REVIEWED PLN_RESUB1 BLD2022-0502+OUTSIDE CR AREAS REPORT+7.18.2022_3.45.25_PM+2996532RESUB
Jul 19 2022
CITY OF EDMONDS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
BLD2022-0502
--------- - - - - -
+
Reviewed by
City of Edmonds
Planning Division
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -'
WETLANDS WILDLIFE
Environmental Consulting
CRITICAL AREAS REPORT
HEALY PROPERTY --PROPOSED DECK REPLACEMENT
INCORPORATED CITY OF EDMONDS (PARCEL #00434206603800)
PREPARED FOR:
Tim and Tess Healy
(Property Owners)
901 Bell Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
PREPARED BY:
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc.
19410--179th Court NE
Woodinville, WA 98077
(425) 337-6450
Original Report Date: March 3, 2022
Revised Report Date: May 24, 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION 1
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS TO CONDUCT THIS CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION 1
METHODOLOGIES OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION 2
RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION 3
EXISTING ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT 5
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6
PROPOSED MINOR TEMPORARY CRITICAL AREA BUFFER IMPACTS 7
PROPOSED RESTORATION FOR MINOR TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACTS 8
PROJECT'S IMPACT DETERMINATION RELATED TO CRITICAL AREAS 8
LIMITATIONS AND USE OF THIS REPORT 9
REFERENCES AND LITERATURE REVIEWED 11
ATTACHMENTS:
1. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS (2 DATA POINTS ON -SITE)
2. WETLAND RATING FORM FOR WESTERN WASHINGTON (1 RATING FORM WITH MAP FIGURES
3. CRITICAL AREAS OVERVIEW MAP MAP SHEET CA1.00
INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located within the incorporated City of Edmonds, Washington. The address for the
proposed project site is 901 Bell Street and the Snohomish County tax parcel number for the property
follows: 00434206603800. Per the Snohomish County Assessor's office, the property encompasses
approximately 0.23 acres and is currently owned by Tim and Teresa Healy. The property currently contains
an existing single-family residence, a concrete driveway and walking paths, a gravel picnic area, a shed,
wooden slatted decks, retaining walls, and other associated infrastructure normal to single-family
residential development.
Tim and Tess Healy retained Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. to evaluate the site features and proposed site
development described in this report for compliance with the Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC) Title 23,
Natural Resources. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. conducted site visits to the property on January 7, 2022 and
February 10, 2022 to perform detailed Critical Areas evaluations and delineation efforts on the project site,
pursuant to the EMC and professional ecological industry standards. Please view the attached Critical
Areas Overview Map (Map Sheet CA1.00). This report is intended to outline how the project proposal
adheres to the requirements outlined in EMC Title 23 related to regulated wetlands and fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas.
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS TO CONDUCT THIS CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION
Per requirements outlined in the Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC), Title 23 (Natural Resources), a qualified
professional is required to perform Critical Areas evaluations and write accompanying reports for submittal.
The following provides a brief overview of my experience and credentials to conduct the required detailed
evaluations on the subject property. I am the Founder, Owner, and Principal Wetland and Wildlife Ecologist
of Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. I attended the University of Montana where I graduated cum Iaude with a
degree in Wildlife Biology. As of 2022, 1 have 21 years of direct experience as a professional Biologist /
Ecologist in western Washington and 25 years of overall experience completing natural resource
assessments among many different ecosystems across the western United States. I have worked as a
professional Biologist / Ecologist for federal, state, and county environmental agencies, as well as several
private environmental consulting firms with specialties in wetlands, streams, rivers, lakes, and wildlife
habitat. In my 25 years of experience, I have specialized in review of proposed land use and building
development permit applications as they pertain to Critical Areas (wetlands, rivers, streams, lakes, and
habitats of protected fish and wildlife species). Much of that experience came as a Senior Reviewing
Ecologist for King County DDES and a Regulatory Biologist for Snohomish County PDS.
I am listed on several Preferred / Qualified Consultant Rosters throughout western Washington. I am highly
experienced with the required U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State wetland delineation
methods. In addition to the wetland delineation certification, I am trained by the Washington Department of
Ecology and have 17 years of experience in the use of the required Wetland Rating Form for western
Washington (since its inception). I am trained by the Washington Department of Ecology to determine
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) locations for rivers, streams, and lakes. In addition to my expertise
related to wetlands and streams, I have many years of experience conducting surveys of special -status
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revised Report Date: May 24, 2022
Critical Areas Report —Healy Proposed Deck Replacement
Incorporated City of Edmonds, Washington (Tax Parcel #00434206603800) Page 1
wildlife species in the western U.S. I received certifications from the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife for terrestrial wildlife habitat assessments and wildlife surveys of special -status wildlife species.
I have conducted over 2,200 biological / ecological assessments in different capacities on properties with
many habitat types and zoning designations, from small, urban properties (0.25 acres) to large, rural
properties (up to 2,000 acres in size). I have been selected by several local city jurisdictions to provide on -
call 3rd-party environmental reviews of proposed development projects for compliance with local Critical
Areas Ordinances and the FEMA Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation document.
METHODOLOGIES OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. used methodologies described in Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for
Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State to determine the location of any regulated
Ordinary High Water Marks (OHWMs) located on the subject property.
The routine methodologies described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation
Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #04-06-029, October 2014) were used to
make a determination regarding the presence of any regulated wetlands, as required by the City of
Edmonds. In addition, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. evaluated the site using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual produced in 1987 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and
Coast Region produced in May 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Corps Regional Supplement"). The
Corps Regional Supplement is designed for concurrent use with the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation
Manual and all subsequent versions. The 2010 Regional Supplement provides technical guidance and
procedures for identifying and delineating wetlands that may be subject to regulatory jurisdiction under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Where differences in the two documents occur, this Regional
Supplement takes precedence over the Corps Manual for applications in the Western Mountains, Valleys,
and Coast Region.
According to the federal and state methodologies described above, identification of wetlands is based on a
three -factor approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and presence or evidence
of persistent hydrology. Except where noted in the manuals, the three -factor approach discussed above
requires positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology to make a
determination that an area is a regulated wetland. Using the aforementioned manuals, the site
characteristics for making a wetland determination include the following:
1.) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present / percent cover);
2.) Examination for the presence of hydric soils in areas where hydrophytic vegetation is present; and
3.) Examination to determine if adequate hydrology exists for sufficient durations during the early part of the
growing season in the same locations as the previous two steps.
Per industry standards, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. examined the entire subject site. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc.
also visually assessed adjacent properties within approximately 300 feet of the proposed project limits, to
the maximum extent possible without entering adjacent properties. While a detailed assessment of Critical
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revised Report Date: May 24, 2022
Critical Areas Report —Healy Proposed Deck Replacement
Incorporated City of Edmonds, Washington (Tax Parcel #00434206603800) Page 2
Areas on adjacent private properties was not possible due to lack of legal site access, Wetlands & Wildlife,
Inc. conducted a review of all available information to assess the presence of off -site Critical Areas within
300 feet of the subject site. This evaluation is necessary to determine if any regulated Critical Areas exist
off -site which would cause associated protective buffers to extend onto the property and affect the
development proposal.
In addition to on -site field reviews, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. examined aerial photographs and topographical
data (elevation contours) on Snohomish County's PDS Map Portal map system and City of Edmonds GIS.
Soil survey maps produced by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) maps produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Priority Habitats and
Species (PHS) maps produced by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and fish
distribution maps produced by the WDFW (SalmonScape), Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
(StreamNet) and Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR; Forest Practices Application
Mapping Tool [FPAMT]), and the City of Edmonds GIS data and maps were also evaluated as part of this
project review.
One wetland and one stream were identified among the northeastern portion of the subject property.
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. delineated the southern on -site wetland boundary and southern on -site stream
OHWMs using bright pink flagging labeled in sequential order in accordance with professional ecological
industry standards. The delineation flags were then located using multiple measurements and compass
bearings from known locations visible on aerial imagery. After the delineation flags were located using this
method, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. drew the flag location data into a computer -aided drawing (CAD) program
to depict the delineated Critical Area boundaries in relation to the property boundary and other existing site
features.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION
Based on our site evaluations, there is one regulated wetland and one stream located on the subject parcel
as shown on the attached Map Sheet CA1.00. No other wetlands or streams are located on or near the
subject site that would potentially affect the proposed development.
Cowardin Classifications:
According to the Cowardin System, as described in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of
the United States, the classifications for the regulated wetland and stream follow:
Wetland A: Palustrine, Forested, Evergreen, Seasonally Flooded / Saturated (PF07E)
Stream A (Shell Creek): Riverine, Unknown Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Cobble -Gravel (R5UB1)
Edmonds Municipal Code Classifications:
Per Edmonds Municipal Code, Title 23 (Natural Resources), the classifications for the regulated wetland
and stream follow:
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revised Report Date: May 24, 2022
Critical Areas Report —Healy Proposed Deck Replacement
Incorporated City of Edmonds, Washington (Tax Parcel #00434206603800) Page 3
Wetland A is located among the northeastern portions of the subject property, and the wetland extends off -
site to the east and north of the subject property. Per ecological industry standards and City of Edmonds
requirements, Wetland A was rated using the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington, (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029, published October
2014). The subject wetland appears to meet the outlined criteria for a "Slope" wetland and contains a
gentle slope generally leading to Shell Creek. Therefore, the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class used to rate
the wetland was a "Slope" wetland on the Wetland Rating Form. Using the Wetland Rating Form, Wetland
A scored a total of 19 points (6 points for Water Quality Functions, 7 points for Hydrologic Functions, and 6
points for Habitat Functions) and is therefore considered a Category III wetland. The rating form is
attached to this report for viewing. Per EMC 23.50.040.F.e., Category III wetlands with habitat scores of 6
or 7 points typically require a protective buffer width of 110 feet to be applied parallel to the wetland
boundary, when the minimization measures detailed in EMC 23.50.040.F.f. are implemented. Therefore,
the standard buffer width required for Wetland A equals 110 feet. Please see the attached Map Sheet
CA1.00 for a depiction of Wetland A, and see below for a discussion regarding overlapping Critical Areas
buffer widths.
Stream A (Shell Creek) is located among Wetland A in the northeastern portion of the property, and the
stream extends off -site to the east. Stream A transports hydrology from east to west where it is then
conveyed under 9t" Avenue North via a large, on -site culvert. Stream A is a perennial fish -bearing stream
that is adjacent to reaches with anadromous fish access species per several mapping sources (Edmonds
Stream Inventory and Assessment (Pentec Environmental, 2002), Snohomish County PDS Map Portal GIS
data, WDFW SalmonScape GIS data, WA DNR FPAMT GIS data.). Per EMC 23.90.040.D.1.b., Type F
anadromous fish -bearing streams adjacent to reaches with anadromous fish access in the City of Edmonds
typically receive 100-foot protective buffers. Therefore, the standard buffer width required for the on -
site stream equals 100 feet. Please see the attached Map Sheet CA1.00 for a depiction of the stream.
Please also view the discussion below regarding overlapping buffer widths.
Discussion Regarding Overlapping Critical Areas Buffers:
As mentioned above, the property includes multiple Critical Areas which are regulated pursuant to the City
of Edmonds Critical Areas Regulations. When two or more Critical Area buffers overlap, the more
restrictive buffer typically applies. On this particular project site, the entire property is encumbered by the
standard wetland and stream buffer as noted on Map Sheet CA1.00. Therefore, no buffer line is shown on
the accompanying Map Sheet CA1.00 since the standard overriding buffer extends off -site and the entire
property is located within the standard overriding buffer.
Discussion Regarding Geologic Hazard Areas:
City of Edmonds GIS data depicts Landslide Hazard Areas (40%), Severe Erosion Hazard Areas (15%-
40%), and Erosion Hazard Areas (15%-40%) within the subject parcel. Phil Haberman of Cobalt
Geosciences, LLC has evaluated the property regarding steep slopes and erosion hazards in their Limited
Geologic Evaluation report dated October 19, 2021. Please note that Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. does not
provide professional licensed geotechnical evaluations and will rely on the conclusions from Phil Haberman
of Cobalt Geosciences, LLC regarding slope stability and geotechnical recommendations.
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revised Report Date: May 24, 2022
Critical Areas Report —Healy Proposed Deck Replacement
Incorporated City of Edmonds, Washington (Tax Parcel #00434206603800) Page 4
On -site Vegetation and Soils Data:
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. collected detailed vegetation and soils data at two (2) different locations on the
subject property to gain representative data regarding on -site vegetative and soil characteristics. Please
view the two Wetland Determination Data Forms (produced by the Army Corps of Engineers) which
describe the actual vegetation and soil characteristics at each data point location. The Wetland
Determination Data Forms are attached to this report and are labeled as DP1 and DP2. Please also view
the location of these data points (labeled as DP1 and DP2) shown on the attached Map Sheet CA1.00.
Natural Resource Conservation Service Soils Description:
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mapped the entire subject property as being
underlain by Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams (25 to 70 percent slopes). The Alderwood soil series
is typically formed in till plains with parent material of basal till. This soil series is moderately well drained
and the frequency of flooding and ponding is none. The available water capacity is low and typical depth to
the water table is 18 to 36 inches. The typical soil profile is gravelly ashy sandy loam 0 to 7 inches below
the surface, very gravelly ashy sandy loam 7 to 35 inches below the surface and gravelly sandy loam 35 to
60 inches soil depth. The Everett soil series is typically formed in terraces and plains with parent material
of glacial outwash. This soil series is somewhat excessively drained and the frequency of flooding and
ponding is none. The available water capacity is very low and typical depth to the water table is more than
80 inches. The typical soil profile for the Everett soil series is gravelly ashy sandy loam 0 to 6 inches below
the surface, very gravelly ashy sandy loam 6 to 18 inches below the surface and extremely gravelly sand
from 18 to 60 inches soil depth. Minor components include McKenna (5 percent), Norma (undrained, 5
percent) and Terric medisaprists (undrained, 5 percent) soil series.
EXISTING ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT
The methodologies for this functions and values assessment are based on professional opinion developed
through past field analyses and interpretations. This assessment pertains specifically to the on -site wetland
and stream, but is typical for assessments of similar systems throughout the Puget Sound region of
western Washington. Wetlands in western Washington provide valuable ecological functions including
stormwater control, water quality, and wildlife habitat functions to their surrounding environment.
The three main functions provided by wetlands include water quality, stormwater I hydrologic control, and
wildlife habitat. These functions become increasingly important in an urbanizing environment. The on -site
wetland is comprised of emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested vegetation. Established vegetation serves
to intercept rain fall before it strikes the soil, thereby preventing erosion and improving water quality. In
addition, a dense herbaceous layer provides greater resistance to surface water flow, thereby allowing
more time for pollutants to settle out. The vegetation and adsorbent soils serve to trap sediment and
pollutants and provide increased water quality functions to aid in a reduction of sediment which results in
cleaner water leaving the site. Furthermore, the low -gradient topography and vegetated characteristics of
the subject wetland decreases the water velocity of the associated down -gradient systems, thereby
decreasing peak flood stages during heavy rainfall and increasing water retention during dry periods.
Water retained within the wetland slowly infiltrates into the ground, thus recharging groundwater and
helping to moderate groundwater levels and reduce down -gradient flows.
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revised Report Date: May 24, 2022
Critical Areas Report —Healy Proposed Deck Replacement
Incorporated City of Edmonds, Washington (Tax Parcel #00434206603800) Page 5
Wetlands often contain important wildlife habitat resources such as food, water, thermal cover, and hiding
cover in close proximity. As evidenced by a score of 6 for Habitat Functions on the Wetland Rating Form
for Western Washington, the subject wetland provides a relatively moderate level of habitat function for
wildlife species. The off -site portions of the wetland appear to be similarly comprised of forest with an
understory of shrubs and herbs. The wetland and associated buffers provide protected habitat which
becomes increasingly important as areas become further populated with humans and habitat areas
become fragmented. However, due to the residential activities on the site and surrounding properties
(regular daily use by humans on many properties in the project vicinity), the wetland and buffer areas on
the site provide only moderate wildlife habitat functions when compared to more native environments with
less human activity in close proximity.
Shell Creek (Stream A) provides important functions to the surrounding environment such as hydrological
transport, transport of solids (suspended and dissolved), and important fish and wildlife habitat features,
among other functions. Shell Creek provides habitat for many fish species, including coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii). The portions of the site
adjacent to the creek (associated buffers, etc.) are increasingly important to manage appropriately as these
areas aid in water quality and hydrologic control, resulting in cleaner water entering the stream's channel.
The established vegetation among this riparian corridor provides very important ecological functions to the
surrounding environment. In addition to providing direct habitat for fish and wildlife species, the
overhanging vegetation among the riparian corridor provides valuable shade, and the shade provided by
the vegetation aids in cooler water temperature for the species that use the in -water habitat. The
overhanging vegetation present among the riparian corridor also aids in the recruitment of organic matter
and large woody debris to the stream channel.
In addition to the ecological functions mentioned above, regulated Critical Areas in western Washington
also often provide aesthetic value, recreational opportunities, and educational tools.
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Please view the attached Map Sheet CA1.00 for a depiction of the proposed project. The applicants are
proposing to remove the existing uncovered slatted decks located along the northern and northwestern
portions of the existing single-family residence. A portion of the existing deck system is located on the
ground level and a portion of the existing deck system (western portion) is elevated as a 2nd-story deck.
After the removal of the existing decks, the applicants are proposing to construct a new uncovered slatted
deck which is elevated above the ground level (2nd-story) except for the landing platform on the extreme
west side of the proposed deck replacement area. The proposed deck will therefore increase the available
use of that area for terrestrial wildlife species. Per specific project design, the entire proposed deck will be
located within the existing larger deck's footprint. As detailed later in this report, the proposed deck will
encompass a significantly smaller area (square footage) than the legally established decks on the property,
and the proposed deck will also be located farther away from the wetland and stream than the existing
decks.
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revised Report Date: May 24, 2022
Critical Areas Report —Healy Proposed Deck Replacement
Incorporated City of Edmonds, Washington (Tax Parcel #00434206603800) Page 6
As previously detailed in this report, one wetland, one stream, and the associated protective buffers exist
on -site (see Map Sheet CA1.00). The entire property is encumbered by the standard 110-foot wetland
buffer and I or the standard 100-foot stream buffer. Due to the applicant's desire to avoid and minimize
impacts to the on -site Critical Areas and protective buffers per the City of Edmonds and ecological industry
standards, the proposed deck has been specifically designed to be located outside of the on -site Critical
Areas and to avoid new impacts to all associated buffers as depicted on Map Sheet CA1.00. As previously
noted in this report, the entire proposed deck will be located within the existing larger deck's footprint.
Based on our detailed evaluations of the Edmonds Municipal Code, the proposed deck replacement project
should be considered an "allowed activity" even though the proposed replacement deck is located within
the Critical Area buffer. Code section 23.40.220.C.3 states "The following activities are allowed:
Modifications to Existing Structures within Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Modification to a legally
constructed structure existing within a critical area or buffer shall be allowed when the
modification:
a. Does not increase the footprint of the structure; and
b. Does not increase the impact to the critical area or buffer; and
c. Does not increase risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification or
replacement."
During our site visit, we took many detailed measurements of the existing decks and other existing site
features to ensure compliance with Edmonds Municipal Code. We determined that the existing decks
equal approximately 564 total square feet in the buffer area. Using the plans prepared by All Decks for the
proposed deck, we determined that the square footage of the proposed deck equals 280 square feet.
Please see the attached Map Sheet CA1.00 for a depiction of both the existing and proposed decks, and
see the table below:
Existing Deck
564 SF
Proposed Deck
280 SF
Proposed Deck Area Difference
(Net Reduction)
-284 SF
Prop. Deck Outside Ex. Deck
0 SF
With the removal of the existing deck and the construction of the proposed deck, the total square footage of
deck within the on -site Critical Areas buffers will be reduced by approximately 284 sauare feet. We also
determined that the entire proposed deck will be located within the existing larger deck's footprint.
Therefore, the proposed deck replacement project clearly complies with EMC section 23.40.220.C.3 and
should be considered an allowed activity. Please see the PROJECT'S IMPACT DETERMINATION RELATED TO
CRITICAL AREAS section of this report for more information.
PROPOSED MINOR TEMPORARY CRITICAL AREA BUFFER IMPACTS
Due to the minor earthwork required within the on -site Critical Area buffers to accomplish the proposed
deck replacement project, very minor temporary buffer impacts will occur as a result of the proposed project
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revised Report Date: May 24, 2022
Critical Areas Report —Healy Proposed Deck Replacement
Incorporated City of Edmonds, Washington (Tax Parcel #00434206603800) Page 7
in order to remove the existing deck posts and install the footings of the proposed deck. Please note that
the temporary buffer impacts will not impact any native trees or shrubs. Therefore, no impacts to any native
trees or shrubs will occur as a result of the proposed deck replacement project.
Therefore, prior to any project -related disturbances, temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) best
management practices (silt fence or similar) will be installed around the entire down -gradient edge of the
proposed clearing / grading limits to minimize any potential of erosion and sediments from reaching the on -
site stream and / or wetland. All TESC measures will be installed in accordance with industry standards and
the applicants shall ensure proper function of the TESC measures throughout the duration of this
restoration project. Please view the associated Map Sheet CA1.00 for a depiction of the proposed TESC
BMP's and see the report section below regarding the proposed revegetation / restoration efforts.
PROPOSED RESTORATION FOR TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACTS
As described above, very minor temporary buffer impacts will occur as a result of the proposed project in
order to remove the existing deck posts and install the footings of the proposed deck. Following the
temporary buffer impacts, all temporarily impacted buffer areas will be restored to their existing conditions
and gradients. Any disturbed / bare ground areas caused by the minor temporary buffer impacts shall be
seeded to the native grass / herb seed mixture identified below or a similar seed mixture if this mixture is
not readily available:
Proposed Grass I Herb Seed Mixture for Buffer (Non-Wetiand) Restoration Areas
Common Name
Latin Name
lbs./1,000 s.f.
Annual ryegrass
Lolium multiflorum
0.5
White clover
Trifolium repens
0.5
Timothy
Phleum pratense
0.5
Orchard grass
Dactylis glomerate
0.5
Tall fescue
Festuca arundinacea
0.5
Following the proposed grass / herb seeding, weed -free straw shall be placed on top of the seed to aid in
soil stabilization and erosion reduction while the grass seed germinates and begins root growth. The silt
fence and all erosion and sediment control measures will remain in place until the soil is sufficiently
stabilized to prevent erosion of soil among the wetland and buffer areas.
PROJECT'S IMPACT DETERMINATION RELATED TO CRITICAL AREAS
The entire property is encumbered by the standard overriding buffer resulting from the wetland and / or
stream buffer. Therefore, no opportunity exists to construct the deck outside of the Critical Area buffer on
this particular property. However, the proposed deck has been specifically designed to be located within
the existing larger deck's footprint. As previously noted in this report, it is my professional opinion that the
proposed deck replacement project clearly complies with EMC section 23.40.220.C.3 and should be
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revised Report Date: May 24, 2022
Critical Areas Report —Healy Proposed Deck Replacement
Incorporated City of Edmonds, Washington (Tax Parcel #00434206603800) Page 8
considered an allowed activity. The proposed deck replacement project complies with 23.40.220.C.3.a.
because the project will not result in an increase in the footprint of the existing deck, and actually results in
a significant decrease compared to the existing deck. In fact, the proposed project will result in a net
decrease of approximately 284 square feet within the buffer. The proposed deck replacement project
complies with 23.40.220.C.3.b. because the project does not increase the impact to the Critical Areas or
the associated protective buffer. In fact, the proposed project decreases the impact to the Critical Areas
and associated protective buffer because the proposed deck will be located farther from the wetland and
stream than the existing deck, the proposed deck will be elevated above the ground level whereas a large
portion of the existing deck surface is in contact with the ground, and the proposed deck will remain slatted
and uncovered so as not to increase the amount of impervious surface among the buffer on the property.
The proposed deck replacement project also complies with 23.40.220.C.3.c. because the proposed deck
replacement project will not increase the risk to life or property. In fact, the proposed deck replacement
project will create safer conditions for the property owners on the subject property and will alleviate the
need to traverse up and down stairs to gain access to the different levels of the deck (existing conditions).
Based on all factors considered, it is the professional opinion of Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. that no
compensatory mitigation should be required for this proposed deck replacement due to the following
information:
• The proposed deck is an elevated second -story deck and will therefore have significantly less
ground contact than the existing deck system. Elevating the proposed deck above the ground
surface (except for the posts and footings) will allow for a significant increase in available area for
terrestrial wildlife species to utilize the property.
• The proposed deck will be an uncovered, slatted deck similar to the existing deck and will therefore
not introduce any new impervious surface coverage on the property.
• The proposed deck is smaller than the existing deck and will decrease the total deck area by 284
square feet within the Critical Areas buffers.
• The closest part of the proposed deck is located significantly farther from the stream and wetland
than the closest part of the existing deck.
Based on the detailed site evaluation in conjunction with the applicant's proposal, it is the professional
opinion of Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. that no adverse ecological impacts will occur to the regulated Critical
Areas or associated protective buffer areas as a result of this proposed project. In fact, the protective
buffers associated with the on -site wetland and stream will receive significant ecological function uplift as a
result of this proposed deck replacement project due to the factors mentioned above in this report.
Therefore, no additional compensatory mitigation efforts are proposed, since no adverse ecological impacts
will occur within the on -site regulated Critical Areas or associated protective buffers, and because the
proposed deck replacement project is a self -mitigating proposal due to aforementioned factors.
LIMITATIONS AND USE OF THIS REPORT
This Critical Areas Report is supplied to Tim and Tess Healy as a means of determining whether any
wetlands, streams, and / or wildlife habitat conservation areas regulated by City of Edmonds Critical Areas
Regulations exist on the site or within close proximity of the site which would affect the permit requirements
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revised Report Date: May 24, 2022
Critical Areas Report —Healy Proposed Deck Replacement
Incorporated City of Edmonds, Washington (Tax Parcel #00434206603800) Page 9
of the proposed development on the site. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in
the applicant's attempt to comply with the regulations currently in effect. The work for this report has
conformed to the standard of care employed by professional ecologists in the Puget Sound region. No
other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report.
This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily
ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. If such
conditions arise, the information contained in this report may change based upon those conditions. Please
note that Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. does not provide analysis of other permitting requirements not discussed
in this report (i.e. structural, drainage, geotechnical, or engineering requirements) to determine whether the
project is in compliance with these aspects of the City of Edmonds Municipal Code.
While Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. upheld professional industry standards when completing this evaluation, the
information included in this report does not guarantee approval by any federal, state, and/or local permitting
agencies. Therefore, the work associated with this proposal shall not commence until permits have been
obtained from all applicable agencies.
If any questions arise regarding this review, please contact me directly at (425) 337-6450.
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc.
Scott Spooner
Owner / Principal Wetland & Wildlife Ecologist
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc.
Critical Areas Report —Healy Proposed Deck Replacement
Incorporated City of Edmonds, Washington (Tax Parcel #00434206603800)
Revised Report Date: May 24, 2022
Page 10
REFERENCES AND LITERATURE REVIEWED
Anderson, Paul S., Susan Meyer, Dr. Patricia Olson, and Erik Stockdale. Determining the Ordinary High
Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. October 2016 Final Review.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program. Ecology
Publication No. 16-06-029.
Cobalt Geosciences. (2021). Limited Geologic Evaluation. Proposed Deck. 901 Bell Street. Edmonds,
Washington. October 19, 2021.
Cowardin, et al, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S.D.I.
Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. December 1979.
City of Edmonds GIS. https://maps.edmondswa.gov/Html5Viewer/?viewer=Edmonds_SSL.HTML
Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC). Title 23. Natural Resources.
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/Edmonds23/Edmonds23.html
Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool. Maintained by the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources. https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/protectiongis/fpamt/index.html.
Hruby, T. (2014). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update.
(Publication # 04-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology.
Pentec Environmental. (2002). Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment. Edmonds, WA. Final Report.
July 29, 2002
SalmonScape. Interactive Mapping website administered by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html.
Snohomish County Map Portal. Snohomish County Planning and Development Services.
http://gismaps.snoco.org/Html5Viewer/Index.html?viewer=pdsmapportal.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2020). National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Engineer Research and Development Center. Cold Regions Research and Engineering
Laboratory, Hanover, NH http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2010). "Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0)," ERDC/EL TR-10-3,
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper.
http://l 07.20.228.18/Wetlands/WetlandsMapper.html#.
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revised Report Date: May 24, 2022
Critical Areas Report —Healy Proposed Deck Replacement
Incorporated City of Edmonds, Washington (Tax Parcel #00434206603800) Page 11
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Priority Habitats and Species map
http://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/gispubIic/prodphsontheweb/viewer.
Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
http://websoiIsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm.
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revised Report Date: May 24, 2022
Critical Areas Report —Healy Proposed Deck Replacement
Incorporated City of Edmonds, Washington (Tax Parcel #00434206603800) Page 12
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: 901 Bell Street (Parcel #00434206603800) City/County: Incorporated City of Edmonds, WA Sampling Date: 2/10/2022
Applicant/Owner: Tim and Tess Healy (Applicants/ Owners) State: WA Sampling Point: DP1
Investigator(s): Scott Spooner (Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc.) Section, Township, Range: S24, T27N, R03E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 8
Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.811623' Long: -122.366503' Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes NWI classification: PF07E
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology _ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes— ✓ _ No
Are Vegetation Soil _ or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 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 feet )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Thuja plicata
15
YES FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
15
30 feet
= Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2.
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 feet )
UPL species x 5 =
1 Phalaris arundinacea
25
YES FACW
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2 Ranunculus repens 10 YES FAC
3 Tolmiea menziesii 10 YES FAC
4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
✓ Dominance Test is >50%
-
Prevalence Index is :53.0'
5.
6
7.
Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
8.
Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
9
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
10.
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
11.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
45
=Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10 feet )
1 Hedera helix
80
YES FACU
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ✓ No
2
80
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: DPI
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc'
Texture Remarks
0-7 10YR 2/1 100
SALO Saturated during investigation
7-12 2.5Y 3/2 90
2.5Y 4/3 10
SALO Saturated during investigation
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all
LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ 2 cm Muck (Al0)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
✓ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Redox Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (Al) _
Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA
Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2)
1, 2, 4A, and 413)
4A, and 4B)
✓ Saturation (A3)
Salt Crust (1311)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Water Marks (131)
Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (133)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (135)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No _ ✓
_ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: 901 Bell Street (Parcel #00434206603800) City/County: Incorporated City of Edmonds, WA Sampling Date: 2/10/2022
Applicant/Owner: Tim and Tess Healy (Applicants/ Owners) State: WA Sampling Point: DP2
Investigator(s): Scott Spooner (Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc.) Section, Township, Range: S24, T27N, R03E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 30
Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.811578' Long: -122.366479' Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology _ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes— ✓ _ No
Are Vegetation Soil _ or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 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 feet )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Acer macrophyllum
50
YES FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
2 Thuja plicata 40 YES FAC
3.
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
90
30 feet
= Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 17 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 Ilex aquifolium
10
YES FACU
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2 Prunus laurocerasus
10
YES NOL/UPL
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
3 Oemleria cerasiformis 5 NO FACU
4 Lonicera involucrata 5 NO FAC
5.
30
= Total Cover
FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 feet )
UPL species x 5 =
1 Polystichum munitum
10
YES FACU
Column Totals: (A) (B)
2.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.
4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ Dominance Testis >50%
Prevalence Index is :53.0'
5
6
7.
Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
8.
Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
9
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
10.
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
11.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
10
=Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10 feet )
1 Hedera helix
95
YES FACU
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No ✓
2
95
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' LocZ
Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR 3/3 100
SALO Moist during investigation
8-12 2.5Y 3/3 100
SALO Moist during investigation
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all
LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ 2 cm Muck (Al0)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Redox Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (Al) _
Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA
Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2)
1, 2, 4A, and 413)
4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3)
Salt Crust (1311)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Water Marks (131)
Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (133)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (135)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No _ ✓
_ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0
Wetland name or number Wetland A
RATING SUMMARY - Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland A (Healy Property) Date of site visit: 1/7/2022
Rated by Scott Spooner (Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc.) Trained by Ecology?__ Yes No Date of training 10/05 & 4/15
HGM Class used for rating Slope Wetland has multiple HGM classes?Y N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map Google Earth
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY Ill (based on functions_ or special characteristics_)
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I — Total score = 23 - 27
Category II — Total score = 20 - 22
Category III —Total score = 16 - 19
Category IV — Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION
Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic
Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential
H M L
H M L
H M) L
Landscape Potential
H M L
H M L
H M L
Value
H M L
HO M L
H M L
TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
6
7
6
19
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC
CATEGORY
Estuarine
I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value
I
Bog
I
Mature Forest
I
Old Growth Forest
I
Coastal Lagoon
I II
Interdunal
I II III IV
None of the above
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H, H, H
8 = H, H, M
7 = H, H, L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
1
Wetland name or number Wetland A
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods
D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods)
D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure)
D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin
D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods
H 1.2
Ponded depressions
R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure)
R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to anotherfigure)
R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin
R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Frinee Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure)
L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
H 1.1, H 1.4
1
Hydroperiods
H 1.2
2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
S 1.3
3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
3
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure)
S 2.1, S 5.1
1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
4
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
S 3.1, S 3.2
5
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
S 3.3
6
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A
SLOPE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every
100 ft of horizontal distance)
Slope is 1% or less points = 3
Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2
0
Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1
Slope is greater than 5% points = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0
0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you
have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher
than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6
2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > % of area points = 3
Dense, woody, plants > % of area points = 2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > % of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above
2
Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12 = H _6-11 = M 1qZ,0-5 = L
Record the rating on the first page
S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?
1
Yes=1 No= 0
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1?
0
Other sources Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above
1
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:V1-2 = M 0 = L
Record the rating on the first page
S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
0
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is
1
on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES
2
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above
3
Rating of Value If score is:Nf 2-4 = H _1= M _0 = L
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015
Record the rating on the first page
11
Wetland name or number Wetland A
SLOPE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate
for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually> 1/$
in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows.
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1
All other conditions points = 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is:1qZ,1= M _0 = L
Record the rating on the first page
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess
surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:N
Z1 = M _0 = L
Record the rating on the first page
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems:
The sub -basin immediately down -gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or
natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
0
Yes=2 No=O
Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above
2
Rating of Value If score is:Nf 2-4 = H _1= M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12
Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches maybe combined for each class to meet the threshold
of Y, cc or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
mergent 3 structures: points = 2
2
crub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
INIThe Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
ermanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
2
Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz.
Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
CD (::::0:)
2
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row ♦..
are HIGH = 3points
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Cheik the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
3
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians)
Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
10
Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H Nf 7-14 = M _0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat0.6 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 0 = 0.6 %
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
0
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 1.0 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]3.3 = 4.3
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
0
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
-2
S 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
-2
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M �< 1 = L
Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Sit meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
Y It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
— It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
— It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
2
— It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
— It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet anypf the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is:Nf 2 = H _1= M _0 = L
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Record the rating on the first page
14
Wetland name or number Wetland A
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http//wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http: //wdfw.wa. govlconservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: 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 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above).
i Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
— Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report -
see web link on previous page).
— Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
— Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
— Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
0
1 zit
6 30' 60' 1 io,
ng
Ap
SCRUB/SHRUB
B/SHRUB CL
ETLAN D A (CAT. III
z
0
Z
C)
co
z
Lu
co
Lr)
-ITFORESTED WITH 3
OUT OF 5 STRATA
STREAM A (SHELL CREEK; TYPE F)qA
WETLAND
BOUNDARY OF AREA WITHIN 150 FEET
1L SCRUB/SHRUB CLASS
-,low WIN FORESTED WITH 3 OUT OF 5 STRATA
PREPARED FOR: WETLAND RATING FORM -FIGURE 1 W&W Job: N21144 MAP
Tim and Tess Healy Drawn By:
(Property Owners) COWARDIN CLASSES WITHIN WETLAND Teddi McFall SHEET:
901 Bell Street HEALY PROPERTY Date: 5/24/2022
Edmonds, WA 98020
WETLANDS WILDLIFE TAX PARCEL #00434206603800 WR1.00
I
E.— �.Ic—.%.g lRevision #: 1 1
0
1 zit
6 30' 60' 1 io,
ATU I jATED ONLY
fETLAND A (CAT.
O*WV F4 Yr
L
Ap
Arm
j;j-
011 FLOODED OR INUNDATED
_7
■
1EAM A (SHELL CREEK; TYPE F
RMANENTLY FLOWING STREAM
WETLAND
NONE SATURATED ONLY SEASONALLY FLOODED OR INUNDATED
PREPARED FOR: WETLAND RATING FORM -FIGURE 2 W&W Job: N21144 MAP
Tim and Tess Healy Drawn By:
(Property Owners) HYDROPERIODS AMONG WETLAND Teddi McFall SHEET:
901 Bell Street HEALY PROPERTY Date: 5/24/2022
Edmonds, WA 98020
WETLANDS WILDLIFE TAX PARCEL #00434206603800 WR2.00
Revision #: 1
0
Z
0 30' 60' 120'
R
Ap
PLANT COVER DENSE, WOODY,
-UNCUT, RIGID PLANTS
fETLAND A (CAT. III
-I- --
(REAM A (SHELL CREEK, TYPE F)W. A.
i \
y [ \
r #
1
WETLAND
PLANT COVER DENSE, WOODY, UNCUT, RIGID PLANTS
WETLANDS WILDLIFE
F i ma c ,,ins.;
PREPARED FOR:
WETLAND RATING FORM --FIGURE 3
W&W Job: N21144
n
MAP
SHEET:
WR3.00
Drawn By:
Teddi McFall
Tim and Tess Healy
(Property Owners)
901 Bell Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
PLANT COVER WITHIN WETLAND
HEALY PROPERTY
TAX PARCEL #00434206603800
Date: 5/24/2022
Revision #: 1
LOW/MODERATE LAND
USE INTENSIT
(>1 ACRE PER HOUSE)
ROJECT S
RELATIVELY
UNDISTURBED
HABITAT
D A (CATEGORY III
.o
o
�
Lu
a W
T
N
0
Z
N
N
O
Z
4
T V
co
N
�
0 500' 1,000' 2,000'
�
cdi
y
3
0(D
o
w
�
o
W
Z
�
w
HIS DASHED CIRCLE
REPRESENTS -1 KM
u-
w 00
=
FROM WETLAND UNIT
~
BOUNDARIES (QUESTION
w
a
H2 ON RATING FORM)
u
M
Z
�_ 4t
p:
a w
-
a=a
�
a
x
Z
d
J
a
H
�
LOW/MODERATE LAND
wm
3
=
USE INTENSITY
(PARKS, TRAILS, UTILITY CORRIDORS)
c
.6 N
0 ✓ O
O N
Ul N o0
LL 2 C N 01
v0k3
ELATIVELY
y a,
NDISTURBEDLu
a 00
o
ABITAT
a 0 � E
WETLAND
RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED HABITAT
HIGH LAND USE INTENSITY
(<1 ACRE PER HOUSE) LOW/MODERATE LAND USE INTENSITY
ACCESSIBLE RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED HABITAT
ACCESSIBLE LOW/MODERATE LAND USE HABITAT
NOTE: ALL UNHATCHED AREAS ARE INTENDED TO REPRESENT HIGH INTENSITY LAND USE
Water Quality Atlas
❑ ❑
Field-=: t:
Sn 'horrxish \
i haukiIteot
303(d) LISTED WATERS
WITHIN BASIN
❑ •�Ft mon
�,,�,�Yl�• j Es'•F
I nj Ll nrj h ❑
f
L
�.
L dI L
!� Park •l
{ Lynnw d
:,, : •.
APPROX. LOCATION OF PROJECT AREA
P:1 a r•.
Ill = . �, I � ti\ '•�
KING
III fe
horeline _,linvIle
SL
` F,l ......r..... f Rln C,
F k f :Hill
tbre8l
KiriVS7M
hite
❑ Kirkland Redq)A
rti ' f N1 L
:' :..., j
Bndle arrmor J
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,, USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and
Miles
0 2 4 8
O
O
d W Lri
Q W
�N3
N
Assessed Water/Sediment
Z
N
O
N
14
Water
$
cc U
-
o
Category 5 - 303d
Category 4C
o
o
Category 41B
Ln
Category 4A
LLI
N
Category 2
W
w
Category 1o0
LL.
3 00
Sediment
® Category 5 - 303d
Ln H o
® Category 4C
Q
J w
® Category 4B
O 1-
® Category 4A
C a CD
M
Category 2
p a w
® Category 1
~O =
Subbasins (12 digit HUCs)
0
= a
z
ax
LU
I� HUC boundary
Q
w
tN
0
N
0
R(ODGJ i -W .O
11
2 c v tT
p
�03Na
a�Lm-0
w V
r2
LLJ
�a�c
0
E a E
w
W
w
a
AL
DEPARTMENT OF
�11111 ECOLOGY
State of Washington
z va
a
Ey
w
3
0
�o
0- W
Water Quality Atlas
: N 3
�
�
N
P WQ Improvement Projects
Z
�
N
O
N
fj #Approved
o
ao ULin
c
f In Development
s
Subbasins (12 digit HUC )
O HUC boundary
W
Lu
r.l�_Itln,
>
w
>
LL
a~00
~ >
- - Hill .-
O
N
Q w v
M
w a
z
~
L
L
z
Q J
LLI
U
LL U w
Fo monds
O l.0 Qa
p O X
Z
t._ APPROX. LOCATION OF PROJECT AREA
A1our,.,.., -
Q
N a H
Es
J
W
z
- -- -
w
--
3U
V1
/ I 11,II
' horeline
La ke
j Forest
O
o
ra 'z o
(v
Park
LL
a a, 00
x c w rn
LLJ
Eao E
W
W
green Kirkland F.�-dI
Lalas�'+
LEO'
tea-
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,, USGS, tVIIIOS
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri 0 2 4 8 �' DEPARTMENT OF
�i1
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and ECOLOGY
II--1 .
State of Washington
Z A
Qi
1.4
F+
W
NOTE: THE ENTIRE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ENCUMBERED BY THE STANDARD
OVERRIDING BUFFER ASSOCIATED WITH WETLAND A AND STREAM A (SHELL
CREEK). SEE THE ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREAS REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION
0
Z
0 10' 20' 40'
WETLAND
STREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK Et FLOW DIRECTION
0 EXISTING SLATTED DECKS AND RAILINGS (TO BE REMOVED)
- EXISTING GRAVEL AND PARKING
- EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALKS AND/OR ASPHALT STREET
EXISTING STONE PAVER WALKWAY
PROPOSED DECK (SLATTED Et UNCOVERED)
• EXISTING CULVERT INLET
X-X PROPOSED TESC BMP'S (SILT FENCE)
0 DATA POINT LOCATIONS (2 TOTAL)
STREAM A (SHELL CREEK, TYPE F ANADROMOUS FISH -BEARING STREAM);
ONLY THE ON -SITE SOUTHERN OHWM WAS DELINEATED FOR THIS PROJECT
APPROX. EX. WOODEN
BOARD FENCE
PROPOSED 2ND-STORY DECK;
SLATTED AND UNCOVERED (280 SF);
ENTIRELY WITHIN EXISTING
DECK FOOTPRINT
APPROX. EX. STONE PAVER WALKWAY
APPROX. EX. WOODEN STAI
APPROX. EX. SLATTED WALKWA
APPROX. EX. GRAVEL
APPROX. EX. WOODEN_
BOARD FENCE
EXISTING DECKS (TOTAL SF); INCLUDES LANDING
564
PROPOSED DECK (TOTAL SF)
280
PROPOSED DECK AREA DIFFERENCE (NET REDUCTION)
-284
PROP. DECK OUTSIDE OF EX. DECKS AND PAVERS (SF)
0
APPROX.
LOCATION OF
EX. STAIRS
APPROX.
LOCATION OF
EX. SHED
APPROX.
LOCATION OF
EX. STEPS
(WALKWAY)
EX. CULVERT INLET
�EX.
STORMWATER PIPE OUTFALL .
APPROX. LOCATION OF EX. RETAINING®
WALL (NO CHANGES PROPOSED)
EX. DECKS AND RAILINGS
(564 SF); TO BE REMOVED
APPROX. FOOTPRINT OF
EX. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDEN
(INCLUDING OVERHANGS)
1
f—
STREAM A (SHELL CREEK, TYPE F ANADROMOUS
FISH -BEARING STREAM); ONLY THE ON -SITE
SOUTHERN OHWM WAS DELINEATED FOR THIS
PROJECT
WETLAND A (CATEGORY III); ONLY THE ON -SITE SOUTHERN
WETLAND BOUNDARY WAS DELINEATED FOR THIS PROJECT;
WETLAND EXTENDS OFF -SITE APPROXIMATELY AS DEPICTED
APPROX. PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TAX PARCEL
0043420603800), PER SNOHOMISH COUNTY PDS MAPS
NOTE: TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (TESC) BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S) SUCH AS SILT FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED
ALONG THE ENTIRE DOWN -GRADIENT EDGE OF THE PROPOSED MINOR
TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACT AREA; THE TESC BMP'S WILL BE MAINTAINED FOR
PROPER FUNCTION AND REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL SOIL IS SUFFICIENTLY
STABILIZED TO MINIMIZE EROSION OR SEDIMENATION; SEE REPORT
PROX. EX. CONCRETE WALKWAY
W O
0. LLJ
N
N O
z J N
—o °o Ln c
0
dd 3a � '>
3 00) o )
a
0
Waco
M
N
Q Z %0
0
LLJ N
OC W M
1 LL o
u0LLI
W
� u �
W
0 W
a � z
Q J
� w
a p
a
a
w O Q
= Z
> O
N
a a+ O
0 v a, ar co
LL.LLJ x c v o•
o v0�3
~ Z d
N
m
a a� c
LLI 0
Earn E
W
=zoL�
Ca 4 3o
a^ 3
w�L3"' �
35
O al N z
IBELL STREET v N v 3
° c °0 0 0
E
W
w
w
a
Q<
NOTES: THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY, EXISTING SITE FEATURES, AND CRITICAL AREAS LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THIS MAP WERE NOT DERIVED FROM A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEY. THE ON -SITE WETLAND AND OHWM BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON
ter.
>3
THIS MAP WERE DELINEATED IN THE FIELD BY WETLANDS Ft WILDLIFE, INC. USING INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND METHODS. THE ON -SITE WETLAND AND OHWM BOUNDARIES WERE THEN LOCATED USING FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND COMPASS
BEARINGS FROM KNOWN POINTS FOR PLACEMENT ON THIS MAP. OFF -SITE CRITICAL AREAS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE, BASED ON VISUAL OBSERVATION ONLY, AND HAVE NOT BEEN ACCURATELY DELINEATED OR LOCATED DUE TO A LACKQ
W
OF LEGAL ACCESS TO OFF -SITE PRIVATE PROPERTIES. THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION FOR THEIR EVALUATION / REVIEW. NO OTHER USE IS INTENDED AT THIS TIME. PLEASE NOTE
THAT WETLANDS £t WILDLIFE, INC. DOES NOT PROVIDE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING SERVICES. PLEASE SEE COBALT GEOSCIENCES, LLC'S LIMITED GEOLOGIC EVALUATION REPORT DATED OCTOBER 19, 2021 FOR MORE INFORMATION
w
REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO THIS PROJECT. IF ANY QUESTIONS ARISE REGARDING THIS MAP, PLEASE CONTACT WETLANDS Et WILDLIFE, INC. DIRECTLY.
3