologic Habitat Landscape
Type (Total Quality HGM Class
Name (acres) Score Score Position
Score) Score
0 (refer to
buffer
Wetland A PEM/PFO 67 17 24 26 Depression Depressional
impacts
below)
Total acres of wetland/waterway impact:
None, see buffer impacts below.
Acres of wetland impacts and mitigation
Wetland Type (Cowardin,
HGM classification,
Ecology Rating) Acres Impacted Restoration (acres)
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Describe other impacts and/or other mitigation activities.
2
Approximately 1,100 square feet (ft) of Wetland A/Shelleberger Creek buffer impact will occur, and an equivalent affected area will be
enhanced.
Describe the buffers being provided for the mitigation site, including minimum and maximum width, total buffer area, and
description of surrounding land uses.
The existing buffer in the project area consists of landscaped area and impervious surfaces associated with the park parking lot and
driveway. No loss of functional buffer area will occur as a result of the project.
Describe the water regime at the mitigation site(s), including source of water, expected water depth, average outflow (winter,
spring, summer), and ownership of water rights.
Mitigation is limited to upland buffer areas.
Provide a list of performance standards and the estimated time to reach each.
The proposed mitigation is enhancement of existing degraded buffer habitat. Performance standards are described in Section 5.3.
During earthwork and plant installation, a qualified biologist will verify that grade and soil conditions are correct per specifications, plant
materials are healthy and consist of the correct species and sizes as designated on the planting plan, and that they are placed in the
correct growing environments. When plant installation is complete, the biologist will conduct an inspection and provide detailed notes on
any changes to the final plan. Landscape maintenance will occur as needed following planting for successful establishment of the
plantings. A 3-year monitoring period will evaluate success of meeting vegetation diversity, cover, and, survival standards.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
iv
This page intentionally left blank.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii
MITIGATION FACT SHEET iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS viii
1.0INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1SITE DESCRIPTION 1-1
1.2REGULATORY BACKGROUND 1-1
2.0METHODOLOGY 2-1
2.1WETLAND AND WATERWAY INVESTIGATION 2-1
2.1.1Background Information Review 2-1
2.1.2Wetland Delineation 2-2
2.2WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATION, RATING, AND BUFFER WIDTH 2-2
2.3WATERWAY RECONNAISSANCE, TYPING, AND BUFFER WIDTH 2-3
2.4MITIGATION SEQUENCING AND DESIGN 2-4
2.4.1Impact Assessment 2-4
2.4.2Mitigation Plan 2-4
3.0CRITICAL AREAS INVESTIGATION RESULTS 3-1
3.1BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW 3-1
3.1.1Waterways 3-1
3.1.1.1Fish Usage 3-1
3.1.2Wetlands 3-1
3.1.3Soils 3-2
3.1.4Floodplain 3-2
3.1.5Land Use 3-2
3.1.6Precipitation 3-2
3.2FIELD INVESTIGATION 3-2
3.2.1Wetland A 3-3
3.2.1.1Upland Characterization 3-4
3.2.2Shelleberger Creek 3-4
4.0IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4-1
5.0MITIGATION 5-1
5.1MITIGATION SEQUENCING 5-1
5.1.1Avoidance 5-1
5.1.2Minimization 5-1
5.1.3Unavoidable Impacts 5-1
5.1.4Mitigation Requirements 5-2
5.2MITIGATION PLAN 5-2
5.2.1Enhancement Plan 5-3
5.2.2Proposed (Enhanced Buffer) Functions 5-3
5.3MITIGATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 5-3
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
vi
6.0PLANTING PLAN 6-1
6.1PLANTING PLAN 6-1
6.2PHASING AND SPECIFICATIONS 6-1
7.0MONITORING, MAINTENANCE, AND SITE PROTECTION 7-1
7.1.1Monitoring Quality Control Oversight 7-1
7.2SITE MAINTENANCE/MONITORING PROGRAM 7-1
7.3SITE PROTECTION 7-1
8.0CONCLUSIONS AND ASSESSMENT OF NO NET LOSS 8-1
9.0USE OF THIS REPORT 9-1
10.0REFERENCES 10-1
FIGURES
Figure Title
1 Vicinity Map
2 Study Area Map
3 Wetland and Features Map
TABLES
Table Title
1 Methods for Wetland Determination
2 Summary and Characteristics of Wetlands, Upland Areas, and Waterways
APPENDICES
Appendix Title
A Precipitation Data
B Background Information Review Figure
C Soil Profile Reports
D Data Sheets
E Selected Site Photographs
F Wetland Rating Form
G Impact Figure
H Mitigation Plan
I Specifications
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
BGS Below Ground Surface
City City of Edmonds, Washington
DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources
ECDC City of Edmonds Municipal Code
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
FAC Facultative
FACU Facultative Upland
FACW Facultative Wetland
ft Feet
2
ft Square Feet
HGM Hydrogeomorphic
HPA Hydraulic Project Approval
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
OBL Obligate
PEM Palustrine Emergent
PFO Palustrine Forested
RCW Revised Code of Washington
SR State Route
UPL Upland
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
viii
This page intentionally left blank.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Edmonds (City) is proposing to build an interactive spray area and replace worn-out
playground equipment at City Park, located within the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington
(Figure 1). The goal of the project is to improve, update, and diversify the play features at the park. The
spray feature will include a water system for water re-
pool, which has been closed since 2007.
Landau Associates conducted an investigation to assist the City in determining potential impacts
the proposed project, unavoidable impacts will occur to wetland buffer (buffer of Wetland A). Because of
project impacts to critical areas, Landau Associates completed this report in support of mitigation
sequencing wetlands, streams, and their associated buffers within the proposed project. The mitigation
sequence described in this report includes buffer enhancement within the buffer of Wetland A/
Shelleberger Creek.
with a wetland/stream buffer enhancement plan.
1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The project area is located within the Cedar/Sammamish watershed (Water Resource Inventory
Area No. 8) in Section 26 of Township 27 North, Range 3 East, and consists of approximately 0.6 acres
around the existing playground at the park (Figure 2).
In accordance with Chapter 23.50.030 of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC), the study area includes those areas within 200 feet (ft) of the project area, and is included in this
investigation. The study area consists of additional areas of the Park, including parking lots, access roads,
and playfields, adjacent residential property, and undeveloped properties/open space.
1.2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
The Clean Water Act requires authorization for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the
DC Title 23 contains requirements for establishing wetland
and stream buffer widths and building setbacks, and requirements for any alteration including fill of
wetlands, streams, and their buffers. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) requires
compliance with the State Water Pollution Control Act \[Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW)\], and it has administrative oversight of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for water
quality certification in the case of impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional
.Any work that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the bed or flow of state waters,
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
1-1
including streams and rivers, must do so under the terms of Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) issued by
the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW). WDFW HPA is administered under RCW
77.55 and rules set forth in Chapter 220-110 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Wetlands
and certain waterways are regulated by federal, state, and local governmental agencies, and compliance
with one agency does not necessarily fulfill permitting requirements of any other agencies.
All delineated wetlands and/or waterways described in this report are subject to verification by
the USACE. The USACE determines the jurisdiction of a wetland based on the connection, more
o not fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE. If delineated wetlands are determined to be
adjacent rather than isolated, any filling or dredging of onsite wetlands would require compliance with
Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Only the USACE can
make the determination if a wetland is adjacent or isolated. If the wetlands are determined to be isolated,
they may still be subject to regulation by Ecology under the State Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter
90.48 RCW).
In addition, the City has requirements for establishing wetland and stream buffer widths and
building setbacks, as well as for any alteration, including fill, of wetlands and their buffers. Given an
adequate enhancement plan, the City may allow a reduction of standard buffer widths along with
averaging of buffer widths, provided that at no single point the buffer width is less than 50 percent of the
original buffer width \[Section 23.50.040(F)(4) and 23.90.040(D)(2) of the ECDC\]. Interim Ordinance
No. 3935, which amends Sections of the ECDC related to buffers and legally established impervious
areas, became effective as of August 16, 2013 and has implications to mitigation requirements as
described in Section 5.1.4.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
1-2
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Landau Associates conducted an information review, wetland delineation, impact assessment, and
prepared a mitigation sequencing plan for impacts to critical areas associated with the proposed project
according to the methodology described below.
2.1 WETLAND AND WATERWAY INVESTIGATION
Landau Associates conducted this wetland investigation in accordance with the USACE Wetland
Delineation Manual (USACE 1987), the USACE Regional Guidance letter on the 1987 Manual (USACE
1994), and the USACE Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2010), which has been adopted by Ecology
under WAC 173-22-035. The investigation of waterways was based on the methodology provided by
EcologyDetermining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State (Olson and
Stockdale 2008). The USACE and Ecology recommend preliminary data gathering and synthesis of
available background information, followed by a field investigation.
2.1.1BIR
ACKGROUND NFORMATION EVIEW
Landau Associates reviewed the following public domain resources to determine existing
conditions and potential wetlands and waterways within the study area:
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map (USDA, NRCS 2002)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map (USFWS
1981 to present)
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Soil Survey Geographic database (USDA, NRCS 2006)
Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment (Pentec 2002)
National Hydric Soils List (USDA, NRCS 2012a)
Snohomish County Wetland Survey and Hydrography mapping(Snohomish County 2004a,b)
Precipitation data (National Climatic Data Center website 2013; Appendix A)
Flood data (FEMA 1996)
Aerial photograph (USGS; see Figure 2)
WDFW SalmonScape (WDFW website 2013a)
WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) on the web (WDFW website 2013b).
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
2-1
2.1.2WD
ETLAND ELINEATION
Both USACE and Ecology outline a three-parameter approach to determine the presence or
absence of wetlands that requires evaluating vegetation, soil, and hydrology (Table 1). A Landau
Associates biologist completed the field delineation using the routine onsite method, where data are
collected at locations representative of typical wetlands and/or uplands of the study area. Following this
method, an area is determined to be wetland if each of the following three criteria are met (also see
Table 1):
The dominant vegetation is hydrophytic.
Soils are hydric.
Wetland hydrology is present.
2.2 WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATION, RATING, AND BUFFER
WIDTH
Any wetlands identified as part of this project were classified according to the USFWS
Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) and the hydrogeomorphic (HGM)
classification system (Brinson 1993).
Wetlands were rated according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western
Washington (Hruby 2008), which is accepted practice by the City. This system categorizes wetlands
based on their existing functions, including water quality, hydrology, and habitat, as
rarity, sensitivity to disturbance, or irreplaceability. The wetland categories range from 1 to 4 (highest to
lowest category), and are defined in Section 23.50.010 of the ECDC as follows:
Category 1 wetlands are those that are (1) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger
than 1 acre; (2) wetlands that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage
Program/Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as high-quality
wetlands; (3) bogs larger than ½acre; (4) mature and old-growth forested wetlands larger than
1 acre; (5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; or (6) wetlands that perform many functions well as
indicated by a score of 70 or more on the City of Edmonds wetland field data form.
Category 2 wetlands include (1) estuarine wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine
wetlands larger than 1
species; (3) a bog between ¼and ½ acre in size; or (4) wetlands with a moderately high level
of functions as indicated by a score of 51 to 69 on the City of Edmonds wetland field data
form.
Category 3 wetlands are wetlands with a moderate level of functions as indicated by a score
of 30 to 50 points on the City of Edmonds wetland field data form.
Category 4 wetlands have the lowest levels of functions as indicated by scores below 30
points on the City of Edmonds wetland field data form.
Wetland buffers were determined according to Section 23.50.040 of the ECDC.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
2-2
2.3 WATERWAY RECONNAISSANCE, TYPING, AND BUFFER WIDTH
Landau Associates conducted a waterway reconnaissance to characterize streams and other
waterways within the study area for the purpose of determining classification. The boundaries of
waterways extending outside the study area were estimated based on views of vegetation and hydrologic
indicators from the study area and on aerial photographs and/or other information from the background
information review. Stream typing and buffer widths are based on Chapter 23.90.040 of the ECDC, and
the water typing system presented in WAC 222-16-131.
Chapter 23.90.010 of the ECDC states that streams shall be classified in accordance with the
DNR water typing system (WAC 222-16-030), which is summarized as follows:
Type S: Streams inventoried as shorelines of the state under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the
rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW
Type F: Streams that contain fish habitat
Type Np: Perennial non-fish habitat streams
Type Ns: Seasonal non-fish habitat streams.
WAC 222-16-030 identifies habitat which is used by any fish at any life stage
at any time of the year, including potential habitat likely to be used by fish which could be recovered by
restoration or management and includes off-channel habitat
According to WAC 222-16-030, the Interim Water Typing System established in WAC
222-16-
practices board.Theinterim water typing system describes water types as follows:
Type 1 Water means all waters, within their ordinary high water mark, as inventoried as
shorelines of the state under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to
Chapter 90.58 RCW, but not including those waters associated wetlands as defined in
Chapter 90.58 RCW.
Type 2 Water means segments of natural waters that are not classified as Type 1 Water and
have a high fish, wildlife, or human use. These are segments of natural waters and
periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands.
Type 3 Water means segments of natural waters that are not classified as Type 1 or 2
Waters and have a moderate to slight fish, wildlife, or human use. These are segments of
natural waters and periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands.
Type 4 Water means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of defined
channels that are perennial non-fish habitat streams. Perennial streams are flowing waters
that do not go dry at any time of a year of normal rainfall and include the intermittent dry
portions of the perennial channel below the uppermost point of perennial flow.
Type 5 Water means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of the
defined channels that are not Type 1, 2, 3, or 4 Waters. These are seasonal, non-fish habitat
streams in which surface flow is not present for at least some portion of the year and are not
located downstream from any stream reach that is a Type 4 Water. Type 5 Waters must be
physically connected by an aboveground channel system to Type 1, 2, 3, or 4 Waters.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
2-3
Conversion of the interim water typing system to the permanent water typing system, as provided
in WAC 222-16-031, is as follows:
Water Type Conversion
Permanent Water Typing Interim Water Typing
Type S Type 1 Water
Type F Type 2 and 3 Water
Type Np Type 4 Water
Type Ns Type 5 Waters
The conversion listed above was used in applying the state typing system to the ECDC.
2.4 MITIGATION SEQUENCING AND DESIGN
This project was designed in accordance with City, USACE, and Ecology guidance and
requirements for mitigation sequencing, which allow for impacts to wetlands and/or other critical habitat
when impacts are unavoidable and necessary and where project design efforts have been made to reduce
and/or minimize impacts.
2.4.1IA
MPACT SSESSMENT
Estimated proposed limits of clearing and grading and fill slopes were overlaid on the wetland
and buffer boundary maps using AutoCAD software. The areas of wetland and buffer impacts (including
both temporary and permanent impacts) were calculated using AutoCAD software.
Existing buffer functions were assessed in a narrative evaluation using the Wetlands in
Washington State Part 1: A Synthesis of the Science (Ecology 2005) and best professional judgment given
specific indicators.
2.4.2MP
ITIGATION LAN
The mitigation plan was developed using the sequence provided in Chapter 23.50.050 (and
development standards presented in Chapter 23.40.40 of Interim Ordinance No. 3935) of the ECDC,
which outlines requirements for mitigation associated with alterations to wetlands and buffers. We
prepared a narrative evaluation using best professional judgment given specific indicators. Landau
Associates compared pre- and post-mitigation buffer functions using best professional judgment and
incorporated this into the functional assessment for the mitigation project.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
2-4
3.0 CRITICAL AREAS INVESTIGATION RESULTS
This section provides the results of the background information review and onsite field
delineation.
3.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW
This section provides a summary of topographic mapping, City of Edmonds documentation,
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, fish usage mapping, soil survey information, and other
sources documenting conditions in and adjacent to the project area.
3.1.1W
ATERWAYS
The USGS topographic map identifies Shelleberger Creek intersecting the northern limit of the
study area (see Appendix B). City of Edmonds stormwater system mapping identifies Shelleberger Creek
intersecting State Route (SR) 104, where flows run parallel to the east of SR 104 north to the wetland
area, the City storm system, and Edmonds Marsh (City of Edmonds 2011).
3.1.1.1 Fish Usage
WDFW PHS data identify occurrence/migration of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and
resident cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia)in Shelleberger Creek (WDFW website 2013b). The
Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment (Pentec 2002) reports that resident cutthroat trout probably
occur in some portions of Shelleberger Creek, and that coho salmon and sea-run cutthroat trout have
rd
access to the lower reaches of Shelleberger Creek up to the culvert at 3 Avenue. The WDFW
SalmonScape website also documents use of Shelleberger Creek by coho salmon (WDFW website
2013a).
3.1.2W
ETLANDS
The USGS topographic map identifies a wetland immediately adjacent to the study area, located
to the northwest. Snohomish County mapping identifies wetland area within the northern limits of the
study area (Appendix B). The NWI map does not identify wetlands within the study area; the nearest
mapped wetlands are located west of SR 104.
City shoreline mapping identifies a wetland adjacent to the study area with the Natural
Environment designation under the Shoreline Management Act. Ecology has determined that the
saltwater portion of Edmonds Marsh, located west of SR 104, is shoreline of the state; the wetland located
east of SR 104 is associated wetland also with shoreline jurisdiction (Lien, 2013, personal
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/12/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
3-1
communication). Therefore, under Ecology regulations, the buffer of wetland adjacent to the park is not a
regulated shoreline.
3.1.3S
OILS
Soil information can be helpful when determining the likelihood of the presence/absence of
wetlands. Hydric soils are one indicator necessary to classify an area as wetland. The Soil Survey
Geographic Database for Snohomish County, Washington (USDA, NRCS 2006) identifies two soil series
within the project area (see Appendices B and C):
The Everett (17) series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed
in glacial outwash or alluvium (USDA, NRCS 2012b). The National Hydric Soils List
(USDA, NRCS 2012a) does not identify the Everett series as a hydric soil.
The Mukilteo (34) series consists of deep, very poorly drained soils formed in deep organic
deposits (USDA, NRCS 2009). The National Hydric Soils List (USDA, NRCS 2012a)
identifies the Mukilteo series as a hydric soil.
3.1.4F
LOODPLAIN
The Q3 flood data (FEMA 1996) identifies the 100-year floodplain of Edmonds Marsh
immediately adjacent to the northwest corner of the study area (see Appendix B).
3.1.5LU
AND SE
Aerial photography of the project site indicates park, residential, and undeveloped open space in
the project area (Figure 2).
3.1.6P
RECIPITATION
Precipitation data for the 3-month period prior to the field investigation in the Puget Sound
Lowlands (National Climatic Data Center website 2013) indicate recorded precipitation levels were
within the normal range listed in NRCS WETS tables (Appendix A).
3.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION
Landau Associates biologist Steven Quarterman conducted a field reconnaissance on May 31,
2013, and field investigation (i.e., delineation) on September 26, 2013 during the official growing season
as recognized by the Seattle District USACE (1994). The weather during the field investigation was
overcast and in the 60s °F.
A sampling point was recorded in areas suspected to meet the mandatory wetland criteria, and
nearby upland to determine corresponding wetland/upland boundaries. The wetland boundaries were
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/12/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
3-2
delineated using numbered flagging. Detailed information on soils, vegetation, and hydrology was
recorded at two sampling points within the wetland and upland location, as shown on Figure 3. The
boundaries of one wetland was delineated and, one stream was identified in the project vicinity (Figure 3).
A summary of the delineated wetland, including classifications and buffer requirements, is
provided in Table 2. The sampling point locations and delineated systems are shown on Figure 3, and the
completed data sheets describing the sampling points and site photographs are provided in Appendix D
and Appendix E, respectively. Wetland rating information is included in Appendix F.
3.2.1WA
ETLAND
Wetland A is an approximately 4.7-acre, palustrine forested/emergent (PFO/PEM) / depressional
(Cowardin/HGM classification) wetland located in a topographic depression adjacent to City Park (see
Figure 3). Sampling Point SP-A1 was assessed to characterize Wetland A (see Figure 3 and Appendix
D).
Vegetation within Wetland A adjacent to City Park is dominated by:
Skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus, OBL)
Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC)
Red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC)
Willows (Salix spp.; species of this genus are generally FAC or wetter)
Water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentos, OBL)
Lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina, FAC)
Red-osier dogwood (Cornus alba, FACW).
These species are considered hydrophytic and meet the definition of wetland vegetation.
Soils in Wetland A are generally a black (10YR 2/1) muck, indicating hydric soil conditions
(Indicator A3: Black Histic), and were saturated. The mucky soil material extended to at least 8 inches
below ground surface (BGS), and the soil profile was difficult to observe due to the saturated conditions.
The assessment of the soil as mucky material was determined following field procedures provided by the
USACE; however, determination of mucky soil material is difficult to distinguish without laboratory
testing (USACE 2010).
At the time of the field investigation, most of Wetland A adjacent to the park was saturated/
inundated, and evidence of water marks and sediment deposits were also observed. Hydrology for this is
most likely from runoff from Shelleberger Creek, adjacent properties, and groundwater influences.
Using the Ecology wetland rating form (Appendix F), Wetland A is rated as a Category 2
wetland, with a total score of 67. Wetland A scored highest for water quality functions, receiving a score
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/12/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
3-3
of 26; habitat and water quality functions were rated with a score of 17 and 24, respectively. In
accordance with Chapter 23.50.040 of the ECDC, Category 2 wetlands require a 100-ft standard buffer.
The standard buffer intersects the northwest corner of the project area, and this section of buffer
is disconnected from Wetland A by existing impervious surfaces of parking and driveway areas
associated with the park. Chapter 23.50 ECDC and Interim Ordinance No. 3935 indicate that standard
buffer widths presume the existence of a relatively intact native vegetation community.
3.2.1.1 Upland Characterization
The upland area adjacent to Wetland A is characterized by Sampling Point UPL-1 (see Figure 3
and Appendix D), which does not satisfy any of the three mandatory wetland criteria.
Upland areas upslope from Wetland A likely contribute surface flow, but no hydrology indicators
were observed. Furthermore, the percentage of dominant hydrophytic plant species in the upland areas
surrounding Wetland A does not exceed 50 percent, meet the Prevalence Index, or other hydrophytic
vegetation criteria.
The uplands adjacent to Wetland A consist mostly of grass, shrubs, and trees typical of
landscaped properties. Vegetation in uplands adjacent to Wetland A, as observed in Sampling Point
UPL-1, is dominated by:
English laurel (Prunus laurocerasus, NI).
During the field investigation, the soil of the uplands adjacent to Wetland A was dry. The soil
from 0 to 3 inches BGS was a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loamy silt, underlain by a dark
yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) loam from 3 to 16 inches BGS. A summary of the typical upland area
adjacent to Wetland A is provided in Table 2.
3.2.2SC
HELLEBERGER REEK
rd
Shelleberger Creek is mapped within the study area, and enters the study area from a culvert at 3
Avenue, which conveys flow west through Wetland A. Shelleberger Creek, within the limits of the study
area, is likely a Type F stream. As discussed previously, WDFW PHS data identify coho salmon in
Shelleberger Creek (WDFW website 2013b). The Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment (Pentec
2002) reports that resident cutthroat trout probably occur in some portions of Shelleberger Creek, and that
coho salmon and sea-run cutthroat trout have access to the lower reaches of Shelleberger Creek up to the
rd
culvert at 3 Avenue.
Shelleberger Creek was not accessible within the study area at the time of the site reconnaissance,
rdrd
but was observable from 3 Avenue. Flow was observed entering the 3 Avenue culvert. Conditions in
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/12/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
3-4
Wetland A (i.e., relatively thick, mucky soils and vegetation, including blackberry) hindered access to
Shelleberger Creek within the study area.
Shelleberger Creek, as observed on the date of the field survey, is a presumed perennial
waterway. Because Shelleberger Creek is documented as a fish-bearing stream, it is classified as a Type
F stream, included as a category of Fish & Wildlife Conservation Areas, which requires a standard buffer
of 100 ft in accordance with Chapter 23.90.040 of the ECDC. Chapter 23.50.040(F)(2) of the ECDC
allows for increased wetland buffer widths if needed to protect other critical areas. Wetland A is adjacent
to Shelleberger Creek, which also has a 100-ft standard buffer (see above); as a result, the overlapping
wetland/stream buffer is combined to reflect the furthest extent of the standard buffer. As stated above,
the buffer is already disconnected by an existing parking area, which separates the wetland/stream from
the proposed project area.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/12/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
3-5
4.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The table below provides a summary of unavoidable impacts in terms of area for buffers (impacts
are shown in Appendix G):
Impacts
Critical AreaRegulating Agency
Temporary Permanent (a)
22
Wetland/Stream BufferCity
726 ft374 ft
a. Permanent buffer impacts occur, but occur in an area separated by the wetland/stream by existing parking
lot and driveway. Equivalent area is included in the proposed enhancement.
The impacts are limited to buffer areas separated from Wetland A/Shelleberger Creek by an
existing parking lot and driveway. Two types of impacts will occur: 1) temporary buffer impacts, and 2)
permanent buffer impacts (see Appendix G). Temporary impacts are associated with clearing/grading
activities associated with a fill slope proposed adjacent to the Spray and Play area and permanent impacts
are associated with a maintenance vehicle access pad. The impacts occur in an area separated from the
wetland/stream by existing parking lot and driveway.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
4-1
5.0 MITIGATION
This section presents the mitigation sequencing, impact analysis and mitigation plan for
unavoidable impacts to wetland buffer area and functions.
5.1 MITIGATION SEQUENCING
Chapter 23.50.050 of the ECDC outlines requirements for mitigation associated with alterations
to wetlands. Mitigation shall be required in the following order of preference:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation,
by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments.
The mitigation sequencing details that focus on avoidance, minimization, and rectifying impact
for the proposed project are described below.
5.1.1A
VOIDANCE
The proposed project avoids impacts to Wetland A and Shelleberger Creek. These features are
located north of the proposed project, and are separated from the project area by an existing parking lot
and driveway.
5.1.2M
INIMIZATION
Minimization of impacts includes placement of construction staging areas and site access away
from nearby wetland/stream and/or within existing impervious areas of the buffer. The buffer impacts are
limited to areas that are separated from Wetland A/Shelleberger Creek by an existing parking lot and
driveway.
5.1.3UI
NAVOIDABLE MPACTS
2
Approximately 726 square feet (ft) of temporary impacts are associated with clearing/grading
activities associated with a proposed fill slope adjacent to the Spray and Play area and approximately 374
2
ft of permanent impacts are associated with impervious surface associated with a proposed maintenance
vehicle access pad. The area of temporary impact is an existing landscape area consisting of lawn and an
ornamental species of maple. The non-native maple tree will be removed as part of clearing/grading
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
5-1
activities, but the resulting fill slope will remain as lawn following construction. The area of permanent
impacts is also an existing area of lawn, and will be converted to impervious surface. Both areas of buffer
impacts occur in areas of the park separated from Wetland A by existing parking lot and driveway. While
impacts to buffer will occur, the severity of the impacts is expected to be minimal due to existing buffer
conditions and proposed buffer enhancement (see Section 5.2.2).
5.1.4MR
ITIGATION EQUIREMENTS
Buffer impacts are not regulated by the USACE but are regulated by the City. Interim Ordinance
3935
development by requiring enhancement measures consistent with ECDC 23.40.050.
buffer enhancement is proposed to mitigate buffer impacts.
Temporary buffer impacts will follow the third step of the mitigation sequence presented in the
ECDC
Enhancement of the buffers does not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functions and values of the
habitat, and would achieve equivalent functions.
5.2 MITIGATION PLAN
2
The mitigation plan consists of enhancement of 1,100 ft of buffer contiguous with Wetland A.
The mitigation will enhance functions and maintain buffer area within the existing project site.
The area to be enhanced includes areas of maintained lawn, including sod and non-native species
including English laurel (Prunus laurocerasus), ornamental species of cherry (Prunus sp.), English holly
(Ilex aquifolium), English ivy (Hedera helix), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor). The
ornamental cherry provide aesthetic value to the park (i.e., a flowering species); likewise the English
laurel is a hedge that provides a visual and noise barrier for adjacent residential properties from park
activities. The proposed buffer enhancement will preserve the existing cherry trees in the enhancement
area and will control a portion of the English laurel hedge extending west along the park property
boundary. Removal of the entirety of the English laurel hedge is not feasible as the hedge extends onto
adjacent private property. Areas of sod and additional non-native/invasive species in the enhancement
area will be removed prior to planting.
The mitigation plan includes planting of a diverse assemblage of vegetation (Appendix H). In
addition to the species identified as part of the planting plan, recruitment of native species, such as red
alder, from adjacent areas is anticipated in the buffer enhancement area over time.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
5-2
5.2.1EP
NHANCEMENT LAN
The buffer enhancement meets mitigation sequencing as outlined in the ECDC (as summarized in
\[ing\] the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected critical
areas./stream
buffer by rehabilitating vegetative structure within a portion of the buffer.
2
The proposed mitigation includes enhancement of 1,100 ft of buffer area to account for buffer
impact (see Appendix H). The areas of impact and proposed enhancement are summarized in the table
below.
Required Mitigation (City) Proposed Mitigation
Mitigation
Feature Impact Area
Type
Ratio Area Ratio Area
2
1,100 ft enhancement of
22
Buffer
1,100 ft Enhancement 1:1 1,100 ft 1:1
affected area
5.2.2P(EB)F
ROPOSED NHANCED UFFER UNCTIONS
Existing buffer functions were assessed in a narrative evaluation using the Wetlands in
Washington State, Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science (Ecology 2005) and best professional judgment
given specific indicators. Functions typically associated with wetland buffers include water quality
(removing sediment, nutrients, toxins and pathogens, and maintaining microclimate) and habitat (species
richness, structural diversity/cover classes, visual screening from adjacent human development, and
habitat connectivity). The mitigation plan includes enhancing the impacted functions of wetland/stream
buffer, specifically the water quality and habitat functions by enhancing areas of maintained lawn with a
diverse assemblage of native groundcover and shrubs.
5.3 MITIGATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
Goals are broad statements that generally define the intent or purpose of the proposed mitigation.
Objectives specify the direct actions necessary to achieve the stated goals. Performance standards are the
measurable values of specific variables that ensure objectives have been met. They provide the basis for
determining if mitigation is a regulatory success. Two main goals have been outlined for this effort:
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
5-3
Goal #1: Compensate for the impacts to existing degraded and isolated wetland/stream buffer functions caused by the project by
2
enhancing 1,100 ft of contiguous buffer to Wetland A.
Objective A: Increase species diversity Performance Standard 1A1: Species Diversity
and vegetation stratum within the
At the end of each monitoring year, at least three or more desirable species will
enhanced buffer on Park property
represent 50 percent or more cover.
adjacent to Wetland A
Performance Standard 1A2: Woody Species Cover
At least 25 percent woody vegetation cover in the enhanced buffer will be achieved by
Year 3.
Goal #2: Enhance the buffer habitat in the vicinity of Wetland A
Objective B: Establish native woody Performance Standard 2B1: Plant Survival
species in enhanced buffer area adjacent
At the end of Year 1, there will be 100 percent survival of installed woody species.
to Wetland A on Park property
There will be 80 percent survival of installed woody species in Years 2 and 3.
Appropriate volunteer species will be counted for each dead or missing plant.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
5-4
6.0 PLANTING PLAN
To compensate for spatial and temporal loss of wetland/stream buffer functions that will occur as
a result of impacts associated with the proposed project, a planting plan has been designed that will
enhance the wetland/stream buffer complex on site. The planting plan, as well as project phasing, is
presented in this section.
6.1 PLANTING PLAN
The mitigation plan (see Appendix H) is designed to enhance wetland and buffer habitat
functions, and provide enough shade to control the spread of invasive species. The plan is based on an
average planting density of one tree or shrub per 6 ft on center plus groundcover at 4 ft on center. Trees
and shrubs to be planted are limited to area designated as buffer enhancement area.
We have selected one native tree species, two native shrub species, and one groundcover species
that naturally occur in the project area and that will supplement the existing native species present on the
site (see Appendix H). These species have been chosen not only for their ability to tolerate site-specific
soil and moisture conditions, but also for their ability to provide wildlife forage, habitat, and erosion
control functions.
The layout of the plant communities was designed to maximize interspersion of species. The
layout of plants will include informal and irregular groupings of a variety of species to resemble naturally
occurring plant communities. Because of the complexity of site topography, existing soils, and work
within wetland buffer areas, as well as the importance of retaining existing desirable vegetation, the actual
layout of plants will be determined by a biologist representing the City.
6.2 PHASING AND SPECIFICATIONS
Detailed specifications suggested for implementing the buffer enhancement are included in
Appendix I. The City may use volunteers to implement the planting plan, and the specifications provided
will facilitate oversight of volunteer labor and support success of plant establishment. A summary of the
construction sequencing for the mitigation project is as follows:
1. Mark planting area in field
2. Mobilization of construction equipment and materials to the project site, as needed
3. Clear all brush and other material and obstructions identified on plans/specifications
4. Plant layout for approval by biologist
5. Plant installation
6. Cleanup and as-built survey/markup.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
6-1
7.0 MONITORING, MAINTENANCE, AND SITE PROTECTION
Monitoring and maintenance are important elements for the success of the enhancement project.
The proposed enhancement will be monitored during and after completion of the initial construction
work, as described below.
7.1.1MQCO
ONITORING UALITY ONTROL VERSIGHT
During earthwork and plant installation, a qualified biologist/City representative will verify that
grade and soil conditions are correct per specifications, plant materials are healthy and consist of the
correct species and sizes as designated on the planting plan, and that they are placed in the correct
growing environments. When plant installation is complete, the biologist/City representative will conduct
an inspection -
will serve as the baseline for monitoring
-built plan. The final checklist will be used to document that specifications are
met.
7.2 SITE MAINTENANCE/MONITORING PROGRAM
The City will monitor the success of the plantings, as appropriate, throughout a 3-year period, as
required by ECDC 23.040.130(D). Landscape maintenance by the City will occur as needed for
successful establishment of the plantings. While plant species chosen for this mitigation proposal are
adapted to conditions in western Washington, supplemental irrigation may be required during the first
three growing seasons following installation to ensure long-term survival of the planted communities.
The existing irrigation system at the Park may provide necessary watering to the buffer enhancement area,
and the need for supplemental irrigation may be evaluated during the monitoring period.
The primary maintenance activities that will be required within the mitigation areas are irrigation
and/or removal of nuisance species. Any noxious weeds listed on the Washington State Noxious Weed
Control Board list (NWCB website 2013) within the easement should be hand-weeded from the planted
areas for the duration of the monitoring period. Plants installed for mitigation will be replaced, as needed.
7.3 SITE PROTECTION
In accordance with the ECDC, as a condition of any permit or authorization, the planning director
may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a critical area or buffer. The
placement of such signs may be limited because Wetland A is not located on City property and the buffer
intersecting park areas are in active use (i.e., existing parking lot/driveway and landscape areas adjacent
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
7-1
to play areas). These limitations would reduce the effectiveness of permanent signs, and no permanent
signs are proposed for this project.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
7-2
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND ASSESSMENT OF NO NET LOSS
The mitigation plan presented in this report meets City requirements, as outlined in the ECDC,
and meets state and federal agency guidance. The enhancement plans presented in this report will
mitigate for impacts to wetland/stream buffer areas; the proposed project will provide no net loss of
wetland, stream, or buffer functions. The mitigation plan includes monitoring and maintenance plans to
ensure success of the enhancements.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
8-1
9.0 USE OF THIS REPORT
The findings presented herein are based on our understanding of the City of Edmonds
Community Development Code, the USACE and Ecology wetland delineation methodology, and on our
interpretation of the vegetative, soil, and hydrological conditions observed during the site visits on May
31, 2013, and September 26, 2013. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, the findings
presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted sensitive area investigation
principles and practices in this locality at the time the report was prepared. We make no other warranty,
either express or implied.
This report was prepared for the use of the City of Edmonds, and applicable regulatory agencies.
No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this
document without the express written consent of Landau Associates. Further, the reuse of information,
conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project,
without review and authorization by Landau Associates, sh
Wetland areas delineated by Landau Associates are considered preliminary until the USACE
and/or local jurisdictional agencies validate the wetland boundaries. Because wetlands are dynamic
communities, wetland boundaries may change over time. The agencies typically recognize wetland
delineations for a period of 5 years following an approved jurisdictional determination. In addition,
changes in government code, regulations, and/or laws may occur.
This document has been prepared under the supervision and direction of the following key staff.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Steven J. Quarterman
Senior Ecologist
SJQ/ccy
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
9-1
10.0 REFERENCES
Brinson, M. 1993. Final Report: A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands Research
Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. East Carolina University, Biology Department. Greenville,
North Carolina. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. August.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
Ecology. 2005. Final: Wetlands in Washington State. Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Publication
No. 05-06-006. Washington State Department of Ecology. March.
Edmonds, City of. 2011. Stormwater System. Available at http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/
Government/Departments/Administrative_Services/Information_Services/GIS/maps/Edmonds_Storm.
pdf.
FEMA. 1996. Q3 Flood Data, Snohomish, Washington. ARC/INFO Coverage. Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Washington, D.C.
Greytag Macbeth. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York.
Lien, K. 2013. Personal communication (telephone conversation with Steven Quarterman, Senior
Ecology, Landau Associates). Kernen Lien, Senior Planner, City of Edmonds. Re: City Park Play and
Spray Area Revitalization. November 21.
Hruby, T. 2008. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington Revised.
Publication No. 04-06-025. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington.
Lichvar, R.W. and J.T. Kartesz. 2009. North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List.
Version 2.4.0. Available at https://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil. Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory, Engineer Research and Development Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Hanover, New Hampshire, and The Biota of North America Program, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
National Climatic Data Center website. 2013. Divisional Data. http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/
CDODivisionalSelect.jsp . Accessed August 13.
NWCB website. 2013. Washington State Noxious Weeds Control Board. http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/.
Accessed August 13.
Olson, P. and E. Stockdale. 2008. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in
Washington State. Publication No. 08-06-001. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia,
Washington. April.
Pentec. 2002. Draft: Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment, Edmonds, Washington. March 21.
Snohomish County. 2004a. PDS_Wetland shapelife. Department of Information Services, GIS Division.
September 23.
Snohomish County. 2004b. Wtrcrs shapefile. Department of Information Services, GIS Division.
September 23.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
10-1
USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western
Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Technical Report ERDC/EL TR-10-3. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineer Research and Development Center Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg,
Mississippi. May.
USACE. 1994. Washington Regional Guidance on the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Seattle
District Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. May 23.
USACE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. March.
USDA, NRCS. 2012a. National Hydric Soils List. Available at http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Fort Worth, Texas. Accessed
June 1.
USDA, NRCS. 2012b. Everett Series. Available at https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/
E/EVERETT.html. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. April.
USDA, NRCS. 2009. Mukilteo Series. Available at https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/
OSD_Docs/M/MUKILTEO.html. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. December.
USDA, NRCS. 2006. Soil Survey Geographic Database for Snohomish County. Available at
http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Fort Worth, Texas. Accessed June 1.
USDA, NRCS. 2002. Digital Raster Graphic Mosaic of Snohomish County. Scale 1:24,000. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Fort Worth, Texas.
USFWS. 1981 to present. National Wetlands Inventory Map for Edmonds East, Washington. U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service. St. Petersburg, Florida.
WDFW website. 2013a. SalmonScape. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/. Washington
Department of Fish & Wildlife. Accessed May 28.
WDFW website. 2013b. Priority Habitats and Species on the Web. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/.
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Accessed May 28.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_rpt-11-22-13.docx
10-2
Puge
t Dr
Puget Sound
S
T
524
Main S
t
Project Location
Edmonds
Edmonds
!
220th St SW
S
T
104
232nd S
t SW
238th St
SW
Project
Location
Everett
!
!
00.51
!
!
Seattle
Spokane
!
Tacoma
Miles
Washington
Washington
Data Source: Esri 2012.
Figure
City Park Play & Spray
1
Revitalization
Vicinity Map
Edmonds, Washington
l St
Bel
S
t
W
D
ay
ton
St
D
ay
ton
St
D
ay
ton
St
Ma
pl
e S
t
A
lde
r St
Ald
er
St
B
eck
Ln
Wal
nut
St
Edmonds Marsh
H
olly
Dr
S
h
e
ll
e
b
e
r
g
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
H
ow
ell W
ay
ST
Home
land
104
He
mloc
k Way
Er
ben
D
r
Seam
ont
Ln
Pi
ne
S
t
M
ak
ah
R
d
Fo
rs
yth
L
n
Note
Legend
1. Black and white reproduction of this color
original may reduce its effectiveness and
Project Area
lead to incorrect interpretation.
Study Area
05001,000
Scale in Feet
Data Sources: Snohomish County GIS; ESRI World l Imagery.
Figure
City Park Play & Spray
2
Revitalization
Study Area Map
Edmonds, Washington
Wetland A
SP-A1
h
A1
A6
A7
h
h
A8 hh
h
h
A9
A2
h
h
!
h
A10
A3
!
ST
A4
104
UPL-1
A5
Legend
Notes
h
1. Wetland/waterway boundaries beyond
Wetland Boundary Flags
flag locations are approximate.
2. Standard buffers shown.
!Sample Plot Location
0100200
3. Black and white reproduction of this color
Wetland Area
original may reduce its effectiveness and
lead to incorrect interpretation.
Project Area
Scale in Feet
Study Area
Data Sources: Snohomish County GIS; Bing Maps Aerial Imagery.
Figure
City Park Play & Spray
3
Wetland and Features Map
Revitalization
Edmonds, Washington
1
SSOCIATES
of
vegetation criterion. If vascular plants can include bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, hormworts). The cover of wetland bryophytes must be inches BGS at multiple locations in the study
area. made at multiple locations in both wetlands and uplands, as The characteristics up to 20 minutes in order to allow in the soil profile. (see Wetland
the Prevalence
of the total bryophyte cover in a plot in coastal Washington forested wetlands.
2. Prevalence Index: A weighted average of the percent cover of each indicator status is
morphological adaptations
1
Page Some plants develop recognizable
FACU species living in an area where
determined using the Munsell soil color chart (Greytag Macbeth 1994). Depth to water
In addition, the extent of soil saturation and presence/absence of
morphological adaptations when occurring in wetland areas. These features must be
evaluated
is
If the test for to investigate
oil color
A
ANDAU
.
)
d at ground surface.
2010
ils investigation
oils and hydrology are present,
-determined visually and texturally, and s
percolation of any groundwater into the pit to determine groundwater level
areWetland non
L
Hydrology).
The dominant plants and their wetland indicator status
of 3 or less is considered meeting the hydrophytic
quantitatively within data plots and visually throughout the study area.
BGS during the dry season
in the soils removed as part of the so
consideration is given to
for
present.
see Wetland
During investigation of soils, soil pits are allowed to stand
observe
Field Assessment
indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology are
ascular Plants:
of wetland hydrology are
n
of the individuals of aalso observed (
tland s
inches
20
used to dig holes at least
the Prevalence Index is not met, the
dominance fails, and indicators of we
V
-
3. Morphological Adaptations/NonAdditional digging may occur to 24
is
applicable. Soil organic content
is
is
Direct observation of the soil
saturation and/or inundation
vascular plants.
percent
determinedindicators
.
index
.
groundwater levels
is calculated
observed on >50
1. Dominance:
calculated. An
are
ther
percent
-
is
and/or non
A shovel
oxidation
O
.
Soils)
Index
>50
of the dominant plants totaled from all vegetation strata are plant community has a visually estimated cover percentage of OBL and FACW If dominance is colors typically form in the soil,
and mottles of bright color, such as rust (known water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, and drainage two secondary indicators are required
(standing
out
Accumulations of organic matter at the stained leaves,
In the
-
not met, the Prevalence Index is calculated, or consideration is given to
Hydric soils have an identifiable color pattern, which occurs if the soil is
saturated, flooded, or ponded for a long period of time. Faint or washed
.
OBL, FACW, or FACsurface, a sulfur odor, and organic matter stains may also be present
or local soil survey data for identified soils.
hydrology include surface inundation
vascular plants observed.
species that exceeds the coverage of FACU and UPL species.
.
w growth
-
patterns. Secondary indicators of hydrology include water
CITY PARK PLAY & SPRAY REVITALIZATION
DELINEATION
ne
those species with indicators of
Field Indicators
such as
absence of any primary indicators, at least
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
,
to meet the wetland hydrology criterion.
-evergreen vascular plant species growing in a wetland or surrounding area exhibit biological activity
tations and/or non
as redoxymorphic features), form.
FOR WETLAND
Plant List Panel.
1
wetland
TABLE
or
.
,
20
oxidized root channels,
difier),
to November
percent
saturated soils
Primary indicators of
morphological adap
(regardless of mo
,
hydrophytic, i.e.
the National
ore than 50
METHODS
February 28
water),
Categories were originally developed and defined by the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory and subsequently modified by
MA
based on USDA data is
assigned a wetland indicator to each plant species that denotes its frequency of occurrence within Obligate (OBL) wetland plants occur almost always in wetlands under natural conditions
(more Facultative wetland (FACW) plants usually occur in wetlands (67 to 99 percent of the time) but wetlands, but are occasionally found in assignment based on limited information
from which to determine the indicator status. Soils are classified as hydric, or they possess characteristics that are associated with reducing soil conditions. A hydric soil is formed
under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough than or equal to during the growing
Wildlife Service has
Obligate upland (UPL) plans almost always occur in uplands (more than 99 percent of the
wetlands (34 to 66
.
upper part of the soil
less
for at least 14 consecutive days
The area is inundated either permanently or periodically at mean water depths
-
&
The U.S. Fish
Facultative (FAC) plants are equally likely to occur in wetlands or non
site
The growing season for the
itions in the
-
Wetland vegetation is adapted to saturated soil conditions.
Facultative upland (FACU) plants usually occur in non
Definition
CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_tb1.docx
during the growing season to develop anaerobic cond
These are:
saturated to the surface
wetlands.
wetlands (1 to 33 percent of the time).
-
The growing season is the time during which two or more nonGrowing season can also be determined by soil temperature.
.
)
Lichvar and Kartesz 2009
-
are occasionally found in non
percent of the time).
of the time).
dated or
\\
.
Tables
6
NRCS 200
\\
R
\\
inun
FileRm
than 99 percent
entative (d).
The soil is
time).
(
\\
USDA,
wetlands
6.6 ft, or
030
season
\\
175
\\
T
* 074
;
.
20102010
\\
projects
,
,
Wetland Vegetation d Hydrology
(b)
USACE 1987USACE 1987
\\
Parameter
edmdata01
Wetland Soils
\\
\\
Wetlan
:
2/13
s
(a)Note
(c)
2
(a))(d)
(c)11/
b
(
Page 1 of 1
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF CHARACTERISTICS OF WETLANDS, UPLAND AREAS, AND WATERWAYS
CITY PARK PLAY &SPRAY REVITALIZATION
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
SUMMARY OF WETLAND A
Wetland Classification
PFO, PEM (Cowardin) Depressional (HGM)
Approximate Size of Wetland Approximately 4.7 acres
Hydrology Indicator(s)
Surface water, saturation, high water table, sediment deposits
Hydric Soils? Yes (see Sampling Point SP-A1 in Appendix D)
% Hydrophytic Vegetation 60%
Rating and Buffer Width
Score = 67 (Ecology Category 2), requiring a 100-ft buffer in accordance with City of
Edmonds Municipal Code
SUMMARY OF UPLAND ADJACENT TO WETLAND A
Hydrology Indicator
None (see Sampling Point UPL-1 in Appendix D)
Hydric Soils? No (see Sampling Point UPL-1 in Appendix D)
% Hydrophytic Vegetation 0% (see Sampling Point UPL-1 in Appendix D)
SUMMARY OF SHELLEBERGER CREEK
Classification
Perennial stream
Approximate Length Undetermined; stream is mapped within study area but was inaccessible at time of site
reconnaissance
Fish Use (Documented) Coho, sea-run cutthroat
rd
Stream Characteristics Undetermined; stream observed from 3 Avenue right-of-way
Water Type and Buffer
Type F, 100 feet
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\Tables\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_tb2.docx
APPENDIX A
Precipitation Data
Page 1 of 1
WETS Station : EVERETT JR COLLEGE, WA2675 Creation Date: 09/10/2002
Latitude: 4759 Longitude: 12211 Elevation: 00060
State FIPS/County(FIPS): 53061 County Name: Snohomish
Start yr. - 1971 End yr. - 2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Temperature | Precipitation |
| (Degrees F.) | (Inches) |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------|
| | | | | 30% chance |avg | |
| | | | | will have |# of| avg |
|-------|-------|-------| |-----------------|days| total|
Month | avg | avg | avg | avg | less | more |w/.1| snow |
| daily | daily | | | than | than | or| fall |
| max | min | | | | |more| |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
January | 45.8 | 33.6 | 39.7 | 14.73 | 2.38 | 16.04 | 11 | 1.2 |
February | 49.4 | 34.9 | 42.1 | 3.36 | 2.33 | 4.00 | 10 | 0.5 |
March | 53.3 | 37.3 | 45.3 | 3.86 | 2.94 | 4.49 | 11 | 0.0 |
April | 58.2 | 41.1 | 49.7 | 2.90 | 2.33 | 3.33 | 9 | 0.0 |
May | 63.8 | 46.3 | 55.1 | 2.57 | 1.93 | 3.01 | 7 | 0.0 |
June | 68.4 | 51.1 | 59.8 | 2.26 | 1.47 | 2.71 | 6 | 0.0 |
July | 72.9 | 54.2 | 63.6 | 1.30 | 0.62 | 1.59 | 3 | 0.0 |
August | 73.9 | 54.0 | 63.9 | 1.35 | 0.58 | 1.64 | 3 | 0.0 |
September | 68.7 | 48.8 | 58.7 | 2.09 | 1.17 | 2.55 | 5 | 0.0 |
October | 59.6 | 42.5 | 51.1 | 3.34 | 1.86 | 4.07 | 8 | 0.0 |
November | 50.6 | 37.3 | 44.0 | 5.13 | 3.66 | 6.07 | 12 | 0.2 |
December | 45.2 | 34.0 | 39.6 | 4.96 | 3.70 | 5.81 | 12 | 0.4 |
----------|-------|-------|-------|--------|--------|--------|----|------|
----------|-------|-------|-------|--------|--------|--------|----|------|
Annual | ----- | ----- | ----- | ------ | 29.82 | 56.56 | -- | ---- |
----------|-------|-------|-------|--------|--------|--------|----|------|
Average | 59.1 | 42.9 | 51.0 | ------ | ------ | ------ | -- | ---- |
----------|-------|-------|-------|--------|--------|--------|----|------|
Total | ----- | ----- | ----- | 47.86 | ------ | ------ | 97 | 2.3 |
----------|-------|-------|-------|--------|--------|--------|----|------|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
GROWING SEASON DATES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Temperature
---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------
Probability | 24 F or higher | 28 F or higher | 32 F or higher |
---------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
| Beginning and Ending Dates
| Growing Season Length
|
50 percent * | 1/31 to 12/14 | 2/28 to 11/20 | 4/ 5 to 10/25
| 318 days | 267 days | 203 days
| | |
70 percent * | 1/22 to 12/24 | 2/20 to 11/27 | 3/30 to 10/31
| 337 days | 281 days | 215 days
| | |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Percent chance of the growing season occurring between the Beginning
and Ending dates.
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/support/climate/wetlands/wa/53061.txt5/2/2013
Page 1of 1
StateCode Division YearMonth PCP TMP PDSI PHDI ZNDX PMDI CDD HDD SP01 SP02 SP03 SP06 SP09 SP1
45 03 201302 2.47 43.1 2.56 2.56 -2.28 1.5 0 613 -.96 -.65 .12 .72 .77 1.4
45 03 201303 4.36 45.9 2.39 2.39 .29 1.42 0 592 .44 -.44 -.38 1.03 .6 1.0
45 03 201304 5.48 49.3 3.55 3.55 4.22 3.55 0 468 2.03 1.44 .55 .95 .92 1.2
45 03 201305 3.31 56.9 3.71 3.71 1.59 3.71 0 248 1.11 1.87 1.56 .92 1.21 1.2
45 03 201306 1.96 62.1 3.38 3.38 .15 3.38 20 107 .29 .91 1.69 .62 1.45 1.
45 03 201307 .02 65.9 2.64 2.64 -1.18 2.11 77 43 -1.74 -.6 .3 .56 .93 .9
45 03 201308 1.87 67.2 2.47 2.47 .31 2.02 97 28 .83 -.08 -.04 1.31 .83 1.1
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/CDODiv1448576674261.txt10/29/2013
APPENDIX B
Background Information Review Figure
Everett Gravelly
Sandy Loam
E2AB/USN
0-8% Slopes
E1UBL
Urban
Land
Everett Gravelly
Sandy Loam
15-25% Slopes
Kitsap Silt Loam
0-8% Slopes
Alderwood-Urban
Land Complex
PFOC
2-8% Slopes
S
h
e
l
l
e
b
e
r
g
e
r
MukilteoC
r
e
e
k
PUBHx
Muck
PEMC
Alderwood-Everett
Gravelly Sandy Loams
PFOC
25-70% Slopes
Everett Gravelly
Sandy Loam
0-8% Slopes
Alderwood Gravelly
Sandy Loam
15-25% Slopes
Note
Legend
1. Black and white reproduction of this color
Snohomish County PDS WatercourseNWI Wetland
original may reduce its effectiveness and
lead to incorrect interpretation.
Snohomish County PDS WetlandFEMA 100-Year Floodplain
05001,000
Project AreaSoil Series
Study Area
Scale in Feet
Data Sources: Snohomish County GIS: WADNR; NWI; FEMA: USGS; ESRI World Imagery.
Figure
City Park Play & Spray
B-1
Revitalization
Environmental Features Map
Edmonds, Washington
APPENDIX C
Soil Profile Reports
Official Series Description -EVERETT SeriesPage 1of 3
LOCATION EVERETT WA
Established Series
Rev. CAB/DES/SBC
04/2012
EVERETT SERIES
The Everett series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in glacial
outwash or alluvium. Slope are 0 to 65 percent. They are on terraces, moraines, drift plains, and
terrace escarpments. The mean annual precipitation is about 1,016 millimeters and the mean annual
temperature is about 10 degrees C.
TAXONOMIC CLASS:
Sandy-skeletal, isotic, mesic Humic Dystroxerepts
TYPICAL PEDON:
Everett very gravelly sandy loam - on a north-facing slope of 3 percent at 150
meters elevation in forest. When described on October 21, 2009, the soil was slightly moist
throughout. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted.)
Oi
--0 to 3 cm; slightly decomposed plant material consisting of leaves, needles, and twigs.
A
--3 to 8 centimeters; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) very gravelly sandy loam, brown (7.5YR 4/3)
dry; weak fine subangular blocky structure; soft, very friable, nonsticky and nonplastic; many roots;
35 percent gravel, 10 percent cobbles; strongly acid (pH 5.3); clear smooth boundary. (3 to 15
centimeters thick)
Bw
--8 to 60 centimeters; dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) very gravelly sandy loam, brown (7.5YR 5/4) dry;
weak fine subangular blocky structure; soft, very friable, nonsticky and nonplastic; many roots
throughout; 35 percent gravel, 10 percent cobbles; strongly acid (pH 5.5); clear wavy boundary. (15 to
55 centimeters thick)
C1
--60 to 90 centimeters; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) very gravelly loamy sand, yellowish
brown (10YR 5/4) dry; single grain; loose, nonsticky and nonplastic, common roots throughout; 40
percent gravel, 10 percent cobbles; strongly acid (pH 5.5); gradual wavy boundary. (15 to 50
centimeters thick)
C2
--90 to 150 centimeters; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) extremely cobbly coarse sand,
yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) dry; single grain; loose, nonsticky and nonplastic; few roots; 40 percent
gravel, 35 percent cobbles; moderately acid (pH 5.6)
TYPE LOCATION:
Thurston County, Washington; Joint Base Lewis-McChord; 629 meters east
and 566 meters south of NW corner of sec.3, T. 17 N., R. 1 E. USGS Tenalquot Prairie Quadrangle;
Latitude - 46 degrees, 59 minutes, 28 seconds N and Longitude - 122 degrees, 40 minutes, 1 second
W, NAD 83.
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/E/EVERETT.html10/29/2013
Official Series Description -EVERETT SeriesPage 2of 3
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS
:
Mean annual soil temperature - 9 to 12 degrees C.
Soil moisture control section - 60 to 75 days dry following the summer solstice
Reaction - slightly acid to very strongly acid
Particle-size control section:
Rock fragments - 35 to 85 percent
A horizon
Hue - 10YR, 7.5YR, or 5YR
Value - 2 or 3 moist, and 4 or 5 dry
Chroma of 1 to 3 moist or dry.
Rock fragments - 35 to 65 percent total, 25 to 45 percent gravel, 0 to 15 percent cobbles, and 0 to 5
percent stones.
Bw horizons
Hue - 10YR or 7.5YR
Value - 3 to 6 moist, and 3 to 6 dry
Chroma - 2 to 6 moist or dry.
Texture - SL, L in the upper part and ranging to COSL, LS or LCOS in the lower part
Rock fragments - 35 to 65 percent total, 35 to 50 percent gravel, 0 to 20 percent cobbles, and 0 to 5
percent stones.
C horizons
Hue - 10YR or 2.5Y
Value - 3 or 6 moist, 4 to 6 dry
Chroma - 2 or 4 moist or dry
Texture - LS, COS, LCOS
Rock Fragments - 35 to 85 percent total, 35 to 50 percent gravel, 10 to 40 percent cobbles, and 0 to 5
percent stones.
COMPETING SERIES:
These are no competing series in this family.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING:
The Everett soils are on glacial outwash terraces, terrace escarpments,
drift plains, and moraines formed in alluvium or glacial outwash with mixed lithology at elevations of
9 to 213 meters. Slopes are 0 to 65 percent. The climate consists of cool and dry summers and mild
and wet winters. Mean annual precipitation is 763 to 1,270 millimeters. Mean January temperature is
2 degrees C., mean July temperature is 17 degrees C., and the mean annual temperature is 10 degrees
C. The frost-free season is 145 to 240 days.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS:
These are the Alderwood,Baldhill,Indianola, and
Kapowsin soils. Alderwood soils have a densic contact at a depth of 20 to 40 inches and are on till
plains and moraines. Indianola soils are sandy throughout on hills, terrace escarpments, eskers, and
kames. Kapowsin soils are coarse-loamy and on glacial till plains. Baldhill soils are loamy-skeletal
and on terminal moraines.
DRAINAGE AND SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY:
Somewhat excessively
drained; high to very high saturated hydraulic conductivity.
USE AND VEGETATION:
Everett soils are mainly used for pasture, timber production, urban
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/E/EVERETT.html10/29/2013
Official Series Description -EVERETT SeriesPage 3of 3
development, and a source of sand and gravel. Potential natural vegetation includes grand fir, red
alder, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, western redcedar, western hemlock, salal, western swordfern,
oceanspray, and Oregongrape.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT:
Northwest Washington MLRA 2, Puget Sound Area. Series is of
large extent.
MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE:
Portland, Oregon
SERIES ESTABLISHED:
1910 Reconnaissance Survey of Eastern Puget Sound Basin, Washington.
REMARKS:
Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this soil:
Ochric epipedon
Cambic horizon - 8 to 60 cm (Bw horizon)
ADDITIONAL DATA:
Laboratory data is available for this series. National Soil Survey Laboratory
S09WA067069
________________________________________
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/E/EVERETT.html10/29/2013
Official Series Description -MUKILTEO SeriesPage 1of 2
LOCATION MUKILTEO WA
Established Series
Rev. RJE
12/1999
MUKILTEO SERIES
The Mukilteo series consists of deep, very poorly drained soils formed in deep organic deposits.
Mukilteo soils are mainly in depressional areas on glacial uplands. Some are in river valleys. Slopes
are 0 to 2 percent. The mean annual temperature is about 50 degrees F. The average annual
precipitation is about 55 inches.
TAXONOMIC CLASS:
Dysic, mesic Typic Haplohemists
TYPICAL PEDON:
Mukilteo muck - pasture. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted.)
Oa1
--0 to 2 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sapric material; about 20 percent fibers, 10
percent rubbed; about 70 percent live fine fibrous roots; very strongly acid (pH 4.5); abrupt smooth
boundary. (0 to 2 inches thick)
Oa2
--2 to 6 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 2/2) sapric material; about 50 percent fibers, 6 percent
rubbed; moderate fine angular blocky structure; friable; many fine roots; very strongly acid (pH 4.5);
abrupt smooth boundary. (2 to 14 inches thick)
Oe1
--6 to 11 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/2) hemic material; about 80 percent fibers, 20
percent rubbed; weak fine subangular blocky structure; friable; common fine roots; very strongly acid
(pH 4.6); clear smooth boundary. (2 to 8 inches thick)
Oe2
--11 to 42 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/2) hemic material; about 65 percent fibers, 20
percent rubbed; massive; friable; few fine roots to 24 inches; very strongly acid (pH 4.6); clear
smooth boundary. (28 to 40 inches thick)
Oe3
--42 to 72 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/2) hemic material; about 60 percent fibers, 24
percent rubbed; massive; friable; very strongly acid (pH 4.8)
TYPE LOCATION:
Thurston County, Washington; 3 miles northeast of Olympia, about 600 feet
north and 500 feet west of the southwest corner of sec. 12, T. 18 N., R. 2 W.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS:
The organic material in which this soil formed ranges in
thickness from 52 inches to more than 10 feet. Mean January soil temperature is 32 degrees F., mean
July temperature is 59 degrees F., and mean annual soil temperature at a depth of 20 inches ranges
from 47 to 52 degrees F. These soils are usually saturated with water. They are strongly acid or very
strongly acid. Fibers are mostly sedge and moss.
The surface tier has hue of 5YR or 7.5YR, value of 2 or 3, and chroma of 1 or 2. It commonly has one
or more layers of sapric material but ranges from sapric to fibric material. It has weak to moderate
blocky structure.
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/M/MUKILTEO.html10/29/2013
Official Series Description -MUKILTEO SeriesPage 2of 2
The subsurface tiers are hemic materials, have 5YR to 10YR hue, value and chroma ranging from 2
through 4. The rubbed fiber content averages from 16 to 60 percent.
The bottom tier is similar in color and fiber content to the subsurface tier, but is generally higher in
fiber content.
COMPETING SERIES:
These are the Napoleon series in the same family and the Dupont,
McMurray,Orcas,Semiahmoo, and Seattle series in other families. Napoleon soils have a mean
January temperature of about 26 degrees F and a mean July temperature of about 71 degrees F.
Dupont soils have a limnic layer more than 2 inches thick in the control section. McMurray and
Seattle soils are euic. In addition, McMurray soils have coarse wood fragments in the control section.
Orcas soils have a fibric control section. Semiahmoo soils have a sapric control section and are euic.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING:
The Mukilteo soils are mostly in depressional areas of glacial uplands
and some are in river valleys. Elevations range from sea level to 1,000 feet. Mukilteo soils formed in
organic materials derived mostly from sedge, sphaguum and moss. These soils are in a mild humic
climate having cool dry summers and mild wet winters. Average annual precipitation is 40 to 70
inches. The mean January temperature is about 36 degrees F. The mean July temperature is about 64
degrees F. The mean annual temperature is about 50 degrees F. The frost-free (32 degrees F.) season
is 150 to more than 250 days.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS:
These are the Edmonds,McKenna, and Norma
soils and the competing Dupont,Seattle, and Semiahmoo soils. Edmonds, McKenna, and Norma soils
are mineral soils.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY:
Very poorly drained; ponded; moderate permeability.
USE AND VEGETATION:
Some areas have been cleared and drained and are used for hay, pasture,
and blueberries. Native vegetation is red alder, western redcedar and western hemlock, with an
understory of willow, Douglas spirea, cattail, sedges, rushes, trailing blackberry, red elderberry and
devilsclub. Some ponded areas are not wooded and grow willow, cattail, rush, sedge, and Douglas
spirea.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT:
This series is of moderate extent in the Puget Sound Basin of
western Washington.
MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE:
Portland, Oregon
SERIES ESTABLISHED:
Snohomish County, Washington, 1938.
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/M/MUKILTEO.html10/29/2013
APPENDIX D
Data Sheets
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: City Park City/County: Edmonds/Snohomish Sampling Date:9/26/2013
Applicant/Owner: City State: WA Sampling Point: SP-A1
Investigator(s): SJQ Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No significantly disturbe No
Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Prunus laurocerasus 50 Yes NI That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2. Salix lasiandra 30 Yes FACW
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
80 = Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60% (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
1. Prunus laurocerasus 20 Yes NI
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2. Ribes lacustre 15 Yes FAC
OBL species x 1 =
3.
FACW species x 2 =
4.
FAC species x 3 =
5.
FACU species x 4 =
35 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft)
UPL species x 5 =
1. Lysichiton americanus 5 Yes OBL
Column Totals: (A) (B)
2.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.
Dominance Test is >50%
6.
1
7.
1
Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting
8.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9.
1
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants
10.
1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
11.
1
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5 = Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
2.
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks: NI= No Indicator
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: SP-A1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
12
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-8 10 YR 2/1 100 mucky loam
8-21 5 GY/2.5 100 sandy loam
12
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
3
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >1 inch
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 7 inches
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 inches
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: City Park City/County: Edmonds/Snohomish Sampling Date:9/26/2013
Applicant/Owner: City State: WA Sampling Point: UPL-1
Investigator(s): SJQ Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No No
Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Prunus laurocerasus 100 Yes NI That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
100 = Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
1. Prunus laurocerasus 20 Yes NI
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2.
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
3.
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
4.
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
5.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
20 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft)
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
1.
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
2.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0
3.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.
Dominance Test is >50%
6.
1
7.
1
Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting
8.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9.
1
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants
10.
1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
11.
1
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
0 = Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
2.
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks: NI= No Indicator
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: UPL-1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
12
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-3 10 YR 3/2 100 loamy silt fibrous
3-16 10 YR 3/4 100 loam few gravel
16+ gravels/refusal
12
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
3
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0
APPENDIX E
Selected Site Photographs
1. Wetland Sampling Point SPA-1.
x
c
o
-
d
.
1
e
p
a
_
n
o
i
t
a
g
i
t
i
M
s
a
e
r
A
l
a
c
i
t
i
r
C
k
r
a
P
\\y
t
i
C
s
o
t
o
h
\\
P
E
s
e
c
i
d
n
e
p
\\
p
R
\\
A
m
R
\\
e
l
i
F
\\
0
3
0
\\
5
7
1
\\
4
7
0
:
P
2. Upland Sampling Point UPL-1.
3
1
/
2
1
/
1
1
Figure
City Park Play & Spray
Selected Site Photographs
E-1
Revitalization
Edmonds, Washington
APPENDIX F
Wetland Rating Form
CityParkPlayandSpray
WetlandA
Wetland name or number ______
RevitalizationProject
WETLAND RATING FORM WESTERN WASHINGTON
Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users
Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats
Name of wetland (if known): _________________________________ Date of site visit: ___5/31/13__
WetlandA
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology? Yes__No___ Date of training______
SJQ3/2008
X
27N
26
SEC: ___ TWNSHP: ____ RNGE: ____ Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes___ No___
X
3E
4.7ac
Map of wetland unit: Figure ____A& B Estimated size ______
SUMMARY OF RATING
Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland
I___ II___ III___ IV___
X
Score for Water Quality Functions
26
Category I = Score >=70
Score for Hydrologic Functions
Category II = Score 51-69
24
Category III = Score 30-50
Score for Habitat Functions
17
Category IV = Score < 30
TOTAL score for Functions
67
Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
I___ II___ Does not Apply___
X
Final Category
II
Summary of basic information about the wetland unit
Wetland Unit has Special Wetland HGM Class
Characteristics used for Rating
Estuarine Depressional
X
Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine
Bog Lake-fringe
Mature Forest Slope
Old Growth Forest Flats
Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal
Interdunal
None of the above Check if unit has multiple
X
HGM classes present
Wetland Rating Form western Washington 1 August 2004
version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025
WetlandA
Wetland name or number ______
Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below?
If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland
according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland.
Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection YES NO
(in addition to the protection recommended for its category)
SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed
animal or plant
Threatened or Endangered species (T/E species)?
X
For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the
appropriate state or federal database.
SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed
animal
Threatened or Endangered species?
For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the
X
appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are
categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form).
SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the
X
WDFW for the state?
SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions?
For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master
X
Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as
having special significance.
To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the
Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated.
The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This
simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic
Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions
on classifying wetlands.
Wetland Rating Form western Washington 2 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
WetlandA
Wetland name or number ______
Classification of Wetland UnitsinWestern Washington
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being
rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In 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 (i.e. except during floods)?
YESTidal Fringe
NO go to 2 the wetland class is
If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per
YES Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine)
thousand)?
Riverine
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for
Estuarine
wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an wetland. Wetlands that
were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt
Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were
categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this
Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine
wetlands have changed (see p. ).
2.
The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it.
Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
YESFlats
NO go to 3 The wetland class is
Depressional
wetlands.
3. meet both
Does the entire wetland unit of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water
(without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)?
YES Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
NO go to 4 The wetland class is
4.meet all
Does the entire wetland unit 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.
without being impounded
____The water leaves the wetland ?
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in
very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually
<3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep).
YES Slope
NO - go to 5 The wetland class is
Wetland Rating Form western Washington 3 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number ______
WetlandA
5.meet all
Does the entire wetland unit of the following criteria?
____ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank
flooding from that stream or river
____ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years.
NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is
not flooding.
YES Riverine
NO - go to 6 The wetland class is
6
. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the
interior of the wetland.
YES Depressional
NO go to 7 The wetland class is
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.
YES Depressional
NO go to 8 The wetland class is
8
. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND
IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7
APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use
the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several
HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is
recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit
being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the
wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area.
HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in Rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional
Depressional + Lake-fringe Depressional
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under
wetland wetlands with special
characteristics
If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you
Depressional
have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as
for the rating.
Wetland Rating Form western Washington 4 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
WetlandA
Wetland name or number ______
Depressional and Flats WetlandsPoints
D
WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS(only 1 score
- Indicators that the wetland unit functions to
per box)
improve water quality
D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38)
A
D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Figure ___
Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3
D
Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2
Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 1
2
and
(Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow
no obvious natural outlet
and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1
(If ditch i)
p
Provide hoto or drawing
S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS
definitions)
4
D
YES points = 4
NO points = 0
D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Figure ___
B
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5
D
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1
5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0
Map of Cowardin vegetation classes
D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. Figure ___
A
This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out
D
sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate
area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs.
Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4
2
Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2
Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0
Map of Hydroperiods
Total for D 1
D Add the points in the boxes above
13
D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality?
D (see p. 44)
Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water
coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or
groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions
provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several
sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity.
Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft
Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland
Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland
X
A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas,
farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging
X
Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier
Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen
Other_____________________________________
_____
2
YES 2 NO 1
multiplier is multiplier is
TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2
D
26
Add score to table on p. 1
Wetland Rating Form western Washington 5 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number ______
WetlandA
Depressional and Flats Wetlands Points
D
(only 1 score
HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that the wetland unit functions to
per box)
reduce flooding and stream degradation
D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.46)
D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit
D
Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4
Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2
2
and
low
no obvious natural outlet
and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1
()
Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 0
D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods
D
Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet
measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry).
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7
points = 5
7
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5
Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3
Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap
water points = 1
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0
D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed
D
Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland
to the area of the wetland unit itself.
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points = 5
3
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0
Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5
Total for D 3
D Add the points in the boxes above
12
D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49)
Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or
reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic
resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water
coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap
valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is
from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur.
Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply.
Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems
Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems
Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise
multiplier
flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems
X
SR104/Daytonflooding
Other_____________________________________
_____
2
YES 2 NO 1
multiplier is multiplier is
TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4
D
24
Add score to table on p. 1
Wetland Rating Form western Washington 6 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
WetlandA
Wetland name or number ______
Points
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
(only 1 score
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat
per box)
H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species?
H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see p. 72) Figure ___B
Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each
class is ¼ acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres.
____Aquatic bed
1
____Emergent plant X s
____Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover)
____Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover)
X
If the unit has a forested class check if:
____The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous,
moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon
Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have:
4 structures or more points = 4
3 structures points = 2
Map of Cowardin vegetation classes
2 structures points = 1
1 structure points = 0
H 1.2. Hydroperiods (see p. 73) Figure ___
A
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water
regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ acre 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
X
3
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 1
X
____Saturated only 1 type present points = 0
X
____ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
X
____ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
= 2 points
____ Lake-fringe wetland
= 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland
Map of hydroperiods
H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75)
2
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)
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
List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
5
Total for page ______
Wetland Rating Form western Washington 13 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
WetlandA
Wetland name or number ______
Figure ___
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (see p. 76)
B
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation
classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or
mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none.
2
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
\[riparian braided channels\]
High = 3 points
NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water
Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes
H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (see p. 77)
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the
number of points you put into the next column.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long).
X
____Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at
least 3.3 ft (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft
(10m)
2
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning
(>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that
have not yet turned grey/brown)
____At least ¼ acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas
X
that are permanently or seasonally inundated.(structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants
NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error.
H 1. TOTAL
Score - potential for providing habitat
9
Add the scores from H1.1, H1.2, H1.3, H1.4, H1.5
Comments
Wetland Rating Form western Washington 14 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
WetlandA
Wetland name or number ______
H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species?
H 2.1 Buffers (see p. 80) Figure ___
A/B
Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring
criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of
100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95%
.
of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer(relatively
Points = 5
undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use)
100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >
Points = 4
50% circumference.
50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95%
Points = 4
circumference.
100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25%
Points = 3
circumference, .
1
50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for >
Points = 3
50% circumference.
If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above
No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95%
Points = 2
circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK.
No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference.
Points = 2
Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK.
Points = 1
Heavy grazing in buffer.
Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled
Points = 0
fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland.
X
Points = 1
Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above.
Aerial photo showing buffers
H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81)
H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor
(either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest
or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed
uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel
roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor).
4 points
YES = (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2
H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor
(either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or 1
forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25
ORLake-fringe
acres in size? a wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in
the question above?
2 points
YES = (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3
H 2.2.3 Is the wetland:
within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR
within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR
within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres?
1 point0 points
YES = NO =
Total for page______
Wetland Rating Form western Washington 15 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
WetlandA
Wetland name or number ______
H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete
descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in
the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm )
Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the
connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed.
Aspen Stands:
____ Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors
____: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various
species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152).
Herbaceous Balds:
____ Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests:
____(Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree
species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20
(
trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests) Stands
with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%;
crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of
large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old
west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon white Oak:
____Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where
3
canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS
report p. 158).
X
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).
X
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: pp. 167-169 and glossary in
Appendix A).
Caves:
____A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under
the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a
human.
Cliffs:
____ Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft.
Talus:
____ Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft),
composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine
tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs:
____ Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient
decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a
diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in
height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft)
long.
3 or more = 4 points
If wetland has priority habitats
23 points
If wetland has priority habitats =
1 = 1 point
If wetland haspriorityhabitatNo habitats = 0 points
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this
list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4)
Wetland Rating Form western Washington 16 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number ______
WetlandA
H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that
best fits) (see p. 84)
There are at least 3 other wetlands within ½ mile, and the connections between them are
relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some
boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other
development. points = 5
The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe
wetlands within ½ mile points = 5
3
There are at least 3 other wetlands within ½ mile, BUT the connections between them are
disturbed points = 3
with
The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe
wetland within ½ mile points = 3
There is at least 1 wetland within ½ mile. points = 2
There are no wetlands within ½ mile. points = 0
H 2
. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat
8
Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4
TOTAL for H 1 from page 14
9
Total Score for Habitat Functions add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on
17
p. 1
Wetland Rating Form western Washington 17 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number ______
WetlandA
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the
appropriate answers and Category.
Wetland Type Category
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the
appropriate criteria are met.
SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (see p. 86)
Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
The dominant water regime is tidal,
Vegetated, and
With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt.
YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO ___
X
SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park,
Cat. I
National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational,
Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151?
YES = Category I NO go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the
Cat. I
following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling,
Cat. II
cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant
species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover
more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual
Dual
rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the
rating
relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a
I/II
Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in
determining the size threshold of 1 acre.
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of
shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels,
depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands.
Wetland Rating Form western Washington 18 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
WetlandA
Wetland name or number ______
SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87)
Cat. I
Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage
Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support
state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species.
SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a
Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites
before you need to contact WNHP/DNR)
S/T/R information from Appendix D ___ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site ___
x
YES____ contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO ___
x
SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as
or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species?
YES = Category I NO ____not a Heritage Wetland
SC 3.0 Bogs (see p. 87)
or any part of the unit
Does the wetland unit () meet both the criteria for soils and
If you
vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog.
answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either
peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the
soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes -
go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2
2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16
inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or
volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond?
Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating
3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND
significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub
and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)?
Yes Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory
you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that
p. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
1.Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western
spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of
species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component
of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)?
2. YES = Category I No___ Is not a bog for purpose of rating
Cat. I
Wetland Rating Form western Washington 19 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number ______
WetlandA
SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (see p. 90)
Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for
the Depar If you answer yes
you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
Old-growth forests
: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species,
forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8
trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a
diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more.
NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests.
Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh
so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter.
Mature forests
: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are
80 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches
(53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of
snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found
in old-growth.
Cat. I
x
YES = Category I NO ___not a forested wetland with special characteristics
SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 91)
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly
or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks,
shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is
saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion
of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
x
YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO___ not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling,
cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant
species (see list of invasive species on p. 74).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of
shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland.
Cat. I
The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet)
Cat. II
YES = Category I NO = Category II
Wetland Rating Form western Washington 20 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number ______
WetlandA
SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93)
Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland
Ownership or WBUO)?
YES - go to SC 6.1 NO __ not an interdunal wetland for rating
x
If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its
functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103
Grayland-Westport- lands west of SR 105
Ocean Shores-Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is
once acre or larger?
YES = Category II NO go to SC 6.2
Cat. II
SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is
between 0.1 and 1 acre?
Cat. III
YES = Category III
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
N/A
p. 1.
Wetland Rating Form western Washington 21 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
APPENDIX G
Impact Figure
APPENDIX H
Mitigation Plan
02040
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT / 60% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR INSTRUCTIONS
3.INSTALL PLANT MATERIAL AND MULCH AS INDICATED ON PLAN, DETAILS, AND SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED
WHICH SOMETIMES INCLUDES CLUSTERING OF SPECIES. FINAL LOCATIONS SHOULD BE APPROVED BY A
W1.0
SHALL BE LOCATED PER THE DIRECTION
ON PLANT INSTALLATION. EXTRA SOIL
2.SITE PREPARATION TO INCLUDE REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES AND SOD WITHIN PLANTING AREA AS
SCALE IN FEET
4.ON CENTER PLANT SPACING IS AN AVERAGE. PLANTS SHOULD BE SPACED IN A NATURAL PATTERN,
OF THE BIOLOGIST OR ENGINEER.
THAT AVERAGE PLANTING DENSITY
INDICATED ON PLAN AND SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED IN APPENDIX OF CRITICAL AREAS REPORT.CLUMP AND SCATTER PLANTS SOIS EQUIVALENT TO GRID SPACING
SHEET
RANDOMLY MIX PLANT SPECIES
SCARIFY SIDES OF ROOTBALL
NEWLY COMPACTED TOPSOIL
SET SHRUB STRAIGHT AND PLACE
ROOTBALL ON SOLID GROUND OR
EXISTING NATIVE SOIL OR
ON COMPACTED BACKFILL
5.SHELLEBERGER CREEK NOT SHOWN; CREEK IS LOCATED ON ADJACENT PROPERTY.
FINISHED GRADE
1.PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING CHERRY (CH) WITHIN PLANTING AREA SHOWN.
EDMONDS CITY PARK
MITIGATION PLAN
SCALE: NTS
CONTAINER PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: NTS
RANDOM PLANTING DETAIL
PLANTING PIT - 3 TIMES
ROOTBALL DIAMETER
WETLAND / STREAM BUFFER
BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
WETLAND BOUNDARY
IN APPENDIX OF CRITICAL AREAS REPORT.
BUFFER IMPACT
W-1.0
W-1.0
2
1
TRUNK. ALL CONTAINER PLANTS
RESTORATION PLANTING ONLY
AVOID STRAIGHT ROWS
RECEIVE A 24" DIA RING. FOR
SAUCER TO WITHIN 3" OF THE
PLACE 3" OF BARK MULCH IN
TYPICAL ON-CENTER
OFFSET PLANTS TO
FLUSH WITH OR SLIGHTLY
TOP OF ROOTBALL TO BE
ABOVE FINISHED GRADE
PLANTING GRID
LEGEND
BIOLOGIST.
SJQ
NOTES
PERMANENT
BUFFER IMPACT
2
374 FT
TEMPORARY
BUFFER IMPACT
(425) 778-0907, FAX (425) 778-6409
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020
130 2ND AVENUE S.
2
726 FT
R
E
F
F
U
B
'
0
0
1
PARKS, RECREATION AND
CULTURAL SERVICES
CITY OF EDMONDS
CLIENT AGENCY:
EDMONDS, WA 98020
700 MAIN STREET
01020
PLANTING LOCATIONS)
PLANTINGS TABLE FOR
HEDGE TO BE CLEARED
(REFER TO BUFFER
PRIOR TO PLANTING
SCALE IN FEET
TOP OF SLOPE
MITIGATION
INSET
DATE
DOUGLAS FIR
SPECIES PRIOR TO PLANTING)
BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREA
(REMOVE SOD AND INVASIVE
PRESERVE EXISTING
CHERRY (CH)
REVISIONS:
APPENDIX I
Specifications
Specifications
City Park Play & Spray Revitalization
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, Washington
November 22, 2013
Prepared for
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, Washington
130 2nd Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
(425) 778-0907
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0GENERAL 1-1
1.1SCOPE OF WORK 1-1
1.2QUALITY ASSURANCE 1-1
1.3QUALIFICATIONS OF INSTALLER 1-1
1.4WORK SCHEDULE 1-2
1.5PROJECT RECORDS AND REVIEW 1-2
1.6DOCUMENTATION 1-2
1.7UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 1-2
1.8CHECKLIST AND PROJECT CLOSEOUT 1-2
2.0MATERIALS 2-1
2.1PLANT MATERIALS 2-1
2.1.1Container Trees 2-1
2.1.2Container Shrubs 2-1
2.1.3Temporary Storage 2-2
2.1.4Substitutions 2-2
2.2MULCH 2-2
2.3FERTILIZER TABLETS 2-2
3.0EXECUTION 3-1
3.1SITE AND PROJECT PREPARATION 3-1
3.1.1Order Materials 3-1
3.1.2Mark Limits of Clearing 3-1
3.1.3Minimization of Impacts 3-1
3.1.4Removal of Structures and Obstructions 3-1
3.1.4.1Verification of Suitable Surface Conditions 3-1
3.1.5Clearing and Grubbing 3-1
3.2PLANTING AND PROTECTION 3-2
3.2.1Layout Plants 3-2
3.2.2Approve Planting Locations and Spacing 3-2
3.2.3Plant Installation 3-2
3.2.3.1Container Trees and Shrubs 3-3
3.2.4Mulch 3-4
3.3RECTIFICATION OF ACCIDENTAL PLANT INJURY 3-4
3.4CLEANUP 3-4
3.5CHECKLIST AND CLOSEOUT 3-4
4.0MAINTENANCE 4-1
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\Appendices\\I Specs\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_Specifications_rpt.docx
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\Appendices\\I Specs\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_Specifications_rpt.docx
iii
1.0 GENERAL
These specifications shall be reviewed by the City prior to mitigation planting work to ensure the
staff/volunteers involved understand the intent and the specific details related to the construction
documents, specifications, and site constraints. The following plans sheets (Drawings/Plans) correspond
with this document:
Sheet W1.0
The plantings shall be installed using the materials as shown on the Drawings and/or as specified
in these Specifications. The mitigation plantings shall be installed to grades and conform to areas and
locations as shown on the Drawings.
on shall refer to the City of Edmonds.
Edmonds
biologist for the project (qualified City staff or hired consultant).
1.1 SCOPE OF WORK
OWNER shall furnish all materials, equipment, labor, and related items necessary to complete the
work shown on the Drawings and/or as described in these Specifications, to include addition of soil
amendments and tilling of soil; installation of plants; fertilizing and mulching; protection; and other work,
as necessary. The work included in these Specifications (whether mentioned or not) shall consist of all
labor, tools, materials, permits, and other related items necessary for the installation of all plant-related
materials and will be performed in accordance with these Specifications.
1.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE
Standard Specifications:
1. American Standard for Nursery Stock, ANSI Z60.1-2004. American Nursery and Landscape
Association, 1250 Eye Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005.
2. Hortus Third. The Staff of the L. H. Bailey Hortorium. 1976. MacMillan Publishing Co.,
New York, New York.
1.3 QUALIFICATIONS OF INSTALLER
Oversight of mitigation planting preparation and installation shall be provided by the OWNER
staff with a minimum of 3 years experience with landscape implementation, and shall have completed
landscaping work similar in material, design, and extent to that indicated for this project and with a record
of successful landscape establishment.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\Appendices\\I Specs\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_Specifications_rpt.docx
1-1
OWNER staff or representative must be familiar and comply with American Standard for
Nursery Stock published by the American Association of Nurserymen.
1.4 WORK SCHEDULE
In general, restoration plantings shall be installed no earlier than October 1 and no later than
March 31.
1.5 PROJECT RECORDS AND REVIEW
A copy of the approved plans, specifications, permits, and agency approvals must be on site
whenever construction is in progress and shall remain on site until project completion. The OWNER
shall be on site, as necessary, to monitor and/or approve any minor revisions to the plan.
1.6 DOCUMENTATION
The OWNER shall keep a complete set of plans at the job site during construction for the purpose
of red-lining changes or modifications to the approved plans and shall update this information on a
daily basis.
Upon completion of the installation of the planting aspects of the mitigation project, the OWNER
will create a set of clearly marked plans designating the actual locations and quantities of plantings within
the mitigation area. These plans shall meet the requirement of an as-built survey.
1.7 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
The OWNER shall be responsible for the protection of known utilities. Locations of mapped
utilities, as shown on the Drawings, have been established by field survey or obtained from available
records and should be considered approximate only and not necessarily complete. It is the sole
responsibility of the OWNER to: (1) independently verify the accuracy of utility locations and (2)
discover and avoid any utilities within the work area that may be affected by implementation of this plan.
Such areas are to be clearly marked in the field.
Topographic elevations represented in the Drawings are based upon topographic maps supplied
by the surveyor. Final elevations may vary depending on site-specific conditions
1.8 CHECKLIST AND PROJECT CLOSEOUT
The BIOLOGIST shall verify that all items meet the specifications listed in this document. Any
items that do not meet specifications will be marked on a checklist for rectification prior to the next phase
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\Appendices\\I Specs\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_Specifications_rpt.docx
1-2
of work and/or project closeout. If items are to be corrected, a contingency checklist of adaptive
management strategies necessary to meet specifications shall be prepared by the BIOLOGIST and
submitted to the OWNER. After punch list items have been completed by the OWNER, the BIOLOGIST
shall review and revise the checklist to reflect satisfactory completion.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\Appendices\\I Specs\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_Specifications_rpt.docx
1-3
2.0 MATERIALS
The BIOLOGIST shall examine plant and soils materials prior to unloading at the site. Any
material not meeting the required specifications shall be immediately removed from the site and replaced
with like material that meets the required standards.
2.1 PLANT MATERIALS
Plant material shall be provided by OWNER, and shall meet the requirements of the current
edition of the American Standard for Nursery Stock, and state and federal laws with respect to plant
disease and infestations. Plant materials shall be locally grown (western Washington, western Oregon, or
western British Columbia), healthy, bushy, in vigorous growing condition, and be guaranteed true to size,
name, and variety. Furthermore, plants shall be free from disease, injury, insects, insect eggs, root and
other types of weevils, larva, weed roots, and defects such as knots, sun scald, injuries, abrasions,
disfigurements, and irregular growth arising from frost damage. Unacceptable materials shall be replaced
and shall be immediately removed from the project site.
The BIOLOGIST shall inspect plant material at the job site for compliance with required
standards for plant size and quality prior to planting. This includes, but is not limited to, size and
condition of root systems, presence of insects, latent injuries, and defects as listed below:
2.1.1CT
ONTAINER REES
Trees shall have uniform branching; single, straight trunks (unless specified as multi-
stemmed); and the central leader intact and undamaged.
No balled or burlapped plants will be used.
Unless necessary for larger trees, do not stake plants.
Protect bark, branches, and root systems from sun scald, drying, sweating, whipping, and
other handling and tying damage.
Do not bend or bind-tie trees or shrubs in such a manner as to destroy the natural shape.
Provide protective covering during delivery. Do not drop trees and shrubs during delivery.
Container stock shall be fully rooted but not root-bound.
The original central leader must be healthy and undamaged.
Maximum gap between branching shall not exceed 9 inches, and the length of the top leader
shall not exceed 12 inches.
Trees will need to be well established and of sufficient height (2 to 4 ft) upon planting.
2.1.2CS
ONTAINER HRUBS
Shrubs shall be well established upon planting and a minimum height of 16 inches.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\Appendices\\I Specs\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_Specifications_rpt.docx
2-1
2.1.3TS
EMPORARY TORAGE
Plants must be stored in the manner necessary to accommodate their horticultural requirements.
Protect plant material stored on site from weather damage, construction activity, and the public. Protect
bare roots by covering with moist soil, mulch, or sawdust. Water as required to keep roots moist. Keep
plants moist and shaded until the actual time of installation. Do not allow any plants or stakes to be
exposed to freezing temperatures prior to planting.
2.1.4S
UBSTITUTIONS
Substitutions of plant species or sizes may be permitted based on plant availability, but only with
prior approval by the BIOLOGIST.
2.2 MULCH
Mulch shall consist of bark pieces or wood chips with maximum axis of any single piece not
exceeding approximately 2 inches.
2.3 FERTILIZER TABLETS
Trees, shrubs, and groundcovers shall be fertilized using one of the following products:
1. Formula 4-2-
pply at a rate of:
a. Trees: 8 ounces
b. Shrubs: 2 ounces
c. Groundcovers: 1 ounce
2. Agriform Tablets: Planting tablets, 21-gram size, as manufactured by Agriform International
Chemicals, Inc., 20-10-5 analysis. Apply at a rate of:
a. Trees: 4 tablets for every foot of rootball diameter
b. Shrubs: 3 tablets
c. Groundcovers: 1 tablet
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\Appendices\\I Specs\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_Specifications_rpt.docx
2-2
3.0 EXECUTION
These specifications apply to all aspects of the mitigation project installation and are generally
listed in the order that they will be implemented.
3.1 SITE AND PROJECT PREPARATION
3.1.1OM
RDER ATERIALS
Items to be ordered upfront include mulch, jute netting, seed, geotextile fabric, pre-vegetated coir
logs. These items may need substantial lead time (coir logs may require up to 6 months) to acquire and
alterations from the plan (due to availability) must be verified by the BIOLOGIST prior to ordering.
3.1.2MLC
ARK IMITS OF LEARING
Prior to any construction, OWNER shall stake and/or flag limits of clearing on site, as shown on
the Drawings.
3.1.3MI
INIMIZATION OF MPACTS
Clearing will be conducted using the lightest machinery that is still capable of performing the
work. Compaction of planting areas shall be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible.
Revegetation will occur as soon as possible following clearing.
3.1.4RSO
EMOVAL OF TRUCTURES AND BSTRUCTIONS
Materials encountered within the planting areas that create conditions unsuitable for plant
establishment as determined by the BIOLOGIST shall be removed by the OWNER from the site. Such
materials may include trash and debris (tires, concrete rubble, scrap metal, etc.).
3.1.4.1 Verification of Suitable Surface Conditions
Following clearing, the BIOLOGIST will verify that soil conditions are suitable within the work
areas, including soil composition and degree of compaction. Any unsatisfactory conditions (such as
compaction or lack of organic matter) shall be corrected by the OWNER prior to the start of work.
3.1.5CG
LEARING AND RUBBING
In the planting area, the OWNER shall remove lawn and any weedy or exotic invasive species
identified by BIOLOGIST prior to plant installation; list of weedy and/or exotic invasive species likely to
be encountered are included below.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\Appendices\\I Specs\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_Specifications_rpt.docx
3-1
plans). A complete list of non-native species can be found at the Washington State Noxious Weed Control
Board (http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/). Species identified within the buffer mitigation area include, but are
not limited to:
Himalayanblackberry
is best removed in the early fall, but it can also be removed in spring
by cutting down canes and entirely removing the root crown. All plant parts must be placed
in a plastic garbage bag and removed from the site.
Reed canary grass
should be hand-trimmed to the ground level within the drip line of the
woody plantings. The planted trees/shrubs are expected to eventually control the reed canary
grass through shading.
English ivy
should be controlled and removed by cutting climbing vines and prying vines
from trees, and hand pulling plant from the ground. Plant parts should be placed immediately
into a plastic garbage bag and removed from the site.
English laurel and English holly
should be controlled by cutting and stump removal with
removing as much root as possible. Stems can be chipped and used as mulch or taken to a
landfill. Leaving stems on moist ground might result in some stem-rooting.
Existing sod within areas of lawn within the planting area should be removed prior to
planting.
Revegetation will occur as soon as possible following clearing.
3.2 PLANTING AND PROTECTION
3.2.1LP
AYOUT LANTS
Plants shall be placed in a random, natural pattern as shown on the plans. Planting locations
shown on planting plans are approximate and based on anticipated site conditions. Actual planting
locations may vary from those shown due to final site conditions and locations of existing vegetation.
Any substantial variations from the planting plan will require prior approval by the BIOLOGIST.
3.2.2APLS
PPROVE LANTING OCATIONS AND PACING
BIOLOGIST shall approve proposed plant locations and layout prior to installation by the
OWNER.
3.2.3PI
LANT NSTALLATION
Detailed directions for planting are described below. Also refer to the Drawings. Revegetation
will occur as soon as possible following clearing.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\Appendices\\I Specs\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_Specifications_rpt.docx
3-2
3.2.3.1 Container Trees and Shrubs
Plant, tree, and shrub spacing is to be random (natural) and not in a regular grid pattern. The
following directions, adapted from the International Society of Arboriculture, must be followed for
container plantings (see Details on Sheet W.1):
1. Dig a shallow, broad planting hole. Make the hole wide, as much as three times the diameter
of the root ball but only as deep as the root ball. It is important to make the hole wide
because the roots on the newly establishing tree must push through surrounding soil in order
to establish. On most planting sites in new developments, the existing soils have been
compacted and are unsuitable for healthy root growth. Breaking up the soil in a large area
around the tree provides the newly emerging roots room to expand into loose soil to hasten
establishment.
2. Identify the trunk flare on tree/shrub. The trunk flare is where the roots spread at the base of
the tree. This point should be partially visible after the tree has been planted. If the trunk
flare is not partially visible, you may have to remove some soil from the top of the root ball.
Find it so you can determine how deep the hole needs to be for proper planting.
3. Place the tree/shrub at the proper height. Before placing in the hole, check to see that the
hole has been dug to the proper depth and no deeper. The majority of the roots on the newly
planted tree/shrub will develop in the top 12 inches of soil. If the tree is planted too deeply,
new roots will have difficulty developing because of a lack of oxygen. It is better to plant the
tree a little high, 2 to 3 inches above the base of the trunk flare, than to plant it at or below the
original growing level. To avoid damage when setting the tree in the hole, always lift the tree
by the root ball and never by the trunk.
4. Straighten the tree in the hole. Before you begin backfilling, have someone view the tree
from several directions to confirm that the tree is straight. Once you begin backfilling, it is
difficult to reposition the tree.
5. Fill the hole gently but firmly. Fill the hole about one-third full and gently but firmly pack
the soil around the base of the root ball.
6. Apply fertilizer tablet into hole at 6 inches depth, or per manufacturer instructions as needed.
7. Fill the remainder of the hole, taking care to firmly pack soil to eliminate air pockets that may
cause roots to dry out. To avoid this problem, add the soil a few inches at a time and settle
with water. Continue this process until the hole is filled and the tree is firmly planted.
8. Do not stake trees, unless necessary.
9. Immediately (on the day of installation) water all plants thoroughly, unless soils are already
saturated.
10. Mulch the base of the planting. When placing mulch, be sure that the actual trunk of the
tree/shrub is not covered. Doing so may cause decay of the living bark at the base of the
tree/shrub. A mulch-free area, 1 to 2 inches wide at the base of the tree, is sufficient to avoid
moist bark conditions and prevent decay.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\Appendices\\I Specs\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_Specifications_rpt.docx
3-3
3.2.4M
ULCH
Mulch shall be applied around all plants throughout the planting to provide weed suppression,
erosion and insulation, and a source of organic matter. At least a 3-inch layer of wood chip mulch (coarse
mulch or hog fuel) shall be placed around the base of all new plantings to a radius of at least 24 inches.
3.3 RECTIFICATION OF ACCIDENTAL PLANT INJURY
Any living woody plant that is damaged during construction shall be treated within 24 hours of
occurrence, including wound-shaping treatment, which includes, but is not limited to, evenly cutting
broken branches, exposed roots, and damaged tree bark immediately after damage occurs. Injured plants
shall be thoroughly watered and additional measures shall be taken, as appropriate, to aid in plant
survival. Any plants that are visible harmed such that future growth is jeopardized (such as broken
leaders, uprooting, etc.) shall be replaced.
3.4 CLEANUP
The OWNER shall be responsible for removing construction materials and debris from the site
following installation of plant materials.
3.5 CHECKLIST AND CLOSEOUT
The BIOLOGIST shall verify that all items meet the specifications listed in this document. Any
items that do not meet specifications will be marked on a checklist for rectification prior to the next phase
of work and/or project closeout. If items are to be corrected, a contingency checklist of adaptive
management strategies necessary to meet specifications shall be prepared by the BIOLOGIST and
submitted to the OWNER. After punch list items have been completed by the OWNER, the BIOLOGIST
shall review and revise the checklist to reflect satisfactory completion.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\Appendices\\I Specs\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_Specifications_rpt.docx
3-4
4.0 MAINTENANCE
This section includes recommended maintenance for installed plantings, including, but not
limited to:
Correction of Foraging and Browsing: The OWNER may implement measures to prevent
damage of plant material by browsing animals (e.g., deer, beaver, rabbits, mice, voles).
Weeding and Maintenance of Trees and Shrubs: Routine maintenance of trees and shrubs
shall be performed. Tall grasses shall be weeded at the base of the plantings. Weed control
shall be performed by hand removal or installation of weed barrier cloth. No mechanical
weed trimmers shall be used after initial site preparation activities.
Pruning of Woody Plants: Woody plants may be pruned to allow for safe use of park
facilities.
Resetting plants to proper grade and upright position, controlling grass and invasive species,
and correcting drainage problems, as required.
Irrigation to ensure plant survival.
Replacements made by the OWNER shall be completed during the periods set out as planting
periods and shall be subject to the same conditions and shall be made in the same manner as specified for
the original planting area.
OWNER shall be responsible for consistent and adequate water application throughout the
growing season.
LA
ANDAU SSOCIATES
11/22/13 \\\\edmdata01\\projects\\074\\175\\030\\FileRm\\R\\Appendices\\I Specs\\CityPark Critical Areas Mitigation_Specifications_rpt.docx
4-1