Loading...
BLD2023-0727 FOR REFERENCE ONLY GeoTech and Wetland Reports - Angler's CRossingGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PARK PROPERTY 183XX OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON L&A Job No. 5A108 Date: September 12, 2005 Prepared for: The McNaughton Group P. O. Box 100 Edmonds, WA 98020 Prepared By: Liu & Associates, Inc. 19213 Kenlake Place NE Kenmore, Washington 98028 Exhibit Files KIn p_n9_1Ia R. pan_nr,_1-z7 LIUINC. Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Geology Earth Science September 12, 2005 Mr. Andy Reaves The McNaughton Group P. O. Box 100 Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Reaves: Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Park Property 183xx Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Washington L&A Job No. 5A108 INTRODUCTION We have completed a geotechnical engineering study for the subject plat site, located the above address in Edmonds, Washington. The general location of the subject site is shown on Plate 1 — Vicinity Map. We understand that the proposed development for the site is to plat it into 26 single-family residential building lots with supporting infrastructure. The purpose of this study is to characterize the subsurface conditions of the site and provide geotechnical recommendations for grading, slope stabilization, erosion mitigation, surface and ground water drainage control, foundation design and construction, etc., for the proposed development of the site. Presented in this report are our findings and recommendations. PROJECT DESCRIPTION For our use in this study, you provided us with a plat plan of the proposed development of the site. According to this plan, the project will include 26 single-family residential building lots, roadways, stormwater detention and drainage facilities, and underground utilities. We understand that grading for roadways and building lots of the proposed development will require 19213 Kenlake Place NE • Kenmore, Washington 98028 Phone (425) 483-9134 • Fax (425) 486-2746 September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 2 cutting down the high ground over the southern pan -handle area and filling up the central and northeastern gully areas. The depth of cut and fill may be up to 10 to 15 feet. A stormwater detention vault will be constructed in the northeast corner area of the site. SCOPE OF SERVICES Our scope of services for this study comprises specifically the following: 1 Review the geologic and soil conditions at the site based on a published geologic map. 2. Explore the site for subsurface conditions with backhoe test pits to a firm bearing soil stratum or to the maximum depth (about 12 feet) capable of by the backhoe used in excavating the test pits, whichever occurs first. 3. Perform necessary geotechnical analyses, and provide geotechnical recommendations for site grading, slope stabilization, erosion mitigation, surface and ground water drainage control, and foundation design and construction, based on subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits and results of our geotechnical analyses. 4. Prepare a written report to present our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The subject site is an irregularly -shaped tract of land, bounded by Olympic View Drive to the east and 80"' Avenue West to the west, and is adjoined by residential developments to the north and south. It is situated on the eastern fringe of a broad, northerly trending plateau surrounded by steep slopes to its north and east. Traversing the middle of the southern panhandle of the site is a narrow, gentle to nearly -level, ridge top trending down steeply northeasterly. This ridge top is Ranked by an easterly -descending steep slope to its east and a northerly trending steep gully to its west. Occupying about the southern half of the western panhandle of the site is a gentle high September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 3 bench bordered by a steep, northeasterly -trending, steep gully to its north. The ridge top and high bench areas are very -gently sloped to almost level, the gully banks are up to 83% grade and the eastern steep slope is up to 134% grade. The site is currently occupied by three single-family residences over its northern half. We understand that these residences will be demolished for the proposed development of the site. The areas immediately surrounding the existing residences are cleared and landscaped. The remaining area of the site is heavily wooded with dense underbrush. GEOLOGIC SETTING The Geologic Map of the Eastern Half and Part of the Western Half Quadrangles, Washington, by James P. Minard, published by U. S. Geological Survey in 1983, was referenced for the geologic and soil conditions of the lot. According to this publication, the surficial soil units at and in the vicinity of the lot are mapped as Vashon Till (Qvt) underlain by Advance Outwash (Qva). The geology of the Puget Sound Lowland has been modified by the advance and retreat of several glaciers in the past and subsequent deposits and erosion. The latest glacier advanced to the Puget Sound Lowland is referred to as the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, which has occurred during the later stages of the Pleistocene Epoch and retreated from the region some 14,500 years ago. The Vashon till soil unit is deposited directly by glacial ice during the most recent glacial period as it advanced over an eroded, irregular surface of older formations and sediments. It is a very dense mixture of unsorted clay, silt, sand, gravel, and scattered cobbles and boulders, often referred to as "hard pan". The Vashon till over the top two to four feet is normally weathered to a September 12, 2005 Part: Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 4 medium -dense state, and is moderately permeable and compressible. The underlying fresh till is very dense and is practically impervious to stormwater infiltration. The fresh till has the strength of low-grade concrete and can stand in a steep natural or cut slope for a long period. If remains undisturbed and well -drained, the fresh till can provide excellent foundation support with little settlement expected. The advance outwash soil unit underlying the Vashon till is composed of stratified sand and gravel with minor amounts of silt and clay, deposited by the meltwater of advancing glacial ice. Due to its generally granular composition, the advance outwash is of moderate permeability and generally drains well. The advance outwash is glacially overridden and is generally dense to very dense in its natural, undisturbed state, except the top 3 to 5 feet where exposed on slopes which may be eroded and weathered to a loose to medium -dense state. The advance outwash deposits can stand in steep cuts or natural slopes for extended period of time when undisturbed. Where exposed on slopes of poor vegetation cover and subjected to storm runoff, the advance outwash deposits can be gradually eroded and may slough to a flatter inclination. The advance outwash deposits in their native, undisturbed state can provide very good foundation support with little settlement expected for light to moderate residential structures. SOIL CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions of the site were explored with eight test pits spread throughout the site. The test pits were excavated on August 8, 2005, with a track -mounted backhoe to depths from 6.5 to 11.2 feet. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on Plate 2 - Site and Exploration Location Plan. The test pits were located with either a tape measure or by visual reference to existing topographic features in the field and on the topographic survey map, and their locations should be considered only accurate to the measuring method used. September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 5 A geoteehnical engineer from our office was present during subsurface exploration, who examined the soil and geologic conditions encountered and completed logs of test pits. Soil samples obtained from each soil unit in the test pits were visually classified in general accordance with United Soil Classification System, a copy of which is presented on Plate 3. Detailed descriptions of soils encountered during site exploration are presented in test pit logs on Plates 4 through 7. The site is generally mantled by a layer of loose, organic topsoil, which is underlain by a layer of light -brown to light -gray weathered soils of loose to medium -dense, silty to clean, fine to medium sand, except that the topsoil in the northeastern area of the site appeared to have been stripped, exposing the weathered soils. The topsoil generally varies from 1.0 to 2.8 feet thick, while the weathered soil layer from about 2.0 to 5.0 feet thick. The layer of weathered soils is mostly underlain by a light -gray to light -brown advance outwash deposit of medium -dense to dense, mostly clean and occasionally slightly silty, fine to medium sand, with a trace to some gravel, to the depth explored. Occasionally over the high ground areas a layer of light -brown to light -gray glacial drift of dense to very -dense, weakly -cemented, gravelly, silty, fine to medium sand was found, as encountered by Test Pits 5 and 7, sandwiched between the layer of weathered soils and the advance outwash deposit. This glacial drift deposit, about 3.0 feet thick, is till -like but not as packed as glacial till. GROUNDWATER CONDITION Groundwater was encountered by only one (Test Pit 3) of the eight test pits excavated on the site. Test Pits 3, excavated near the northeast corner of the site, encountered a static groundwater table at 6.0 feet below the existing ground surface. This groundwater appeared to be groundwater perched over an impervious silty and clay deposit underlying the advance outwash deposit. The September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 6 groundwater table would rise and fall seasonally within the advance outwash deposit, depending on precipitation, surface runoff, ground vegetation cover, site utilization, and other factors. DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL Based on the soil conditions encountered from our subsurface explorations, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development from the geotechnical engineering viewpoint, provided that the recommendations in this report are fully implemented and observed during and following construction of the proposed development of the site. Due to the sensitive nature of the steep slopes within the site, we recommend that the grading and foundation construction work proceed and be completed during the dryer period from April 1 through October 31 of the year. Erosion protection measures should be in place and the site should be stabilized outside of this diy grading period. The topsoil and unsuitable loose weathered soils in the root zone should be completely stripped within the roadways, the building pads and in areas where the subgrade soils are to support structural or traffic load. The underlying fresh glacial drift and advance outwash soils are dense to very -dense, and are capable of providing adequate foundation support to the proposed roadways and buildings. Conventional footing foundations placed on or into the underlying dense to very -dense glacial drift soils or the dense advance outwash soils, or on structural fill constructed over these competent basal soils may be used for supporting the houses to be constructed on the site. Structural fill, if required for site grading, should be placed on proof -rolled, unyielding, undisturbed, dense to very -dense glacial drift and advance outwash soils following the stripping of the surficial unsuitable soils. September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 7 The on -site topsoil and weathered till soils contain a high percentage of fines, and are sensitive to moisture. They can also be saturated quickly and disturbed easily during extended periods of heavy rainstorms. Curtain drains or ditches may be installed along the upslope boundaries of the site, as required, to intercept and drain surface runoff and near -surface perched groundwater flow away from construction areas and to minimize soil erosion and to facilitate grading and construction work. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Landslide Hazard The dense to very -dense glacial drift and the dense advance outwash soils underlying the site at shallow depths are of moderately high to high shear strength and have good to excellent resistance against slope failures. These competent soils should make it unlikely for deep-seated landslides to occur on the site. Erosion Hazard The surficial topsoil and loose weathered soils are of low resistance against erosion. These weak surficial soils exposed on the steeper portions of the site void of vegetation cover can be eroded easily if overly saturated. Soil erosion can result in slope failures. To mitigate such potential, the vegetation cover outside of construction limits should not be disturbed and unpaved finished ground within the site should be landscaped and re -vegetated as soon as possible. Concentrated stormwater should not be discharged onto the ground anywhere within the site. Stormwater over impervious surfaces, such as roofs and roadways, should be captured by underground drain line systems or catch basins and tightlined to discharge into a storm sewer or a suitable stormwater disposal facility. Yard waste and spoil soils should not be disposed of onto the steep slopes within the site. September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 8 Seismic Hazard and Design Considerations The Puget Sound region is in an active seismic zone. The site is underlain at shallow depth by dense to very -dense glacial drift and dense advance outwash soils of moderately high to high shear strength. Most of the site is lack of groundwater at shallow depth. The combination of the above make it rather unlikely for seismic hazards, such as liquefaction or soil lateral spreading, to occur on the site during strong earthquakes. Therefore, the seismic hazard should be minimal for the site. The residential buildings to be constructed on the site, however, should be designed to withstand seismic forces induced by strong earthquakes. Based on the soil conditions encountered by the test pits, it is our opinion that Seismic Use Group I and Site Class D should be used in the seismic design of the proposed residences in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code (IBC). SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL GRADING The existing structures on the site to be demolished should also have their foundations completely removed. The vegetation within construction limits should be cleared and their roots thoroughly grubbed. Topsoil and loose weathered soils should be stripped within the roadways, building pads and in areas where structural fill is to be placed. The exposed soils after the above stripping and removal should be compacted to a non -yielding state with a vibratory roller compactor and proof -rolled with a fully loaded dump truck or water truck. During construction, storm runoff should be intercepted with ditches or curtain drains, as required, and conveyed into temporary storage and settling ponds to minimize soil erosion and to facilitate site grading work. The on -site surficial soils contain a high percentage of fines and are sensitive to moisture. A layer of clean quarry spalls placed over excavated areas and areas of frequent traffic may be required to protect the subgrade soils from disturbance by construction traffic. Silt fences should be erected along the downslope boundaries of the site to prevent sediments being transported September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 9 onto adjoining properties or the streets by storm runoff. The bottom of filter fabric of the silt fence should be anchored in a trench filled with gravel. EXCAVATION AND FILL SLOPES Under no circumstance should excavation slopes be steeper than the limits specified by local, state and federal safety regulations if workers have to perform construction work in excavated areas. Unsupported temporary cuts greater than 4 feet in height should be no steeper than IH:1 V in the surficial topsoil and weathered soils and, and no steeper than 1 /2H:1 V in the light -brown to light -gray very -dense glacial drift soils or the light -gray to gray dense advance outwash soils. Permanent cut banks should be no steeper than 2H:1 V in the weathered soils and no steeper than 1-1 /2H:1 V in the underlying dense to very -dense glacial drift or the dense advance outwash soils. The soil units and the stability of cut banks should be verified by a geotechnical engineer during excavation. Permanent fill embankments required to support structural or traffic load should be constructed with compacted structural fill placed over undisturbed, proof -rolled, firm, native till or outwash soils after the surficial unsuitable soils are completely stripped. Permanent fill to be placed over slopes steeper than 20 percent grade should be retained structurally. The exposed ground exceeding 20 percent grade should be benched with vertical steps not exceeding 4 feet tall prior to placing structural fill. The slope of permanent fill embankments should be no steeper than 2H:IV. Upon completion, the sloping face of permanent fill embankments should be thoroughly compacted to a non -yielding state with a hoe -pack. The above recommended cut and fill slopes are under the assumption that groundwater seepage is not to be encountered during construction. If groundwater seepage is encountered, the construction should be immediately halted and the slope stability re-evaluated. The slopes may September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 10 have to be flattened and other measures taken to stabilize the slopes. Surface runoff should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of cut or fill slopes. Permanent cut slopes or fill embankments should be vegetated as soon as possible for long-term stability, and should be covered with plastic sheets, as required, to provide erosion protection from stormwater until the vegetation is fully established. STRUCTURAL FILL Structural fill is the fill that supports structural or traffic load. Structural fill should consist of clean soils with particles not larger than four inches and should be free of organic and other deleterious substances. Structural fill should have a moisture content within one percent of its optimum moisture content at the time of placement. The optimum moisture content is the water content in the soil that enable the soil to be compacted to the highest dry density for a given compaction effort. The on -site clean advance outwash deposit of gravelly fine to coarse sand is suitable for use as structural, while the clean silty sand soils may be used for structural fill only under fair weather conditions when their moisture content can be controlled to near optimum moisture content at the time of placement. Imported material to be used as structural fill, should be clean, free -draining, granular soils containing no more than 5 percent by weight finer than the No. 200 sieve based on the fraction of the material passing No. 4 sieve, and should have individual particles not larger than four inches. The ground over which structural fill is to be placed should be prepared in accordance with recommendations in the SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL GRADING and EXCAVATION AND FILL SLOPES sections of this report. Structural fill should be placed in lifts no more than 10 inches thick in its loose state, with each lift compacted to a minimum percentage of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor Method) as follows: September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 11 Application Within building pads of the building lots Roadway/driveway subgrade Retaining wall backfill Utility trench backfill STORMWATER DETENTION VAULT % of Maximum Dry Densi 95% 95% for top 3 feet and 90% below 90% 95% for top 4 feet and 90% below A concrete, below -grade vault is to be constructed in a low-lying area at the northeast corner of the site to store on -site stormwater. Test Pit 3, closest to the vault site, encountered a dense advance outwash deposit of fine to coarse sand at about 2 feet and a groundwater table at about 6 feet below existing grade. Dewatering will be required if the vault is to be buried more than 5 to 6 feet deep. Dewatering wells around the perimeter of the vault should be installed to draw down groundwater table for the construction of the vault. Due to potential high groundwater in the area of the detention vault, concrete construction joints between footing foundations and wall stems should be sealed with water -stops to prevent groundwater from seeping into the vault through the joints. Footing foundations of the vault will be seated into the light -gray, dense advance outwash soils, and an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,500 psf may be used for the design of the vault footing foundations. A layer of 2-inch-minus crushed rock should be placed over the footing bearing soils, as required, to provide a dry working surface and to protect the soils from disturbance by construction traffic. A drain line consisting of perforated, rigid PVC, drain pipe or slotted, corrugated ADS, drain pipe, at least 6 inches in diameter, should be installed at a few inches below bottom of the perimeter footings of the vault walls to intercept and drain away groundwater which may flow towards the vault. The drain line should be sloped at one-half percent minimum to generate flow by gravity, and water collected in the drain line should be tightlined to discharge into a storm September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 12 sewer or a suitable stormwater disposal facility. The drain line should be completely embedded in washed gravel wrapped in a layer of non -woven filter fabric, such as 140N by Mirafi Inc. or approved equal. A vertical drainage blanket at least 12 inches thick, consisting of compacted pea gravel or washed gravel, should be placed against the perimeter vault walls. Alternatively, a vertical drain mat, such as Miradrain 6000 by Mirafi Inc. or equivalent, may be placed against the perimeter vault walls as the vertical drainage blanket. The vertical drainage blanket or drain mat should be hydraulically connected to the drain line at the base of the perimeter walls. Sufficient number of cleanouts at strategic locations should be installed for periodical cleaning of the vault wall drain line to prevent clogging. The perimeter walls of the detention vault will also serve as retaining walls to support cut banks and backfill. The perimeter walls of the vault capped with a lid would be restrained at their top from horizontal movement and should be designed for at -rest lateral soil pressure. For the condition that groundwater behind the perimeter vault walls can be fully drained by the drain line provided at the base of the walls, we recommend an at -rest soil pressure of 50 pcf equivalent fluid density (EFD) be used for the design of vault perimeter walls. To counter the at -rest, a passive lateral soil pressure of 400 pcf EFD may be used, except that the passive pressure within the top 12 inches of the finish subgrade should be ignored. The at -rest soil pressure may also be resisted by the friction force between the footings and the subgrade soils based on a coefficient of friction of 0.60. If the site grade is such that it is not feasible to completely drain groundwater behind the vault walls with a gravity drain line system, the hydrostatic pressure on the perimeter vault walls should also be taken into consideration for the design of the vault perimeter walls. For the condition that a perimeter drain line has to be placed higher than the footing level, the perimeter vault walls should be designed for a lateral soils pressure of 50 pcf EFD above the drain line September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 13 level and a combined lateral soil and hydrostatic pressure of 80 pcf EFD below the drain line level. The above lateral pressures on the walls may be countered by a passive soil pressure of 400 pcf EFD above the drain line and 225 pcf EFD The detention vault should also be designed for seismic loading based on a 100-year seismic event. For seismic design of the detention vault walls, a pseudo static soil pressure diagram of inverted triangle from the ground level to the bottom of the foundations should be used. Based on the soil condition encountered by Test pit 3, we recommend the pressure at the top of the triangle be 7H psf for a 100-year seismic event, where H is the height from ground surface to bottom of vault walls in feet. A one-third increase in the above recommended allowable soil bearing pressure may be used when considering the seismic loading condition. The above design parameters are unfactored ultimate values. Proper factors of safety should be applied for the design of the vault walls against sliding and overturning failures. GROUNDWATER PICKUP INTO DETENTION VAULT Groundwater is not encountered in any test pits, except Test Pit 3 located in the low-lying, northeast corner area of the site. If water -stops are used in concrete construction joints of the detention vault, groundwater pickup by the vault may not be considered in the design of the vault capacity. The site is mostly underlain by sand -dominated advance outwasli soils of moderately high permeability which would allow stormwater to seep into the ground easily. It is unlikely that there will be groundwater intercepted by and flowing in the footing drains of the houses to be constructed on the site. Therefore, it is our opinion that pickup of water from house footing drains by the detention vault needs not to be considered for the design of the capacity of the vault. September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 14 BUILDING SETBACK The purpose of building setback from the top or toe or an overly steep portion of a slope is to establish a safe buffer such that if a slope failure should occur the stability of the structure can be maintained and damages to the structure minimized. To maintain stability of the houses to be construction on the site, we recommend that it be set back at least 20 feet from the crest of slopes of 40% or steeper grade. The horizontal distance from the edge of footing foundations to the face of the steep slope should be at least 25 feet. Also, the footing foundations should be embedded at least one foot into the dense to very -dense glacial drift or dense advance outwash soils. The footprint bearing soils should be verified by a geotechnical engineer after the excavation of the building footprints are completed. BUILDING FOUNDATIONS Conventional footing foundations may be used for supporting the buildings to be constructed on the site. The footing foundations should be placed on or into undisturbed, dense to very -dense glacial drift soils or dense advance outwash soils, or on compacted structural fill constructed over these competent basal soils. Water should not be allowed to accumulate in excavated footing trenches. Disturbed soils in footing trenches should be completely removed or thoroughly re - compacted prior to pouring concrete for the footings. If the above recommendations are followed, our recommended design criteria for footing foundations are as follows: Allowable soil bearing pressure, including dead and live loads, should be no greater than 3,000 psf for footings constructed on or into the dense to very -dense glacial drift soils or dense advance outwash soils, and no more than 2,500 psf on structural fill constructed over these competent basal soils. The footing bearing soils should be verified on -site by a September 12. 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 15 geotechnical engineer after the footing trenches have been excavated and before the footings are poured. • The minimum depth to bottom of perimeter footings below adjacent final exterior grade Should be no less than 18 inches. The minimum depth to bottom of the interior footings below top of floor slab should be no less than 12 inches. O The minimum width should be no less than 16 inches for continuous footings, and no less than 24 inches for individual footings. A one-third increase in the above recommended allowable soil bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term, transitory, wind or seismic loads. For footing foundations designed and constructed per recommendations above, we estimate that the maximum total post - construction settlement of the buildings should be 3/4 inch or less and the differential settlement across building width should be 1/2 inch or less. Lateral loads on buildings can be resisted by the friction force between the foundations and the subgrade soils or the passive earth pressure acting on the below -grade portion of the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against undisturbed soils or backfilled with a clean, free -draining, compacted structural fill. We recommend that an equivalent fluid density (EFD) of 350 pef (pounds per cubic foot) for the passive earth pressure be used for lateral resistance. The above passive pressure assumes that the backfill is level or inclines upward behind the foundations for a horizontal distance at least twice the depth of the foundations below final grade. A coefficient of friction of 0.60 between the foundations and the subgrade soils may be used. These are unfactored values, and a proper factor of safety should be used in calculating the resisting forces against lateral loads on the buildings. September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A 108 Page 16 SLAB -ON -GRADE FLOORS Slab -on -grade floors, if used, should be placed on firm subgrade prepared as outlined in the SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL EARTHWORK and the STRUCTURAL FILL sections of this report. Where moisture control is critical, the slab -on -grade floors should be placed on a capillary break which is in turn placed on the compacted subgrade. The capillary break_ should consist of a minimum four -inch -thick layer of free -draining gravel or crushed rock containing no more than 5% by weight passing the No. 4 sieve. We recommend that a vapor barrier, such as a 6-mil plastic membrane, be placed over the capillary break to keep moisture from migrating upwards. ROADWAY PAVEMENT Performance of roadway pavement is critically related to the conditions of the underlying subgrade. We recommend that the subgrade soils within the roadways be treated and prepared as described in the SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL EARTHWORK section of this report. Prior to placing base material, the subgrade soils should be compacted to a non -yielding state with a vibratory roller compactor and proof -rolled with a piece of heavy construction equipment, such as a fully -loaded dump truck. Any areas with excessive weaving or deflection should be over -excavated and re -compacted or replaced with a structural fill or crushed rock placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided in the STRUCTURAL FILL section of this report. We recommend that an 6-inch-thick minimum, compacted, crushed rock base (CRB), consisting of 7/8-inch-minus crushed rock, be used for the roadways. Such crushed rock base may replaced with a 2-to-3-inch layer of leveling course of 7/8-inch-minus crushed rock_ if the roadway is based on cuts into undisturbed, native, dense to very -dense glacial drift soils or dense advance outwash soils. The crushed rock or subgrade base should be topped with 3-inch asphalt treated base (ATB) topped by 2-inch-thick Class B asphalt concrete (AC). September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 17 SITE DRAINAGE Infiltration Trenches The site is mostly underlain by sand -dominated advance outwash deposit of moderately high permeability. Infiltration trenches may, therefore, be used for on -site stormwater disposal except in the low-lying northeast corner of the site where high winter groundwater table may prohibit the use of infiltration trenches. Infiltration trenches, if used, should be set back at least 15 feet from the crests of steep slopes of 40% grade or steeper. We estimate that the permeability of the advance outwash deposit underlying the site would be at least 30 iph (inches per hour). The actual in -situ infiltration rate of infiltration trenches may be affected by sediment of fine-grained soils, deep plant roots, etc. To account for the influence by these factors, we recommend a design infiltration rate of 7.5 iph be used, which should have a factor of at least 4, for the design of infiltration trenches. Our recommendations for the construction of the infiltration trenches are shown on Plate 8. The bottom of the infiltration trenches should be excavated at least 6 inches into the clean, free - draining advance outwash deposit. In areas where a layer of glacial drift exists, the trenches should be excavated through this glacial drift layer and into the underlying advance outwash deposit. The soils at the bottom of trenches should be verified by a geotechnical engineer during trench excavation. If fine-grained soils are encountered at the bottom of the trenches, they should be over -excavated, thoroughly removed and replaced with free -draining sand, pea gravel or washed gravel. The sides of the trenches should be lined with a layer of non -woven filter fabric. The trenches should be backfilled with clean, free -draining, pea gravel or 1-inch-minus washed gravel to within about 12 inches of finished grade. Perforated PVC pipes of 6-inch diameter minimum, through which storrnwater is to be dispersed into the ground, should be placed level in the trenches and completely embedded in the gravel fill. The perforated PVC pipes should have at least 18 inches of gravel/soil cover to prevent freezing of water in the pipes. The top of the gravel fill should also be covered by the non -woven filter fabric liner. The top 12 inches of the September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 18 trenches may then be backfilled with on -site clean soils to the finish grade. Sufficient numbers of cleanouts at strategic locations should be installed to provide maintenance and periodical cleaning of the perforated PVC pipes to prevent clogging. Site and Roadway Grading The on -site fine-grained surficial soils are of moderately low permeability. The surficial soil can be saturated quickly and heavy runoff and near -surface groundwater may be encountered during periods of heavy rain. To minimize potential difficulties for site grading work due to storm runoff and groundwater seepage during construction, one or more lines of ditches or curtain drains may be installed, as required, to intercept storm runoff and near -surface groundwater flow. Water thus collected should be direct into a temporary storage and settling pond before being released into a suitable stormwater disposal facility. Excavation of Building Footprints and Detention Vault Excavation of building footprints or detention vault, if encountering groundwater, should have the bottom of excavation sloped and ditches excavated along the bases of cut banks to direct groundwater seepage to flow into a sump pit from which water can be pumped out of the pit into a temporary storage and settling pond. A layer of 2-inch crushed rocks should be placed over firm subgrade soils under footings, as required, to protect the soils from disturbance by construction equipment and foot traffic. This crushed rock base should be built to a few inches above groundwater level, but not less than 6 inches thick. The crush rock base should be compacted in 12-inch lifts to a non -yielding state with a vibratory mechanical compactor. Runoff over Impervious Surfaces Storm runoff over impervious surfaces, such as roofs and roadway pavement, should be collected by underground drain line systems connected to downspouts and by catch basins. Stormwater September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 19 thus collected should be tightlined to discharge into a storm sewer or a suitable stormwater disposal facility Building Footing Drains A subdrain should be installed around the perimeter footings of each building to be constructed on the building lots to minimize accumulation of groundwater under the buildings. The subdrains should consist of a 4-inch-minimum-diameter, perforated, rigid, drain pipe, laid a few inches below the bottom of perimeter footings. The trenches and the drain lines should have a sufficient gradient to generate flow by gravity. The drain lines should be embedded in washed gravel completely wrapped in non -woven filter fabric to within about 12 inches of finish grade. The remaining trench may be backfilled with on -site impervious soils. Water collected by the perimeter footing subdrains should be tightlined, separately from the roof and surface stormwater drain systems, to discharge into a storm sewer or a suitable stormwater disposal facility. Sufficient number of cleanouts at strategic locations should be provided for the underground drain line systems. The underground drain line systems should be maintained periodically to prevent clogging. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the specific application to the subject project for the exclusive use by the McNaughton Group, and their associates, consultants and representatives. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the prospective contractors for their estimating and bidding purposes. The conclusions and interpretations in this report, however, should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. The scope of this study does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the September 12, 2005 Park Property L&A Job No. 5A108 Page 20 contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in this report for design considerations. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on soil conditions encountered in the test pits, our engineering analyses, and our experience and engineering judgment. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The actual subsurface conditions encountered during construction may vary from those encountered in the test pits. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction starts. If variations occur then, we should be retained to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report, and to verify or modify them in writing prior to further construction. CLOSURE We are pleased to be of service to you on this project. Please feel free to call us if you have any questions regarding this report or need further consultation. t �l ! 0� 2;v EXPIRES 7 / 7 / Eight plates attached Yours very truly, LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. J. S. (Julian) Liu, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Geotechnical Engineer ]T.H.S3 �I 'M69 vL SN�OSNST, W 172NDST PLay Si SW ��� ST S ^ a aFREDER[CK ?�._ ;_1W Pt 176TH S7 - IlQ� SNOHOMISH rSNO/lOMISfIYI ` �0 pO vL11 1 ' T�tCOU '�. 1�1 n i 111i COUNTY & is7'svFrf+ 11 178TH a qiH _ST 19TH PI PARK I PART `� sPL su si 44 12 SW VIE. / I-- W () 'o180TII MITI NI IUI Si , 8151 PL SN +lt3L� s PROJECT 182Ro � 1B211 $T 1BI$i OVERLOOKPK rPL sN f u Jl -sw lozSw r = d s o SN ST SW D% SITE z -, PL SW C) „ a leant v s n184TH."'r S7—SW_ : n:—- / � t- o > ¢ _185TH ¢ 185TH '< Sr'r Sl rn HUTT f� 10sn, fit=aS85SH P su Sr sN FL SW PL SW Qi JtiF pK 186TH PL S 187TH 186TH ST ¢ SN x > _ �T� �� ie3ie I PL SW 187TpHI ST SW �ty�, s \r. sr sN 3 3 188TH m 1 U ST SW E 3 aeorH sr Sv 3 I ��77`,,L-YIVIYDA 187TI 189TH $` SW 3 s � _- x�3 ��: 188TH 189TH Pl 5N `oln Q a 3 ¢ m `j`j• WAKE PL t9 H ST SW ml a J I 189TH I'a y °t 189 WATER T / - �_ 190TH ST SW PL $u /CHERR i ST ♦90� SvA f o '191sr G PLC o sniiu of 9 l __ 191ST _ST i;PKs� Ig SS 191. �* -- QS 2y rn a r :F;Fu, 3 191ST 1 Si o y 3 9�Ou Q o I t• �1 `' � 92no sPL 192ND ! ST SW � SW t� cZv F y_ _ fR a sW sf 80nt vz ^� 192NO PL SW a 1921D F / ARC SFl ,`� FOREST I m Q r-- r s\�9 w1 0� 6 s oRt Cq 44, O 0 DEL rn ", > x , 193RD PL Q DR I m 119 a PL sN � < a - { a• v SW y �193 D -' PL sr ' 194111 ix 194 T!{ ST i EXCELSIOR 94� 89111 ,A ': PL SW i� 1941tt 3� 3 1947H SW `r ~ l94 PL PL i' a - I PL Iw Sr SW o PL SN 195TH ST = SN Z _ _ 196TH 196TH ST W i y$W 11 PUGEr P UG E ' D R sT sw - ; acoo / 82n MELODY LN WY 2 d Q r = N�Z 1971H 196TH PL SW ' 2 7300 o _ _ "• hfAPLEW00 �'< 197TH ST H[NDLEY V EWLAND WY MILL} �rPA si f S9BSN �, �� J 1 = d HEINZ r = BROOICArERL a:i mi O c a t s T a I 198TH ORS rx, m r y Z 9 Z BROOKFIERE ST '¢ z 19 PH a PLFI'%.;b 3Io PL Su N si sw, 198TH ST SW$ j z ST 9W r -� o ` ^' % 3 0 19 TH ST SW YNNWOOD �SPE' S ST z V[ENMDOR £ y a Nrc�PAL 0OTH-�T—SW- 200 cr�W-fiB ft5 ;; ;ILTNER L,1VISTA 800 lOUWTAIN VISTA Hy/ WY 200TH o ST SW ; 8300 = , zolsT sr sW , r ' - ATER LN PL D R 201ST ST SW ALOfiA �� ¢ a CASCADE 20LSi L J m a DR 202ND 201si PL sN r �OaA `� sr �ALaACAROL ¢ ' SIERRA Ns ,� N 202ND _ > rn a 202ND Si x SW ° ®0 ARTOnL ¢ p ' pL ^ �s zazxo P ¢ Si SW ¢ 202 0 PLSN PL SW a a 'a -_J I} Q GLEN ST E'� SIERRA I ST Sw ,4�' � 2 z05PD � zo1R0 sr sv GLEN sr � < �- - c � , - do S x+3 s � ei sN m203RD ST SW � Q 24 o o,i Q�' J ,` ^ i 20)RD PL SW• )ALEY a J $T v I z' S 204TH n zwm sr su s 19 s :IVIC� Deu o'1°°— J � o m ST SW 3 1�7 0 20ahi = vc 5w '¢ ZOTTNSW C'TRe:<SPRAGUE STvlIF a PLSW CIPJJ sna a a pINEc zostx3 a z05Tx- -AKFIE - HUhN11N 3 = P _ '{ ST SW ^ PL SW T EDMONOS HILL PKi 1 ST BRIDGE; ¢ 206n1 ' m s PK ST SW MID COLlE�61T1 z zwHt « r 1 sWf SELL ST =� ELL Hr = r > �.; 207TH iST 5W g3P. z r ¢ 'RY) 9p/ ST DR 2 7TH PL SN ~� .f 1ri N I SWIAIN ST I PL SW C1 �I C nt �a ,F r I--- o �H 208 �m PLSV _ 9 Y `MY $T 900 -Nlt:�' �i Ec4IfI{r=r' a,. �c s 208TH PL ? C" LYR. S INPLE w }u i:6Ssl� z' US'Te. " 209TH PL Y. :51 $N _ VICINITY MAP LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. PARK PROPERTY 183XX OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Geology Earth Science EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 5A108 1 DATE 9/6/2005 1 PLATE 1 4 n_Rgn ?nP u o our N sz' u UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL GRAVEL CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE- MORE THAN 50% OF GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAVEL WITH GM SILTY GRAVEL GRAINED COARSE FRACTION SOILS RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND MORE THAN 50% MORE THAN 50% OF SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SAND SAND WITH SM SILTY SAND RETAINED ON THE COARSE FRACTION NO, 200 SIEVE PASSING NO. 4 SIEVE FINES SC CLAYEY SAND FINE- SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT CL CLAY GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SOILS LESS THAN 50% MORE THAN 50% SILTY AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY PASSING ON THE LIQUID LIMIT ORGANIC OH ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC SILT NO. 200 SIEVE 50% OR MORE HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. FIELD CLASSIFICATION IS BASED ON VISUAL EXAMINATION DRY - ABSENCE OF MOISTURE, DUSTY, DRY TO OF SOIL IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2488-83. THE TOUCH 2. SOIL CLASSIFICATION USING LABORATORY TESTS IS BASED SLIGHTLY MOIST - TRACE MOISTURE, NOT DUSTY ON ASTM D2487-83. MOIST - DAMP, BUT NO VISIBLE WATER 3. DESCRIPTIONS OF SOIL DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY ARE VERY MOIST - VERY DAMP, MOISTURE FELT TO THE TOUCH BASED ON INTERPRETATION OF BLOW -COUNT DATA, VISUAL WET - VISIBLE FREE WATER OR SATURATED, APPEARANCE OF SOILS, AND/OR TEST DATA. USUALLY SOIL IS OBTAINED FROM BELOW WATER TABLE LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Geology Earth Science PLATE 3 PEST PIT NO. 1 Logged By: JSL Date: 8/8/2005 Ground El. 272.5' ± Depth USCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test SP Young maples, shrubs and brush on surface 1 Light -gray, loose, fine to medium SAND, with roots to 0.5-inch- diameter, slightly moist 2 3 4 5 SP Light -gray, medium -dense, fine to medium SAND, slightly moist 6 (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 7 8 Test pit terminated @ 7.0 ft, groundwater not encountered. 9 10 Logged By: JSL TEST PIT NO. Date: 8/8/2005 9 Ground El. 301.5' ± Depth USCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test SP Light -gray, loose, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, with roots to 1 0.5-inch-diameter, slightly moist 2 Light -gray, dense, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, slightly moist SP 3 (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 4 5 6 7 8 9 Test pit terminated @ 8.0 ft, groundwater not encountered. 10 Geotechnical Engineering - Engineering Geology Earth Science TEST PIT LOGS PARK PROPERTY 183XX OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 5A108 1 DATE 9/5/2005 1 PLATE 4 TEST PIT NO. 3 Logged By: JSL Date: 8/8/2005 Ground El. 267.0' ± Depth USCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test SP Light -gray, loose, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, with fine 1 roots, slightly moist 2 Light -gray, dense, fine to coarse SAND, trace gravel, moist SW 3 (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Test pit terminated @ 9.0 ft, groundwater table 6.0 ft. Logged By: JSL TEST PIT NO. Date: 8/8/2005 II Ground El. 330.5' ± Depth USCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test OL Berry bushes on surface 1 Dark -brown, loose, organic, silty fine SAND, with fine roots, slightly moist (TOPSOIL) SM 2 Light -brown, medium -dense, silty, fine to medium SAND, trace to some gravel, moist 3 4 Gray, dense to very -dense, gravelly, silty, fine to medium SAND, SM 5 moist (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 6 7 8 9 10 SM/SW Gray, dense, slightly silty, fine to coarse SAND, trace gravel, moist 11 (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) Test pit terminated 11.2 ft groundwater not encountered. 12 Geotechnical Engineering • Engineering Geology • Earth Science TEST PIT LOGS PARK PROPERTY 183XX OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 5A108 1 DATE 9/5/2005 1 PLATE 5 TEST PIT NO. 5 Logged By: JSL Date: 8/8/2005 Ground El. 328.0' ± Depth USCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test OL Brush on surface 1 Dark -brown, loose, organic, silty fine SAND, with roots to 0.5-inch- diameter, slightly moist (TOPSOIL) 2 SM Light -brown to light -gray, dense to very -dense, gravelly, silty, fine 3 SAND, weakly -cement and till -like, slightly moist (GLACIAL DRIFT) 4 5 SM/SP Light -brown, dense, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, 6 slightly moist (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 7 8 9 Test pit terminated @ 7.5 ft, groundwater not encountered. 10 TEST PIT NO. 6 Logged By: JSL Date: 8/8/2005 Ground El, 309.0' Depth USCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test OL Brush and young cottonwood on surface 1 Dark -brown, loose, organic, silty fine SAND, with roots to 0.5-inch- diameter, slightly moist (TOPSOIL) 2 SM Light -gray, dense, silty fine SAND, trace to some gravel, slightly moist (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 3 SM/SP Brown, dense, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel and occasional cobble, moist (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 4 5 6 7 8 Test pit terminated @ 6.5 ft, groundwater not encountered. 9 10 Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Geology - Earth Science TEST PIT LOGS PARK PROPERTY 183XX OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 5A108 1 DATE 9/5/2005 1 PLATE 6 PEST PIT NO. 7 Logged By: JSL Date: 8/8/2005 Ground El. 325.5' ± Depth USCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test OL Berry bushes on surface 1 Dark -brown, loose, organic, slightly silty, fine SAND, with abundant fine roots sli htly moist (TOPSOIL) Light -brown, dense, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, weakly - 2 SP cemented and till -like, slightly moist (GLACIAL DRIFT) 3 4 SW Brown, dense, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, moist 5 (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 6 7 8 Test pit terminated @ 7.0 ft, groundwater not encountered. 9 10 Logged By: JSL TEST PIT NO. Date: 8/8/2005 oo Ground El. 320.0' ± Depth USCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test OL Berry bushes on surface 1 Gray, loose, organic, fine to medium SAND, with abundant roots to 0.5-inch-diameter, slightly moist (TOPSOIL) 2 3 SP Light -brown, medium -dense to dense, fine to medium SAND, trace 4 to some gravel, slightly moist (fresh ADVANCE OUTWASH) 5 6 7 8 Test pit terminated @ 7.0 ft, groundwater not encountered. 9 10 Geotechnical Engineering - Engineering Geology • Earth Science TEST PIT LOGS PARK PROPERTY 183XX OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 5A108 I DATE 9/5/2005 1 PLATE 7 V)QL -- y J 4 ~ G I�1 � 1 1 "ll► LIU & ASSOCIATES, ES, INC. I z TYPICAL CROSS SECTION Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Geology • Earth Science INFILTRATION TRENCH JOB NO. r2AO SS 1 DATE cl I i lo S I PLATE .r.._ LW & ASSOCIA.TES5 INC. _ Ueot6C11nlor�l EnglneerinQ —.y_ `ry_ —`"� "� Engineering Geology October 9, 2006 Mr. Andy heaves The Mcblaughton Groap p, 0. Box 100 h;dmurlds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Reaves: Subject: Ceotechnical Evaluation. of New Grading plan Angler's Crossing (formerly park property) 183XX Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Washington UA Job No. $A108 INTRODUCTION OCT 1 0 2006 We completed a geolechnical engineering study for the subject plat site, with our findings of t:he subsurface conditions of the site and geotechnical recon=endations for the proposed development presented in our 9/12/2005 geotechnical report, We understand that, since the completion of that report, the grading plan for the subject development has been revised to require cutting the upland area of the site as much as 50 feet and ,tilling up the low-lying areas of the site. The concern regarding the new grading plan is whether the subsurface conditions Presented in our 9/12/2005 geotechnical report are adequate for and whether our geoteohnical mcommendations are still applicable to the proposed development pertaining to the new grading plan.. Presented in this letter report are our opinion and conclusions in this regard. GEOLOGIC SETTING .AND SOIL CONDITIONS Asstated in out 9/12/2005 geotechr),ieal report, the sur#icial soil units at. and in the vicinity of the site are mapped as Vashon Till (Qvt) underlain by Advance Outwash (Qva) in accordance with the Q-eo19Zic Map of t�astetn I�alf_a7,d Part of the Western Half uadratV ] 1�es�W�sh'rn�ton, 19213 Kerslake Place NE • Kenmore, Wa$hingtow nonoa Phone (425) 483-9134 - Pax (425) 486-27, Exhibit 10 File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 October 9, 2006 Mr, Andy Reaves/The 1vlcNaughton Group I,&A. Job No, 5AT08 Page 2 The mechanical acid physical characteristics of each of the soil units are quite well defined due to their geological formation process, and the test pits excavated on the site were used to verify the soil units shown oil the geologic map. The subsurface conditions of the site were explored with eight backhoe test pits excavated to depths .fxow 6.5 to 1 L2 feet. These test pits were spread throughout the site at various locations with bywund elevations varying fx'om the upland area (Test fits 4, 5, 7 and 8), to the midsldfr, area ('Pest fats 2 and 6), to the low-lying northeastern area. (Test Pits l and 3). All test pits had encountered an advance outwash deposit of media. -dense to dense, fine to medium sand with an occasional trace of gravel. Although there were no deep explorations conducted on the site to continuously penetrate through the depth of proposed cut of the new grading plan, the soil data obtained from the test pits show that the advance outwash deposit forming the hillside of the site indeed extends from the upland area downward to at least El. 258.0 feet, which is the bottoni of Test Pit 3 located in the low-lying northeastern area of the site. "These soil data also have confirmed the advance outwash soil twit at and in the vicinity of the site shown on the published geologic map referenced in our 9/12/2005 geotechnical report. CONCLUSIONS It is our opinion that the test pits excavated on the site, aided by the referenced geologic nrap, did adequately delineate the subsurface conditions and the soil profile of the site. The proposed grading of the site in accordance with the new grading plait, if does not go below El. 258.0 feet, will be within the advance outwash deposit. In this case, our geotechnical recommendations for grading of the site, as presented in our 9/12/2005 geotechnical report, are still valid for the new grading plait. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. October 9, 2006 Mt. Andy'Reaves/Tbe McNaughton Group L&!1. Job No. 5A108 Page 3 Please call if you have any questions. Yours very truly, r,I ,AASSOCJA-r , rl`rr.- J, S. (Julian) Li% Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Geotechnical Engineer opmes 71171 LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. man Prepared For: McNaughton Group, LLC Edmonds, Washington Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Woodinville, Washington November 2, 2005 File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 Angler's -dmonds, Washington Prepared for. McNaughton Group, LLC 144 Railroad Avenue Edmonds, Washington 98020 Prepared by. Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road N.E. Woodinville, WA 98077 November 2, 2005 Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report SITE NAME: Angler's Crossing SITE LOCATION: The approximately 5.47-acre site is located south of Olympic View Drive, just west of the Olympic View Drive and 761h Avenue West intersection in the City of Edmonds, Washington. The site is located in the NE'/4 of Section 18, Township 27 North, Range 4 East, W.M. CLIENT: McNaughton Group, LLC APPLICANT CONTACT Mr. Don Miller, GWC Consulting. PROJECT STAFF: Siii 5hiels, Principal; I eresa Opolka, Ecologist FIELD SURVEY: Fieldwork conducted on 15 September 2005 by Teresa Opolka. DETERMINATION: One wetland, Wetland A (426 square feet (sf)), was identified on the subject property. This wetland is a palustrine, seasonally flooded forested wetland. It appears that this wetland may have been created as a result of excavating on the property at some point in the past. According to Edmonds Code, Wetland A would be classified as a Category IV wetland. With the Director's approval, Category IV wetlands under 500 sf may be exempt assuming several criteria are met. HYDROLOGY: During our site visits, wetland hydrology was not present in Wetland A, although evidence of ponding was present. Our site visit occurred at the end of summer and it is assumed that this wetland exhibits wetland hydrology during the rainy months of the year. Wetland A is supported by direct precipitation. SOILS: The Snohomish County soil survey has mapped the subject property as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 25-70% slopes and Alderwood-urban land complex, 2-8% slopes. These soils are not listed as hydric soils on either the state or county hydric soil lists, although they may have inclusions of hydric soils. Soil on the property generally matched the Alderwood soil description. VEGETATION: Vegetation in Wetland A includes red alder, salmonberry, giant horsetail, and Dewey's sedge. The majority of vegetation was rooted near the edges of the wetland. The interior of the wetland was largely unvegetated due to the compacted soils and ponding during the rainy season. PROPOSED PROJECT: McNaughton Group proposes to develop a residential subdivision consisting of 27 lots with associated infrastructure including utilities, internal roads, and stormwater management facilities. The project will impact 426 sf of wetland. 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page i Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report Paq_e i. Executive Summary ii. Table of Contents iii. List of Figures iii. List of Tables iii. List of Appendices 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE ...................................................... 1 3.0 METHODOLOGY................................................................ 3.1 Background Data Keviewed 2 3.2 Field Investigation 2 4.0 RESULTS ...... ............. 3 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information 3 4.2 Analysis of Field Conditions 3 4.3 Wildlife 4 5.0 FUNCTIONAL VALUE ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................. 4 5.1 Wetland A —Existing Functions and Values „ .......................................... 6.0 PROPOSED PROJECT .................. 6 6.1 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 6 6.2 Sensitive Area Impacts ...................................................................................................... 7.0 SUMMARY 8.0 REFERENCES ............................... ............................ 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page ii Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 3. NRCS Soils Map Figure 4. Existing Conditions Map Figure 5. Proposed Site Plan and Impacts Table 1. Summary of the Potential and Opportunity of Wetland A to Perform Wetland Functions. APPENDIX A: Resume APPENDIX B: Wetland Data Sheets APPENDIX C: Priority Habitats and Species Database APPENDIX D: City of Edmonds Wetland Field Dataform 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page III Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is the result of a critical areas study conducted on four parcels collectively called "Angler's Crossing", located in the City of Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1). The site is the location of a proposed residential housing development. The purpose of this report is to identify and describe sensitive areas on and within 200 feet of the property, including wetlands and streams, and to report possible impacts to these areas from the proposed development. This report has been prepared according to Sections 23.40.090 and 23.50.030 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Information presented in this report will be utilized by the Edmonds Planning Department to assist in their evaluation of impacts from the proposed project on critical areas. This report is a component of a PRD and Preliminary Plat Submittal. Teresa Opolka of Talasaea Consultants prepared this report and the wetland delineation As required by ECDC 23.40.090 D (3), a resume is attached detailing the author's qualifications (Appendix A). The objective of this report is to: 1) describe the wetlands identified and delineated on the site, 2) describe wetland functions and values, and 3) identify proposed impacts to sensitive areas and regulatory requirements for these impacts. 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE The 5.47-acre area proposed for development includes Parcels 00370800101100, 00370800101000, 03434600010601, and 00370800100900. These parcels, hereinafter referred to as the "project area," are located south of Olympic View Drive, just west of the Olympic View Drive and 76`h Avenue West intersection (Figure 1). The project area is located in the NE'/4 Section 18, Township 27 North, Range 4 East, W.M. The project site is partially developed and presently contains three houses, two of which are not occupied. Ornamental plantings are present in the vicinity of these houses; the remainder of the project site is forested. Vegetation included species found predominantly in upland areas such as sword fern, big leaf maple, and Douglas fir. Topography on the project site is irregular. In general, the land slopes down to the east, although there are also several ravines or closed depressions present. A small wetland was identified and delineated in one of the depressions on the property. Wetlands or streams were not believed to be present off -site of the subject property within 200 feet of the property lines. This area was studied to the extend possible through the review of background materials and from visual assessments from the property boundaries. 3.0 METHODOLOGY The wetland analysis of the site involved a two-part effort. The first part consisted of a preliminary assessment of the site (and its immediate surroundings) using published information about local environmental conditions. This information included: wetland and soil maps from resource agencies and relevant studies completed or ongoing in the vicinity of the project site. The second part involved a field survey in which direct observations and measurements of soils, hydrology, and vegetation were made to determine whether wetlands were present, the type of wetlands present, and the extent of their boundaries (see section 3.2 Field Investigation below). 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page 1 1 fl50TH i SITE -r- 1 OY, er� T �+ r FIGURE # 1 ASAL° A 1A.1. CONSULTANTS, INC. VIGINITY MAP Resource & Environmental Planning ANGLER'S GROSSING 15020 ©ear Creek Road Northeast EDMOND5, HASHINGTON WoodnMlle, Washington 96077 Bus (425)661-7550 — Fax (425)661-7549 op NORTH Cq 0 0 F m 0 I DESIGN PROJECT o0 TO 1002 SCALE z NTS DATEI a 1012617 " Copyright - Talasaea Consultants, INC. _Angler's Crossing Critical Area Reoort 3.1 Background Data Reviewed Background information was reviewed prior to field investigations and included the following: • National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map, Edmonds East Quadrangle (USFWS, 1987), • The City of Edmonds Draft Critical Areas Map (2004), • Snohomish County Area Soil Survey, Soil Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983), • United States Hydric Soils List (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991), • Washington State Hydric Soils List (Iowa State University, 1995), and • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Database (WDFW, 2005). 3.2 Field Investigation A site reconnaissance was conducted to gain an overall impression of the existing environment and any previously identified wetlands or streams. Observations were made of the general plant communities, wildlife habitats, and the locations of obvious and probable wetland areas. Once likely or potential wetland areas were located, the routine on -site determination method was used to delineate the wetlands using the procedures outlined in: 1) the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and 2) the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (1997). The wetland delineation was conducted on 15 September 2005. Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973), and the wetland status of plant species was assigned according to the list of plant species that occur in wetlands, published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Reed 1988, 1993). Wetland classes were determined on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's system of wetland classification (Cowardin, et. al., 1979). Vegetation was considered hydrophytic if greater than 50% of the dominant plant species had a wetland indicator status of facultative or wetter (i.e., facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate wetland). Soil on the site was considered hydric if one or more of the following characteristics were present: • organic soils or soils with a histic epipedon (i.e., organic surface layer), • matrix chroma just below the A -horizon (or 10 inches, whichever is less) of 1 or less in unmottled soils, or 2 or less if mottles were present, or • gleying immediately below the A -horizon. Indicators of wetland hydrology may include, but are not necessarily_ limited to: drainage _ patterns, of lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, stream gauge data and flood predictions, historic records, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation. An evaluation of the vegetation, soils, and hydrology was made along the interface of wetland and upland. Wetland boundary points were then determined from this information and marked with flagging and surveyed. Appendix B contains data forms prepared by Talasaea for representative locations in both the upland and wetland. These data forms document the vegetation, soils, and hydrology information that aided in the wetland boundary determination. 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page 2 Angler's Crossina Critical Area Report 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information National Wetland Inventory and Citv of Edmonds Map The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map, developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), does not identify any wetlands or streams in the vicinity of the site (Figure 2). The City of Edmonds map also did not identify any wetlands or streams in the vicinity of the site. Because resource maps are generally compiled through aerial photography analysis, it is not uncommon that small wetland or streams are missed. For this reason, an on -site evaluation is necessary. Natural Resources Conservation Service The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped the majority of the property as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 25-70% slopes and Alderwood-urban land complex, 2-8% slopes (Figure 3). Alderwood is not on either the State or County hydric soil lists. The wetland area contained hydric soils, although soil on the remainder of the property generally matched the Alderwood soil description. Priority Species and Habitats Database The WDFW PHS database map does not indicate that any priority habitats or species are located on or in the immediate vicinity of the project area. The map does depict a stream that contains priority resident fish species off site to the northwest of the site, on the north side of Olympic View Drive. This feature is not immediately adjacent to the project area, and the project is not anticipated to impact the stream. A bald eagle nest has been identified approximately 1-mile to the west. Bald eagle management plans are not required for project sites in excess of mile from a nest. Results from the PHS database search are included in Appendix C. 4.2 Analysis of Field Conditions One wetland was identified on the project area. Although there are several ravines or swales near or on the property, with the exception of the identified wetland, no other wetlands or streams were identified (Figure 4). The identified wetland is described in the following section. Wetland A Wetland A (approximately 426 sf) is a small isolated wetland located in a depression. This wetland is a palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded wetland that is hydrologically supported by direct precipitation. -Wetland A was likely created as a result of disturbance ♦ The topsoil in Wetland A has largely been removed, resulting in a dense, compacted, poorly drained surface horizon that results in a perched water table during the wetter months of the year. The surface horizon in Wetland A was a very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) sandy loam with mottles present at a depth below 3 inches. The soil was not saturated during our site visit, although signs of ponding were evident in the wetland. Vegetation in Wetland A includes red alder (Alnus rubra), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia), and Dewey's sedge (Carex deweyana). The majority of vegetation was rooted near the edges of the wetland. The interior of the wetland was largely unvegetated due to the compacted soils and ponding during the rainy season. Three test plots were evaluated to aid in determining the location of the boundary. Wetland data 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page 3 Angler's Crossina Critical Area Report sheets from these test plots are attached. Wetland A had previously been delineated slightly larger by another consultant. Test plots 2 and 3 were placed in areas that were previously delineated as wetland. Test plot 2 appears to have minimal ponding during the wet season, as water marks were observed. However, the depth of ponding appears to be minimal. Vegetation growing in the vicinity of Test Plot 2 included predominantly upland species, indicating that the area does not stay wet for a duration sufficient to support wetland vegetation. Test Plot 3 is located in a depression, although none of the three wetland criteria were met. Soil was observed to be a sandy loam with a matrix chroma of 2, without mottles. The top 18 inches of soil was observed to be dry and no evidence of ponding was evident. Vegetation at this test plot qualified as predominantly upland, as more than 50% of dominant vegetation was not hydrophytic. Because all criteria for wetland determination were not met, the area surrounding Test Plots 2 and 3 was determined to be upland. Wetland Rating and Classification Wetland A was rated utilizing the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (2004). This wetland scored 23 points, resulting in a Category IV wetland classification (ECDC 23.50.010). A wetland must have a score of less than 30 points to be a Category IV wetland. Attached is the City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form, which details how the wetland was rated (Appendix D). 4.3 Wildlife The site contains moderate value wildlife habitat. Wildlife usage is restricted due to the existing development on the properties and the increasingly urban character of the surrounding properties. The presence of forested habitat on the property does provide some habitat value, primarily for songbirds. Wildlife species observed during our site visits included: American robin, American crow, black -capped chickadee, and a Steller's jay. Other wildlife species may utilize the site but were not observed due to their seasonal presence, secretive behavior, and our limited time on the property. No evidence of Federally listed threatened or endangered species was observed on or in the vicinity of the subject property. A bald eagle nest located approximately 1-mile from the site is the closest known location of a federally -listed species. Priority resident fish species are present off -site to the northwest, on the other side of Olympic View Drive. 5.0 FUNCTIONAL VALUE ASSESSMENT Wetlands and their associated buffers may provide many valuable ecological and social unctions, including: water quality functions, hydrologic functions; -and habitat functions. - The functions and values of the wetland were analyzed utilizing the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (DOE, 2004), which was also utilized to determine the rating of the wetland. The functions assessed evaluate both the potential and the opportunity for the particular function. For example, a wetland may have the potential for supporting wildlife habitat if it has diverse vegetation structure; however, if the wetland is isolated and not connected to any corridors (e.g., surrounded by development), it will have a significantly decreased opportunity to perform that function. The summary of points scored is presented in Table 1. The Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington was used to determine the rating and functional values of Wetland A, the rating forms are provided in Appendix D. 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page 4 Analer's Crossing Critical Area Report 5.1 Wetland A - Existing Functions and Values Table 1. Summary of the Potential and Opportunity of Wetland A to Perform Wetland Functions. Wetland A Functions Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Potential 7 /16 2 = 43% 2/16 = 12.5% 4/18 = 22% Opportunity Yes No Low (3 pts Total Score 1 23 points Wetland Category' IV Points scored by wetland 3Total points possible If a wetland has opportunity to perform water quality and or hydrologic function, the "potential" score obtained is doubled 'Based on the total points obtained. Wetlands that receive a score of between 30 and 50 points are Category III wetlands Water Quality Functions The potential for a wetland to improve water quality is measured through evaluating several indicators including the wetlands' hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type, soil composition, percent vegetation cover, and extent of ponding. Following is an evaluation of these indicators within Wetland A. Wetland A is a depressional wetland with a partially constricted outlet. This type of wetland may have a relatively high potential for improving water quality, since the longer the water has to spend in the wetland, the greater the potential for contaminants to be removed. However, this wetland scored in the low to moderate range for this function. The potential of the wetland to provide this function was limited due to its soil type and vegetation cover. The soil in Wetland A was observed to be sandy loam, which is a soil with relatively low organic and clay content. This type of soil does not have a high ability to remove impurities in the water. Soils with either a high organic or clay content are better able than most soils to adsorb toxic compounds. As described previously, Wetland A has limited vegetation cover due to disturbed compacted soils that are ponded for part of the year. Wetlands that are heavily vegetated provide a large amount of surface area that can result in the trapping of sediment and pollutants. Because the wetland lacks dense vegetation, this suppressed the wetland's score. The water quality potential score for this wetland was boosted slightly because most of the wetland is ponded during the rainy season. Due to the presence of residential areas nearby, it was determined that Wetland A does have the opportunity to improve water quality. Hydrologic -Functions - - - - -- -- - - The potential for a wetland to reduce downstream flooding and stream degradation is determined by several physical characteristics. These characteristics include whether the wetland has an outlet or if it is a closed depression, the depth of water above the outlet that is stored in the wetland, and the size of the contributing basin in relation to the size of the wetland. As previously described, Wetland A is in a depression with a partially constricted outlet. This type of wetland has a moderate potential for reducing downstream flooding, as water is detained and primarily released through either evaporation or infiltration. The wetland scored low for water storage, as it does not appear that the wetland stores a significant amount of water due both to its small size and shallow ponding. The wetland also has a 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page 5 Analer's Crossing Critical Area Report very large contributing basin. The small size of the wetland is neglible in relation to this large area. Due to the small size of the wetland and the lack of any nearby streams, it was determined to not have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion. Habitat Functions The potential of a wetland to provide habitat for a variety of species of wildlife is largely dependant on the structural and biological diversity of the vegetation growing in the wetland, as well as the presence of habitat features, such as snags and open water. Wetland A was found to have low potential for providing wildlife habitat. The potential of this wetland was limited by the presence of one cover type (forested), limited vegetation species diversity, and a limited number of hydrologic regimes. Opportunity for a wetland to be utilized as wildlife habitat is measured through the size of the buffer, presence of a wildlife corridor, and proximity of adjacent wetlands. The opportunity for Wetland A to provide wildlife habitat was determined to be low due to development surrounding the subject property. The surrounding development also separates Wetland A from other off -site wetlands. 6.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 6.1 Project Description McNaughton Group proposes to develop a residential subdivision consisting of 27 lots with associated infrastructure including utilities, internal roads, and stormwater management facilities (Figure 5). Stormwater from paved surfaces will be collected, detained, and treated according to City requirements. See engineering plans for additional details on stormwater management. . 6.2 Sensitive Area Impacts The proposed project will fill Wetland A (426 sf) during construction of the project. These impacts were unavoidable and represent the only practicable alternative, as determined by applying the following criteria: 1) technical feasibility, 2) cost, 3) environmental impacts, and 4) ability of the project to perform its intended purpose. Due to the irregular topography of the site, a substantial amount of grading will be required to make the project area suitable for development. This will include removing some of the higher areas on the property and filling some of the lower areas. In order to provide access from the eastern to the western portion of the property, a road must be constructed across a relatively steep hillside. If Wetland A were to remain, the grading required for the road would result in the wetland being surrounded by steep slopes on all sides. Essentially, the wetland would be at the -- - - --bottom of a -hole; surrounded -by development.- Grading around this area is not feasible— - - Due to the small size and low -value conditions of the wetland, filling of this wetland will not result in significant loss of wetland functions and values. According to 23.50.040(I), isolated Category 3 or 4 wetlands less than 500 sf may be granted exemption by the director if the following Conditions 1 through 4 are met. The condition is stated following our explanation in italics. Category IV wetlands have the lowest functions and values. The value of this wetland was limited due to its low water quality, hydrologic and wildlife functions. The director may exempt Category III and IV wetlands less than 500, assuming several conditions 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page 6 A {• '.;' ► '`� � i�� �'-�';�..�:...-..-..t[ _ ! :sir 2( j t' , r �• J !fj rt: if f F(,f'S', �'�j�•t r..—.-' � � l �,}p'�i`f � ' �`i � `�1` �4 )}77 �^ �' � i ' ��. t I' ir (NO WETLANDD5 SHOWN ON SITE) r''N r f j i s• M r :.f� •� '� s S ,, T:• r F j ,.r x is ;� � � •""'�; l _ W,-.� may..... ; I'•� �� ��. i Q 3 f i S } '^t+ • r' >Rf l ikE a f • i k W2 � � 4i I t' # � :wi�jt'$ 1i' yL e 1a F tr6 } }y l�;i Park Lj SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF -THE- INTERIOR, FISH- AND WILDLIFE SERVtGE, - - NORTH NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP, EDMONDS EAST QUAD, Ici88, TALASA A CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creel. Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 08077 Bus.(425)861-7550 — Fax (425)861-7540 F16URE # 2 NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP ANGLER'S GRO55IN6 EDMOND5, HA51-1I1\16TON bD 01 CD co c7 11 DESIGN TO I DRAWN K6 GL I PROJECT o 1002 SCALE z NTS DATE 10/26/05:2 Q REVISED Copyright — Talasaea Consultants, INC. 5 ( _ .= s s'. « , "fir. $ y,_ v, - ..HY .'%4._- _' . i -• LESEN17 _ -- - - - ----- _... - _ _ NORTH 4 ALDERWOOD—EVERETT GRAVELLY SANDY LOAMS, 25--70% SLOPES a 5 ALDERWOOD—URBAN LAND COMPLEX, 2-8% SLOPES SOURGE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRIGULTURE, NATURAL RESOURGE GONSERVATION F SERVICE, SNOHOMISH COUNTY AREA SOIL SURVEY, Iq-78 TALASA A. ° CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)661-7550 — Fax (,125)061-7549 FIGURE # 5 NRG5 SOILS MAP ANGLER'S GROSSING EDMONDS, WASHINOTON DESIGN I DRAWN PROJECT TO KG,GL 1002 SCALE NTS DATE 10/21/05 REVISED Copyright — Talasaea Consultants, INC. I �— - = y K ill GIN17M?Ai= eL I _ 56ALE: I"=2000' /i j -- NORTH _1CATEGORY IV 426 5F 1+VETLAND A ��:�,. �'"�i * I, " SEE EMLARGEI TENT'-6\ TI�IS SHEET).-' I I I 1 A-21�" , TP 1•� -- --Td� ��� -fLA,/ H I D LAN OLEN- a r: � ,1 �� '� � , I , t � - yWy,,��.• A 1 � 2S A=4 a r or •TP 2 _a-12 1 r� 1-------- ; - s'o a r I - I - - -- — --------------------- ----------- t�i. I G FLAN LEGEND C�RAPHIG SCALE NORTH NOTE) GRA� IN ) EESGALE NORTH — _---PROPERTY LINE ( IN FEET) -- I. SURVEY PROVIDED BY J. GURTIS 8 C.._-_,_:_:� EXISTING WETLAND A550GIATES, ING., P.O. BOX 1512, LAKE O O 20 4G -_---EXISTING CONTOUR O 50 100 200 STEVENS, HA g6255, (425) 39-7-5424. SCALE: I"=20' ♦A- WETLAND FLAG LOCATION SGALE:1"=100' 2. SOURCE DRAWING HAS MODIFIED BY TALASAEA GON5ULTANT5 FOR VISUAL •TP-x SOIL TEST PLOT LOGATION ENHANCEMENT. Fxl�rlN raFF< 3.— " THIS PLAN IS AN ATTAGHMENT TO THE FIGURE sf4 DESIGN DRAWN PROJECT HETLAND REPORT PREPARED BY KG GL TO 1002 i TALASAEA GONSULTANT5 IN OGTOBER, TALASAEA scAl.E z 2005. CONSULTANTS, INC. EXISTING GONDITION5 MAP AS NOTED Rraoarce & Environmental Planning ANGLER'S GROSSING DATE s t5020 Rr>.,• C c k Raea Nsrthesst EDMONDS, WA51­1INGTON II/2/05 Woodlu�illc. Wash,,gtoo H80T1 bus 142518a1-'1550 - Fnz (4.'S 18fi1-7548 REVISED -' © Copyright - Talaeaea Consultants, INC. zi / //C�„!� fin✓ /q, '�� a r -- - - -I Q n r �\ -T a lR � ffa^ t•G .�.J � � .1� \ \ R-11 I ItJ � — — — -f�LAT OF HIDDEi GLEN- I i i IDOE ctce atI �' ` ag t LLJ ^-12 \ e,.. �F EUVONOS v , R-11 i\ {� NOTES I. SURVEY PROVIDED BY J. GURTI5 & A55OGIATE5, ING., P.O. BOX 1512, LAKE STEVENS, HA g5258, (425) 3q7-5424. 2. SOURCE DRAWING HAS MODIFIED BY TALA5AEA GONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. 3. THI5 PLAN 15 AN ATTACHMENT TO THE HETLAND REPORT PREPARED BY TALA5AEA GON5ULTANTS IN OGTOBER, 2005. CE,RAPHIG SCALE NORTH ( IN FEET) 0 50 100 200 SCALE: I "=100' ®TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource k Environmental Planning 15020 Hear Creek Road Northeast rtoodinMlle, Nashingtan 98077 Bus (425)661-7550 - Fax (42SM61-7549 PLAN LEGEND — - - — - - — PROPERTY LINE EXISTING WETLAND EXISTING GONTOUR PROPOSED GONTOUR 1 FAC7 LEGEND WETLAND FILL 426 SF FIGURE #5 PROP05EP 51TE PLAN AND IMPACTS ANGLER'S CR0551 N(5 EDMON05,KA5RNGTON DESIGN DRAWN PROJECT KGGL TO 1002 SCALE 1"=100' DATE 11 /2/05 Copyright - Talasaea Consultants. Angler's Crossino Critical Area Reoort are met, according to ECDC 23.50.040. These conditions are shown in the underlined text below; how these conditions are met is described in italics. Condition 1: The wetland is under 500 sf in area. As described above, the wetland has been delineated and determined to be 426 sf. Documentation supporting our delineation is attached. Condition 2: The wetland is a low quality Category 3 or 4 wetland. As determined by the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, the wetland was determined to be a Category IV wetland with relatively low functions. Documentation for this rating system is attached in Appendix D. Condition 3: The wetland does not provide significant habitat value for wildlife As determined through utilizing the rating system, the wetland scored very low for habitat functions. The wetland does not provide significant habitat value due to its small size, low biological and structural diversity, few habitat features, and limited connectivity to other wetlands. Condition 4: Eilling of the wetland can maintain equivalent or greater habitat functions and values over existing site conditions. The wetland area does not make a significant contribution to habitat value on the property. Its small size composes only 0.17% of the property. As described in previous sections, the wetland has very low habitat functions. In comparison to the remainder of the site, other areas of the property likely have greater habitat value than the wetland due to greater structural and biological diversity. For this reason, filling of this wetland can maintain equivalent or greater habitat functions and values over existing conditions. 7.0 SUMMARY A critical areas study was conducted on four parcels within the City of Edmonds to assess project impacts to sensitive areas from a proposed residential housing development. One small wetland of relatively low functional value was identified and delineated on the property. Due to its small size and limited functions, this wetland should be exempt and not subject to regulation by the City. 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page 7 Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report 8.0 REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31. Edmonds, City of. May 17, 2005. Edmonds City Code. Chapter 25. Code Publishing. Environmental Laboratory. 1987, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Iowa State University. 1995. Hydric Soils of Washington State. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. December 5. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsel/ Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. Supplement to: National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1998. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Update. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. June, 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1983. Edmonds Area Soil Survey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Edmonds East Quadrangle. -- - - - ----Washington-State-Department of Ecology.- 1997. Washington -State Wetland -Identification- and Delineation Manual. March. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. October 24, 2005. Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Database. 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Page 8 Angler's Crossina Critical Area Report a =1- 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Appendix A Teresa Opolka City of Edmonds, Washington Qualifying Documentation EDUCATION • BS degree in Biology from Seattle University (1998) TRAINING IN WETLANDS ISSUES • Using the Revised Washington State Wetland Rating System in Western Washington, Department of Ecology (May 2005) • 2005 Regional Conference, Society for Ecological Restoration (April 2005) o Included attendance of Urban Stream Restoration field trip • 2004 International Conference, Society of Wetland Scientists (July 2004) o Included attendance of Designing Habitat for Amphibians in Wetland Projects • Introduction to Grasses, Sedges, and Rushes, Everett Community College (Fall 2003) • Ordinary High Water Mark Determination Training, Coastal Training Program (May 2003) • Pacific Northwest Chapter Conference, Society of Wetland Scientists (May 2002) o Included attendance of Central Oregon Hydric Soils Workshop • Arrny Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Training Course, Richard Chinn Environmental Training, Inc. (January 2002) RELATED WORK EXPERIENCE Organization: Talasaea Consultants, Inc. (15020 Bear Creek Road NE, Woodinville, WA 98077) Job Title: Wetland Ecologist Dates: September 2000 to present Total Time: 5+ years Supervisor: William E. Shiels (phone# 425-861-7550) Percentage of time conducting non -wetland work: 5%. Percentage of time conducting wetland work: 95%. Work conducted over the past five years includes wetland and stream delineations, ordinary high water mark determinations, sensitive areas studies, biological evaluations, regulatory analysis/permitting, functional value assessments, wildlife assessments, wetland and stream mitigation monitoring, groundwater monitoring and analysis. Three years of wetland delineation experience utilizing the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual. I have delineated approximately eighty wetlands, most of which were located on sites greater than five acres in size. I have prepared approximately forty-five sensitive areas reports, and contributed to approximately twenty mitigation plans. The preparation of mitigation plans was done in association with and under supervision of senior staff. RECENT REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Significantly contributed to the projects listed below as wetland ecologist in conducting baseline field studies and writing technical evaluations regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and agency permitting. All of these projects involved sensitive _species _and/or critical_ habitats,_ including_wetlands _and...streams, _under _ regulatory____ protection. Projects also involved wildlife surveys, wetland delineation, vegetation, and soil identification, and semi -quantitative assessments to characterize subject areas. Proposed Commercial Retail Development, Center Investments — Everett, WA Prepared a Sensitive Areas Report for a proposed large retail development in Everett, WA. Project involved wetland fill, stream crossing, stream relocation, and day lighting over 500 feet of piped stream. Site is located adjacent to, and on top of Swamp Creek, which contains Federally -listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon; therefore, a Biological Evaluation was also prepared to address project impacts on listed species. Prepared a Functional Value Assessment to address adequacy of proposed mitigation to compensate for project impacts. Snohomish Basin Mitigation Bank, Habitat Bank, LLC — Snohomish County, Washington Assisted with preparing a Biological Evaluation and other technical documents for the first private Wetland Mitigation Bank in the State of Washington at a 225-acre site along the Snoqualmie River in Snohomish County. The goal of the project was to restore the site to its historical wetland conditions and to provide ecological uplifts to water quality, hydrology and wildlife habitat. Construction began fall 2003. Proposed Residential Development, Stensrud, LLC— Snohomish County, WA Delineated wetlands on a 5.7-acre property located in unincorporated Snohomish County. This site was disturbed through illegal grading and timber harvesting, which altered soil structure, deposited wood chips from logging activities, and altered the vegetation community. Wetland boundaries were reviewed and approved by both Snohomish County and the Army Corps of Engineers. Assisted with preparation of Sensitive Areas Report and Mitigation Plan. Proposed project involved wetland fill; therefore, a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) was also prepared to assist in obtaining a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to authorize wetland fill. Shannon Point Marine Center, Western Washington University—Anacortes, Washington Delineated wetlands and the ordinary high water mark of the marine shoreline at the Shannon Point Marine Center. Prepared existing conditions report documenting sensitive features, regulatory constraints, and buffers in the vicinity of the proposed expansion of the marine center. Proposed Mixed Use Development, G & M Investments — Lake Stevens, WA Delineated wetlands on a 21.7-acre property located in the City of Lake Stevens. This highly disturbed site has been used for farming for much of the last century. Prior land use altered vegetation, soils, and drainage patterns, which contributed to a difficult wetland identification and delineation. Wetlands were delineated following an extensive groundwater analysis, which revealed that the majority of the property had been legally drained. Wetland boundaries were reviewed and approved by the Army Corps of Engineers. Proposed project involves wetland fill; therefore, a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) and Sensitive Areas Report was prepared to assist in obtaining a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to authorize wetland fill. Melody Ridge ... On the Boardwalk, DCA, LLC— Bothell, WA Delineated wetlands and prepared a Biological Evaluation and Wetland Study Report for a proposed multi- family residential development on an 8.34-acre parcel that involves filling a wetland and crossing a stream. A salmon -bearing stream is located on -site that drains into the Sammamish River, which contains Coho salmon, proposed for federal listing. The Biological Evaluation examined the impact of construction on Coho and critical habitat that occurs within the action area of the project. Mill Creek Town Center Phase II, Wakefield Pacifie — Mill Creek, WA Delineated wetlands and prepared a Wetland Mitigation Report for the Mill Creek Town Center, Phase It, which contains retail space, internal roads, and associated parking and stormwater facilities. The mitigation report addressed construction impacts and mitigation for these impacts on adjacent wetlands and buffers. The project is located within the North Creek flood plain, near where Mill Creek joins North Creek. Proposed Residential Development, Tl:eJusteit-Ca patiy Granite Falls WA" The 180-acre subject property contains two lakes, extensive wetlands and stream systems, as well as habitat for threatened and endangered species. Streams and wetlands were delineated to assist with site planning for a proposed residential development., Delineations were reviewed and approved by both Snohomish County and the Army Corps of Engineers. Proposed project involved wetland fill and stream crossings; therefore, a JARPA application and Sensitive Areas Report was prepared. WETLAND AND STREAM MITIGATION MONITORING Responsibilities include the long-term monitoring of constructed wetland and stream mitigation projects. Projects involve monitoring of created and enhanced wetlands, enhanced wetland buffers, and enhanced/restored stream corridors per agency requirements. Monitoring requirements include vegetation sampling in established plots, analysis of vegetation survival and areal coverage, observations of site stability, qualitative observations of water quality, wildlife surveys, and photo documentation. Requires coordination and advising of landscape maintenance contractors to ensure that projects remain in compliance with agency requirements. Also includes preparation of annual or biannual reports documenting findings. Ms. Opolka has been involved with monitoring over 40 projects in 18 jurisdictions within Washington State. Some of the projects that represent this experience are listed below. • College Place Wal-Mart — Project involved relocating Stone Creek, which historically was channelized and used as a drainage feature in a farmed field. Monitoring involved evaluating the stability of approximately 1000 feet of relocated stream corridor, and monitoring vegetation in the adjacent stream buffers. • Willows Creek Corporate Campus, Redmond, WA — Monitored 2.61 acres of a combination of created and enhanced wetland, as well as associated buffers. Project approved by the City and Department of Ecology in 2002. • Puyallup Downs, Puyallup, WA — Monitored 1.99 acres of a combination of wetland creation and enhancement, as well as associated buffers. Project expected to be approved in fall 2005. • Van Doren's Landing, Kent, WA — Monitored I -acre of wetland creation and restoration of associated buffers. The City and Corps of Engineers approved project in 2002. • Jefferson at Mill Creek, Mill Creek, WA — Monitored 7.94 acres of a combination of wetland creation, wetland enhancement, and buffer enhancement. Project expected to be approved by City in fall 2005. HYDROLOGIC ASSESSMENTS Hydrologic assessments utilizing groundwater monitoring wells were performed prior to site development on several projects to determine wetland/upland boundary. Groundwater monitoring was utilized when site conditions were disturbed as a result of modifications to the hydrology, soil, or vegetation. Some of the projects that represent this experience are listed below. • McClelland Property —Issaquah, WA • Meredith Property — Auburn, WA • Chehalis Wal-Mart — Chehalis, WA • Bella Mira Condominiums —Issaquah, WA • Overson Property —Auburn, WA • Grade Road Development — Lake Stevens, WA Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Appendix B Project/Site: Olympic View Date: 15 September 2005 Applicant/Owner: McNaughton Group County: Snohomish Investigators: T.O olka State: Washin ton Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: wetland, PFO Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area If needed, explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: TP#1 VEGETATION Plant species Stratum Indicator Status Plant species Stratum Indicator Status Rubus s ectabilis S FAC+ Alnus rubra T FAC E uisetum telmateia H FACW Carex dewe ana H FACU Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: >50% of dominant veg. is fac or wetter Uheck all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: I ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation I ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Technical literature ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Other (explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water none Depth to free water none @ 18" Depth to saturated soil soil most at 18" Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ® Water marks ❑ Drift lines ❑ Sediment deposits ❑ Drainage patterns in wetland Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) ® Other (explain): soil survey Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Other D Criterion Met? Yes A Rationale/Remarks: Positive indicators present p SOILS Map unit name Alderwood/Agc Drainage class moderately well drained (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 25-70% slopes Taxonomy subgrou Entic durochrepts mappedtype? Yes Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, Depth (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) concretions, structure, etc 0-3" 10YR 3/2 none n/a sand loam 3-5" 10YR 3/2 10YR 4/3 distinct, common, medium compacted s. loam 5-18" 1.OYR3/2 DYR-41a istinct,_common,.medium______ com acted-s.loam - Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ® Matrix chroma [2 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing conditions ❑ Other( ) ❑ Gle ed or low chroma =1 matrix Criterion Met? Yes I Rationale/Remarks: positive indicators present WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? Yes Remarks: Is this sampling point within a Yes Wetland hydrology present? Yes All three criteria met wetland? Hydric soils present? Yes 11 Project/Site: Olympic View Date: 15 September 2005 Applicant/Owner: McNaughton Group County: Snohomish Investigators: T.Opolka State: Washington Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: upland Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area If needed, explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: TP#2 VEGETATION Plant species Stratum Indicator Status Plant species Stratum Indicator Status Sorbus sitchensis T NI Alnus rubra T FAC Rubus discolor S FACU Rubus ursinus H FACU Percent of dominantspecies that are OBL, FACK or FAC: 25% Criterion Met? No Rationale/Remarks: <50% of dominant veg. is FAC or wetter Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Technical literature ® Personal knowledge of regional plant communities I ❑ Other (exDlain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water none Depth to free water none Depth to saturated soil none @ 18" Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ® Water marks ❑ Drift lines ❑ Sediment deposits ❑ Drainage patterns in wetland Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) ® Other (explain): soil survey Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Other I Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: Positive indicators present SOILS Map unit name Alderwood/Agc Drainage class moderately well drained (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 25-70% slopes Taxonomy (subgroup) Entic durochre is ma ed t e? No Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, Depth (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) concretions, structure, etc 0-5" 10YR 3/2 none n/a sandy loam 5-18" 2.5Y 4/2 10YR 3/4 distinct, common, medium compacted s. loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma [2 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Reducing conditions ❑ Other ( ) ❑ Gle ed or low chroma =1 matrix Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks:positive indicators present WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? No Remarks: Is this sampling point within a No Wetland hydrology present? Yes Only two criteria met wetland? Hydric soils present? Yes Project/Site: Olympic View Date: 15 September 2005 Applicant/Owner: McNaughton Group County: Snohomish Investigators: T.Opolka State: Washington Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: upland forest Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area If needed, explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: TP#3 VEGETATION Plant species Stratum Indicator Status Plant species Stratum Indicator Status Pol stichum munitum H FACU Rubus s ectabilis S FAC+ Rubus ursinus S FACU Dryopteris expansa H FACW Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% Criterion Met? No I Rationale/Remarks: <50% of dominant veg. is FAC or wetter Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Technical literature ® Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Other (explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water none Depth to free water none Depth to saturated soil none @ 18" Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water marks ❑ Drift lines ❑ Sediment deposits ❑ Drainage patterns in wetland Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) ® Other (explain): soil survey Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Other 1 Criterion Met? No d Rationale/Remarks: Positive indicators not present SOILS Map unit name Alderwood/Agc Drainage class moderately well drained (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 25-70% slopes Taxonomy (subgroup) Entic durochrepts map ed t e? Yes Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, Depth (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) concretions, structure, etc 0-18" 10YR 2/2 none n/a sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma [2 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing conditions ❑ Other ( ) ❑ Gle ed or low chroma =1 matrix Criterion Met? No I Rationale/Remarks: positive indicators not present WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? No Remarks: Is this sampling point within a No Wetland hydrology present? No All three criteria not met wetland? Hydric soils present? No _Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report F.11 t 12"OW • • • ' • 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-(Nov05).doc Appendix C 57AT£ O O �l N 4 State of Washington ACT �t DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N • Olympia, WA 98501-1091 • (360) 902-2200, TDD.j369),902, 2207= Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building • 1111 Washington Street SE • Olympia, WA Date: OCT 2 5 2005 Dear Habitats and Species Requester. Enclosed are the habitats and species products you requested from the Washington Department of Fich ands Wilrilife R/VDFW1 Thls package may also contain .aii-.umontatil-o n to t e-lp `y^vu understand and use these products. These products only include information that WDFW maintains in a computer database. They are not an attempt to provide you with an official agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife, nor are they designed to provide you with guidance on interpreting this information and determining how to proceed in consideration of fish and wildlife. These products only document the location of important fish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge. It is important to note that habitats orspecies may occur on the ground in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. Site -specific surveys are frequently necessary to rule out the presence of priority habitats or species. Your project may require further field inspection or you may need to contact our field biologists or others in WDFW to assist you in interpreting and applying this information. Generally, for assistance on a specific project, you should contact the WDFW Habitat Program Manager for your county and ask for the area habitat biologist for your project area. Refer to the enclosed directory for those contacts. Please note that sections potentially impacted by spotted owl management concerns are displayed on the 1:24,000 scale standard map products. If specific details on spotted owl site centers are required they must be requested separately. These products are designed for users external to the forest practice permit process and as such, does not reflect all the information pertinent to forest practice review. The Forest Practice Rules adopted August 22, 1997 by the Forest Practice Board and administered by the Washington Department of Natural Resources require forest practice applications to be - - screened-against-marbled-murrelet- detection areas and--detec-tlon -sections.---Marbled murrelet - - detection locations are included in the standard priority habitats and species products, but the detection areas and detection sections are not included. If your project is affected by Forest Practice Regulations, you should specially request murrelet detection areas. WDFW updates this information as additional data become available. Because fish and wildlife species are mobile and because habitats and species information changes, project reviews for fish and wildlife should not rest solely on mapped information. Instead, they should also consider new information gathered from current field investigations. Remember, habitats and species information can only show that a species or habitat type is present, they cannot show that a species or habitat type is not present. These products should not be used for future projects. Please obtain updates rather than use outdated information. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT REGIONALCONTACTS For assistance with Priority Habitats and Species information, contact the appropriate regional office, listed below. County... Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Garfield, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Stevens, Walla Walla, Whitman Adams, Chelan, Douglas, Grant Okanogan Benton, Franklin, Kittitas, Yakima Island, King, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Whatcom Clark, Cowlitz, Klickitat, Lewis, Skamania, Wahiakum Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, Thurston Contact... Region 1 Office 2315 North Discovery Place Spokane Valley, WA 99216-1566 Phone: (509) 892-1001 Region 2 Office 1550 Alder Street NW Ephrata, WA 98823-9699 Phone: (509) 754-4624 Region 3 Office 1701 South 24`h Avenue Yakima, WA 98902-5720 Phone: (509) 575-2740 Region 4 Office 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 Phone: (206) 775-1311 Region 5 Office 2108 Grand Boulevard Vancouver, WA 98661 P-hone--(360)-696-6211---- -- -- - - - - - - Region 6 Office 48 Deveonshire Road Montesano, WA 98563-9618 Phone: (360) 249-4628 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE - HABITATS AND SPECIES REPORT THE VICINITY OF T27R04E SECTION 18 Report Date: October 24, 2005 Information About Priority Habitats and Species Polygons Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) polygons are labeled with a unique number and "+" symbol, roughly in the center of the polygon on the map. This PHS Poly number refers to a list of form numbers and species and habitat codes contained in the PHS Polygon Cross Reference Report (listed below)_ The form numbers refer to the attached PHS Polygon Report. This report details each species or habitat depicted as a polygon on the map. For a complete description of the codes used in this report please refer to the Fish and Wildlife Map Products document. This document may be viewed on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/release.htm. Priority Habitats and Species Polygon - Summary Habitat and Species List: This report and the accompanying maps may contain some species or habitats that are not considered priority by the agency. YES under the "PHS" column in the table below indicates that the species is considered a priority and is on the Priority Habitats and Species List and/or the Species of Concern List. NO under the "PHS" column indicates the species/habitat is not considered an agency priority. State PHS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status PHS Code Common Name Species Use Species Use Description YES SM PHVI HARBOR SEAL HO HAULOUT YES RIPAR RIPARIAN :l ONES YES UNOS URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE YES WET WETLANDS YES ZACA CALIFORNIA SEA LION HO HAULOUT Priority Habitats and Species Polygon Cross Reference Report: Form number 900000 indicates presence of PHS is unknown or the area was not mapped. Form numbers 909998, 909997, or 909996 indicate compilation errors. PHS Poly# Form# 2 900000 3 902694 4 902705 5 902705-902706 6 902705 7 902694 8 902694 9 902694 10 902702 11 902541-902701 12 902541-902701 13 902541-902701-902702 14 902702 15 902694 16 902677 17 902694 18 902694 19 902694 20 902676 21 904461-904465 22 902694 23 902694 24 902694 25 902675 26 902676 27 902675 PHS Code*Species Use UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*-RIPAR*- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*- RIPAR*- UNOS*-UNOS*- UNOS*-UNOS*- UNOS*-UNOS*-RIPAR*- RIPAR*- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*- ZACA*HO-PHVI*HO- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*- WET*- UNOS*- WET*- Information About Wildlife Heritage Point Report Wildlife Heritage points on the map can be referenced to this report by noting the quadpt number where the point occurs on the map, and then looking up the information listed below. This report is sorted by the quadpt number and provides details on each species depicted on the map. For a complete description of the codes used in this report, please refer to the Fish and Wildlife Map Products document. This document may be viewed on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/release.htm. Wildlife Heritage Point - Summary Species List: This report and the accompanying maps may contain some species or habitats that are not considered priority by the agency. YES under the "PHS" column in the table below indicates that the species is considered a priority and is on the Priority Habitats and Species List and/or the Species of Concern List. NO under the "PHS" column indicates the species/habitat is not considered an agency priority. State Species PHS Status Code Common Name Species Use Species Use Description YES ST HALE BALD EAGLE B BREEDING OCCURRENCE Wildlife Heritage Point Report: Quadpt#: 4712273017 Species Code: HALE Species Use: B Common Name: BALD EAGLE Year: 2002 Class: SA Accuracy: C Scientific Name: HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS State Status: ST Federal 1*atus: FT Priority: YES WDFW Region: 4 Verified: V Township - Range - Sectio 127N R03E S13 SEOFNE Occurrence) 517 Sequence#: 2 General Description: BALD GLE NEST IN TALL, SPIKE -TOPPED DOUGLAS- _t. SPIKE EXTENDS HIGH ABOVE MAIN FOREST CANOPY, NEST JUST AT TOP OF LIVE CANOPY. CAN BE SEEN FROM DRIVEWAY 1R610 92ND, LOOKING NW. Codes Used In Wildlife Heritage Point Report -------------------------------------------- Quadpt# : A sequential number for a point based on a US Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle. Species Code Alphanumeric code which identifies the species. List of codes are available in the documentation. Species Use Criteria that identifies how the area is used by the indicated species. List of codes are available in the documentation. Common Name : Common name of the species. Year : Year of the observation. Class : Code that separates animals into general groups. AA = Artifical animal (e.g., nest platforms not used yet). EA = Exotic animal. GA = Game animal. NA = No animal found after target specific survey completed. SA - 1 ,1 1 cd nd ) u �. g., _ cpCC4 ST = Split territory. ZA = Zapped animal. Site no longer supports original occurrence. Accuracy : Mapping accuracy of the site as determined by the individual doing the mapping. C = Accurate to within 1/4 mile radius and confirmed by a reliable source. G = Location known only to a general locality. N = Accurate to within one mile radius. U = Accurate to within 1/4 mile radius and unconfirmed by a reliable source. Scientific Name : Scientific name of the species. State Status : State listing status of species. SE = State endangered. SC = State candidate. ST = State threatened. SM = State monitor. SS = State sensitive. Federal Status : Federal listing status of species. FE = Federal endangered. FC = Federal candidate. FT = Federal threatened. FCo = Federal concern. Priority : Species and habitats that are considered to be priorities for conservation and management by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). For a copy of the most current Priority Habitats and Species List contact WDFW PHS Section at (360)902-2543, or it is available on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage_htm. YES = Indicates that the species is considered a WDFW priority and is on the Priority Habitat and Species List and/or Species of Concern List. NO = Indicates that the species is not a WDFW priority. WDFW Region : This contains the WDFW administrative region number 1 through 6. Verified : Verification code for an observation. V = Verified by a reliable source, generally WDFW or other agency biologist. U = Not verified by a reliable source, or identification of species is uncertain. 1 = Confirmed grizzly bear or wolf observation. 2 = Probable grizzly bear or wolf observation. Township - Range - Section : The legal description of the species occurrence. Occurrence# : An ascension catalog number that combined with sequence number identifies a unique record within a species. Sequence# : Occurrences with multiple locations of a species. General Description : Description of location of a species. Priority Habitats and Species Polygon Report Form#: 902541 PHS Code: LINOS Species Use: Common Name: URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARK LANDS General Description: VARIOUS PARKLAND PARCELS IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY. Source: SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARK LANDS GUIDE Source Date: 81 Source Code: GSMAP Synopsis: BOUNDARIES ESTIMATED ON GSMAP FROM COMPARISON WITH SNOH. CO. PARKS MAP. Form#: 902675 PHS Code; WET Species Use: Common Name: WETLANDS Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: LAKE WASHINGTON WETLANDS. General Description: A VARIETY OF WETLAND TYPES ASSOCIATED EITHER DIRECTLY WITH THE LAKE, OR WITH THE SMALLER TRIBUTARY ING AND/OR INDUSTRIAL_ STREAMS. MOST OF SOME OF THESE THIS AREA 1S HEAVILY DEVELOPED AS URBP-N HOUS HAVE AN OPEN WATER COMPONENT. Source: KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS MAPS. Source Date: 12 90 Source Code: GSMAP Synopsis: USGS BASED MAP SYSTEM WITH NWI INFORMATION INCLUDED. Source: OPPERMAN, TONY; SCHNEIDER, PHIL; AND MULLER, TED; PERSONAL OBSERVATION Source Date: 91 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: SITE VISITS IN THE COURSE OF SEPA REVIEW. Form#: 902676 PHS Code: UNOS Species Use: Common Name: URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: EDMONDS CITY PARKS General Description: PARK AREAS IN EDMONDS. PROVIDE REFUGIA HABITAT AND BREEDING HABITAT FOR LOWLAND TREE NESTING BIRD SPECIES. Source: GSMAP, 1981 TO DEFINE BOUNDARIES. STREET ATLAS, 1987 TO CONFIRM. Source Date: 87 Source Code: GSMAP Synopsis: AREAS ARE ALSO SHOWN IN CITY'S OPEN SPACE AREAS PLAN. Priority Habitats and Species Polygon Report Form#: 902677 PHS Code: UNOS Species Use: Common Name: URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: LYNNWOOD CITY PARKS General Description: PARK AREAS IN LYNNWOOD_ PROVIDE REFUGIA AND BREEDING HABITAT FOR LOWLAND TREE DW ELLING SPECIES. Source: GOLDSMITH, MARK WDFW Source Date: 07 01 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: AERIAL PHOTOS. Source: GSMAP, 1981 TO DEFINE BOUNDARIES. STREET ATLAS, 1987 TO CONFIRM. Source Date: 87 Source Code: GSMAP Synopsis: AREAS ARE ALSO SHOWN IN CITY'S PARK PLAN, Form#: 902694 PHS Code: UNOS Species Use: Common Name: URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: SW SNOH. CO. OPEN SPACE. PUGET SOUND TO I General Description: VARIOUS OPEN SPACE AREAS PROVIDING A VARIETY OF HABITATS, MOSTLY FORESTED. FROM EVERETT SOUTH TO KING CO. AND FROM I-5 TO PUGET SOUND. MAY INCLUDE SMALL WETLAND S OR RIPARIAN AREAS. Source: GOLDSMITH, MARK WDFW Source Date: 07 01 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: AERIAL PHOTOS. Source: USGS MAPS AND DNR ORTHOPHOTOS Source Date: 83 Source Code: GSMAP Synopsis: MAPS USED TO OUTLINE BOUNDARIES, PHOTOS USED TO ESTIMATE COVER TYPE PERCENTAGES. Form#: 902701 PHS Code: UNOS Species Use: Common Name: URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: SNOB. CO. PARK General Description: UNDEVELOPED, OLD SECOND GROWTH, MIXED FOREST PARK. EXCELLENT SMALL MAMMAL AND SO NGBIRD HABITAT. Source: SNOH. CO. STREAM AND WETLAND ATLAS. Source Date: 07 84 Source Code: ORTHO Synopsis: DRIVEBY OBSERVATIONS BY T. OPPERMANN AND OTHER WDW STAFF. Priority Habitats and Species Polygon ",port perm#: 9027n2 PHS Code: RRIPAE Species Use: Common Name: RIPAR.IA11 ZONES Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: PERRINVILLE CREEK CORRIDOR General Description: IMPORTANT FORESTED CORRIDOR ALONG PERRINVILLE CREEK. UPPER REACHES SUPPORT RESID ENT CUTTHROAT TROUT. LOWER AREA SUPPORTS/PROVIDES SPAWNING AND REARING HABITAT F OR ANADROMOUS SPECIES. ALSO GOOD SONGBIRD AND SMALL MAMMAL HABITAT. Source: OPPERMANN, TONY; SCHNEIDER, PHIL; WDW PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS. Source Date: 110890 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: STREAM SURVEYED BECAUSE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. WANTS TO BUILD A STORMWATER DE TENTION FACILITY IN THE CREEK. Form#: 902705 PHS Code: UNOS Species Use: Common Name: URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: MEADOWDALE PARK General Description: UNDEVELOPED, OLD SECOND GROWTH, MIXED FOREST PARK. EXCELLENT SMALL MAMMAL AND SO i �GDI :D HABITAT. Source: GOLDSMITH, MARK WDFW Source Date: 07 01 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: AERIAL PHOTOS. Source: SNOH. CO. STREAM AND WETLAND SURVEY MAP ATLAS. Source Date: 07 84 Source Code: ORTHO Synopsis: DRIVE BY OBSERVATIONS BY T. OPPERMANN ON SEPA REVIEWS AND SURVEY OF LUNDS GULCH CREEK BY PHIL SCHNEIDER ON SURVEY FOR HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPLICATION. Form#: 902706 PHS Code: RIPAR Species Use: Common Name: RIPARIAN ZONES Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: LUNDS GULCH CREEK CORRIDOR General Description: IMPORTANT FORESTED CORRIDOR ALONG LUNDS GULCH CREEK. CREEEK SUPPORTS COHO SALMON AND CUTTHROAT TROUT UP TO 163 RD ST SW. Source: SCHNEIDER, PHIL; WDW; PERSONAL OBSERVATION Source Date: 02 91 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: STREAM SURVEYED FOR PROPOSED INSTREAM DETENTION POND. Priority Habitats and Species Polygon neport Form#: 904461 PHS Code: ZACA Species Use: Season:WS F Definition: 0 Accuracy: 1 State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES General Description: CALIFORNIA SEA LION Source: STEVE, JEFFRIES, WDW Source Date: 91 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: AERIAL SURVEYS HO Common Name: CALIFORNIA SEA LION Scientific Name: ZALOPHUS CALIFORNIANUS Site Name: Form#: 904465 PHS Code: PHVI Species Use: HO Common Name: HARBOR SEAL Season:WSUF Definition: 0 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: PHOCA VITULINA State Status: SM Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: General Description: HARBOR SEAL HAUL OUT SITE -YEAR AROUND Source: STEVE JEFFRIES, WDW Source Date: 91 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: AERIAL SURVEYS Codes Used In Priority Habitat and Species Polygon Report --------------- ----------------- Form# : Unique number that links the information in the reports to features on the map. PHS Code : This contains a code that identifies the fish and wildlife species found in the area or the habitat that occurs there. List of codes are available in the documentation. Species Use : Criteria that identifies how the area is used by the indicated species. List of codes are available in the documentation. This field is not used if a habitat is described. Common Name : Common name of the species or habitat. Season : Season of species use. Use is indicated by the presence of a non -blank character in one or more oos- tions or sub -strings of the field position. Position l: W = Winter use. Position 2: S = Spring use. Position 3: U = Summer use. Position 4: F = Fall use. Position 5: S = Severe winter use. Definition : Identifies the definitions or criteria used to classify the area as a priority. List of codes are available in the documentation. Accuracy : Mapping accuracy of the line delineation as determined by the mapper. 1 = Accurate within a 1/4 mile. 3 = Location known to within one mile. 2 = Accurate within a 1/2 mile. 4 = Location known to general locality only. Scientific Name : Scientific name of the species. State Status : State listing status of species. SE = State endangered. SC = State candidate. ST = State threatened. SM = State monitor. SS = State sensitive. Federal -Status :- Federal- Listing -status-of-species FE = Federal endangered. FC = Federal candidate. FT = Federal threatened. FCo = Federal concern. Priority : Species and habitats that are considered to be priorities for conservation and management by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). For a copy of the most current Priority Habitats and Species List contact WDFW PHS Section at (360)902-2543, or it is available on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.htm. YES = Indicates that the species is considered a WDFW priority and is on the Priority Habitat and Species List and/or Species of Concern List. NO = Indicates that the species is not a WDFW priority. Site Name : Name assigned to the area based generally on a local place name. General Description : Description about the area, including how it is used and why it is important. Source : Identifies and describes the source responsible for the information described on the form or drawn on the map. Single or multiple sources may be cited. Source Date Date of source of information. Source Code Code identifying the source of information. Synopsis : Brief narrative describing content of source of information. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PRIORITY FISH REPORT F7 THE WASHINGTON LAKES AND RIVERS INFORM 7N SYSTEM (WLRIS) DATABASE FOR TOWNSHIP T27R04E, SECTION 18 Report Date: October 24, 2005 Information About The Fish Presence Report The fish information in this report only includes information that Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains in a central computer database. This information only documents the location of important fish resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory of the fish species in the state. Fish are identified as priority by WDFW if they meet one of three criterion as listed in the Priority Habitats and Species List. The list is available by contacting WDFW Priority Habitats and Species section at (360)902- 2543, or it is available on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.htm. To insure appropriate use of this information users are encouraged to consult with WDFW biologists. Streams with presence of priority anadromous and resident fish species from the WLRIS database are highlighted on the accompanying map. Due to the complexity of displaying linear features individual species that utilize each river reach are not distinguishable. If more species specific information is needed, users should request individual species maps, digital data, or contact the WLRIS database manager. State status information is not available in the WLRIS database for these species. Please see WDFW Species of Concern List for current status. For a copy of this list, contact WDFW Endangered Species Section at (360)902- 2515, or it is available on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm. Dries ity Anadromcus Fish Dr= cc: Code Common Name ---------------------- Stream Name Stream LLID Record Date COHO Coho Salmon ---------------------------------- Lunds Gulch 1223339478599 ------------- 03-11-13 COHO Coho Salmon Lunds Gulch 1223339478599 05-06-27 COHO Coho Salmon Shell Creek 1223730478218 05-06-27 COHO Coho Salmon Shelleberger Creek 1223911478066 05-06-27 COHO Coho Salmon Stream name(s) not in database 1223453478424 05-06-27 Priority Resident Fish Presence: Code Common Name Stream Name Stream LLID Record Date CCT Resident Cutthroat Stream name(s) not in database 1223453478424 04-12-07 CCT Resident Cutthroat Lunds Gulch 1223339478599 04-12-07 CCT Resident Cutthroat Shell Creek 1223730478218 04-12-07 CCT Resident Cutthroat Shelleberger Creek 1223911478066 04-12-07 Codes Used In The Fish Presence Report -------------------------------------- Code : WDFW alphanumeric code that identifies the fish species. Common Name Common name of the fish species. Stream Name Stream name based on the US Geological Survey, Geographic Names Information System database. Stream LLID Unique stream identifier (ID) generated from the node latitude and longitude located at a stream's mouth. This ID is to be construed only as an ID, and not necessarily as a reference to a stream's location. Record Date Date the information was entered into the database. AT, qP �,s 1 (19 � n•r � � L 1 I \ { i 10s '. .t ��� '_ s / � •; A � 1. *' r11T± 3f11� G f 14 _ 4i12273012 aSt < ,` 1 18) 17 j� 9 949 . I - - I I,`y) 1�ir20 T, Del it I �To, '.__.- ,- If 23,i t ay- �� %TO, - ( ' S r. 11 I. 20 / I. / - •+•• .7 i (l I I.. \ r � 22 '-- - .. .. �: �'I a a ;,�' d' -. s ^a' 111 \ tit 2 ( \ I 24 1 { Hra . xx _ 26 7 gill r r r{ � al r � v � � L�.=-r 1 trasnington vepartment vE run ana wnaume HABITATS AND SPECIES MAP IN THE VICINITY OF T27RO4E SECTION 18 gap Scale - I : 24,000 Coordinate System - Slate Plane South Zone 5626 (NAD27) Production Date - October 24, 2005 gap Designed by WDFW Information Technology Services CIS PLEASE NOTE This nap and the accomppanying reports ne eat for general dislribu l ion. Washington Sl+te Law (iCW /y.l].J10) esenpts Sensitire FisA and Wildlife infomatian iron public inspection and copying. Washington Depa rlment of Fish and Wildlife IWDFW) —,id— sensitive species and h+bi l+t lou ti ons displayyed on This map +id a<omp+iy ing re- ports to be cool ideniNOFW is the exclus ire owner of the Sensitire FisM1 and Wi Mile Info,mation and locations shall in all respects be t rev led s proprietary informal ion in accordance wi lh ail procedures re+zonably metes s+ry to protect WOFW's propriet+ry sights therein. This mop may cpa t,ia s, a species pad moot fats tool are not c,asiaered Priori lY. A ccompanyingmihiz maD ore reports Ihal vroviae information n displayed uildl ile pp,nls ad pal yq,ns- these repo'is do not include inf ormpl; pa tar disDlpr ed spoiled oats pad marbles mvn elel occur reeves. Some legend classes ova symbols may opt be presenl vitn;n the mapped or — DISCLAIMER This mop and Ine ac�_Pcoy ia9 '¢Dods m y 'n nude ;ator maUon 'not Ine Nn shingtaa Deportment 1 Fi so and W,Idlile (WDFW) m'%,"ns ,a o nlrol computer do lab os e. II I Hal an of tempt to p, ov, de You .i I on ai I c;,I gency response as to the impocls of your prated on fish and wi ldli le. This iota r my 1, on only documents the Ipcoli vn pl fish and eildl iI¢ r - lo s Ia the bell i o r t— edge II not v complete i entory and �1 i impor lael to note Ihot I, sh and vsl dl; le r may a not c entiYY known to WOFW bi of oq;sls, r n ar oast tar .hicnccamp� �ehzasive s veps hov not been conducted. Si le sp I i l;c s veys a I requenlly necessary 1p rule out I. Dr ¢sento IT priority resources. Localioes nl mopped ai 1dli le and moot tort aeplures a e generally wi'Ain a guar ter mite of the Iocal ions d; sp to y ed an this mpp r eocalipns al II sm and u:ldlile re aarces ore subject to va ialion taused by disturbance, c h anges in seas n and ¢¢other, nod other Fae(oe s. NDFi does n 1 re em- end us q mpDspmore than siu m,efns aid nee ,nlo.mol iaa :Houle motto¢ plea to,I—Drai ¢cis. to i u oDprapr late us vl Ili, ialo—lioa, users are encouraged to c oasuitr+;tn WDIN b; vl,grs ls. WAIN DATA SOURCES Pr iori lY Rob;tali o d $peci es pal yga a n, Nabilal point, Nlictilol Cvualy Oak, W.ildli le He,ilage, $polled O.1 s. YY 'bled Yur relel, Seal/Sea lion xoniauls 1:24,000 streams and fish Presence da to Wa. Deal, of Fish and N;' li"e Welloads data: US Fish and wildlife Service, `lalionpl wetlands Inv enlor y. Seabird Colony dale: US Notional Oceanic Mad Almospneric Adminislralian. Ne I aed, Oat itond, Eelgr vs s, Turl Algae and Tn.nahi0/Section data: Wo. Dept. of Nvlurol Re—c— Colvrb^o R^r er Tidal rMoroh dal,: Oregon Slate Service Cenler for Geographic MAP LEGEND Priority Habitats/Species: Other HabitatsTSpecies: ® Priority Habitats and Species Other while Heritage Poops (PHS) Polygon Borders Q Priority widSfe Heritage Points Q Privily "lot PGinls Spoiled Oil Management Circles fD Mabled lArrelel Ponds Estcushed Territory (Occupancy Sites) Spatted Oil Moogarrlenl Circles Spotted Oil Site Centers tuuffident Data To Es%ish * (Otficid Staters 1-3) Territory * Spotted Oil Site Centers (Offlcid Status 4) Other Symbols: Priority Mirdirmlals fish Presence Rivers ad Streams at E24,000 Scale Resoul'lon ••••• Priority Resldml Fish Presence TaW1TsRp L'rces Nationd wedards Inventory --- Section Lines fISN.aa WILDLIFE AREA LOCATION 0 OS 1 Angler's Crossing Critical Area Report City of Edmonds Wetland Field Dataform (also used for functional value assessment) 2 November 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1002-WL-Rpt (Nov05).doc Appendix D yt Name of wetland (if known) City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form 1 Location: SEC g TWNSHP -�`i RNGE 4 (attach map of wetland to form) Person(s) Rating Wetland: "T Affiliation: ('nylv! ,Yk-*- ' Project Name/Description: Date of Site Visit: q1- Category Based on Combined Total Score for Functions Assessments I II III IV Total Score for Water Quality Functions Assessment )9 Total Score for Hydrologic Functions Assessment, :Total Score for Habitat Functions Assessment �- Combined Total Score for Functions Assessment ot-�5 Determine wetland hydrogeomorphic class based upon criteria provided on page 2. Complete water quality, hydrologic and habitat functions assessment as directed for the class of wetland being rated and enter scores as indicated above. Final wetland category is based upon a total (combined) score for functions assessment per the score criteria --- or Category I or II Based on Criteria in ECDC 20.50.010(B) I II Specific Criteria fat wetland field dafaform doc%rev.2004.12.20 x Page 1 Wetland Hydrogeomorphic Class Determine the hydrogeomorphic class of the wetland being rated based upon the criteria provided below. Water quality and hydrologic functions assessments are based upon the specific hydrogeomorphic class of a wetland. 1. Are the water levels in the wetland usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during ds)? NO go to 2 YES — Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe itiQ —Estuarine Wetland Estuarine wetlands meet Criteria for Category I or II wetlands regardless of total score for functions assessment per ECDC 23 50 0100 2. Is the topography within the wetland flat and precipitation the only source (>90%) of water to it OR the wetland in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to thesyrface, at some time of the year.? NO —go to 3 Depressional 3. Does the wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? ,At go to 4 YES — Lake Fringe 4. Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a Swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NO go to 5 YES — Slope 5. Is the wetland in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank stream flooding? (The flooding should or_.�,3r at least nnce eyes,.,.- 4-- -110 J%IUt J, V11 lllli average and the wetland -can contain de -cessions that are filled with water when the river t flooding.) NO go to 6 YES — Riverine Hydrogeomorphic class of wetland based on above: Depressional Riverine/Freshwater Tidal Fringe Lake Fringe Slope Class I or II Wetland Based Upon Other Criteria wetland field data form. doelrev.2004,12.20 Page 2 Water Quality Functions Assessment Complete section I below for the hydrogeomorphic class of the wetland to be rated only by circling points under each question. If the answer to section 2 is YES, then multiply the combined number of points from section 1 by 2 and enter this value as the total score for water quality functions assessment on page 1. 1. Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? Depressional Wetlands D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Wetland is a depression with no surface water outlet Points = 3 _ Wetland has an Interml*tPntl}' floe�ving, or highly cvristriGted, outlet Foiufs - 2 Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet Points =1 Wetland is flat and has no obvious outlet, or outlet is a ditch Points =1 l- w'I D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface is clay, organic, or smells anoxic (hydr gen -IY)Vhja-"- sulfide or rotten eggs). YES Points = 4 NO Point = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persist vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest class): Wetland has persistent vegetation > = 95% of area Points = 5 Wetland has persistent vegetation > = 1/2 of area Points = 3 Wetland has persistent vegetation > = 1/10 of area Points I Wetland has persistent vegetation <1/10 of area Points = 0 D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out 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 >'/2 total area of wetland Points 4 Area seasonally ponded is >'/4 total area of wetland Points = Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland Points = 0 Score section 1 for Depressional Wetlands Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland Points = 8 Depr eci cii vii.�i cover > !I'll area Vf Y.,et'Land Points — ^e Depressions present but cover < 1I2 area of wetland Points = 2 No depressions present Points = 0 R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Forest or shrub > 2/3 the area of the wetland Points = 8 Forest or shrub > 1/3 area of the wetland Points = 6 Emergent plants > 2/3 area of wetland Points = 6 Emergent plants > 1/3 area of wetland Points = 3 Forest, shrub, and emergent < 1/3 area of wetland Points = 0 Score section 1 for Riverine and Freshwater Tidal fringe Wetlands wetland field data form. doc/rev.2004.12.20 Page 3 Lake Fringe Wetlands L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore Vegetation is more than 33ft (I Om) wide Points = 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (5m) wide and <33ft Points = 3 Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <16 ft Points =1 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide Points = 0 L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. In this case the herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form (called emergent class) or an understory in a shrub-f orforest communi -- --- - ----' ---- Herbaceous plants cover >90% of the vegetated area Points = 6 Herbaceous plants cover >2/3 of the vegetated area Points = 4 Herbaceous plants cover >1/3 of the vegetated area Points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 2/3 vegetated area Points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area Points =1 Aquatic bed cover > 2/3 of the vegetated area Points = 0 Score section 1 for Lake Fringe Wetlands Slope Wetlands S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of wetland: Slope isl% or less Points = 3 Slope is 1% - 2% Points = 2 Slope is 2% - 5% Points =1 Slope is greater than 5% Points = 0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface is clay, organic, or smells anoxic (hydrogen sulfide or rotten eggs). YES Points=3 NO Points=0 S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface. Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area Points = 6 Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area Points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation > % of area Points = 2 Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area Points =1 "ocs not ntcot arty of tiie criteria above fur veg-e�illiUn_FOIIIts S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface. Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area Points = 6 Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area Points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation > %z of area Points = 2 Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area Points =1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation Points = 0 Score section 1 for Slope Wetlands wetland field data form. doc/rev.2004.12.20 Page 4 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? 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? Indicate which of the following conditions proJv�'de the sources ofpollutants. 0 Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland. A stream/culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas or roads. Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland. tJp The stream linked to a riverine wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the --river,water above standards for water quality. 1-10 A lake fringe wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards or supports gasoline or diesel power boats. Other-- 'I � If answer to section 2 is YES multiply score from section 1 by 2 for total score water quality functions assessment. Otherwise enter score from section 1 as total. Total Score Water Quality Functions Assessment 19 wetland field data form. doc/rev.2004.12.20 Page 5 ■ Hydrologic Functions Assessment Complete section I below for the hydrogeomorphic class of the wetland to be rated only by circling points under each question. If the answer to section 2 is YES, then multiply the combined number of points from section I by 2 and enter this value as the total score for hydrologic functions assessment on page 1. 1. Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? Depressional Wetlands D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Wetland has no surface water outlet Points = 4 V4'etland has are intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet Points Wetland has an unconstricted surface outlet Points = 0 l/ Wetland is flat and drains by surface flow or a ditch Points = 0 D 1.2 Depth of storage/ponding during wet periods: Marks of ponding are at least 3 ft above the surface Points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" Points = 5 Marks are at least 2 ft from surface Points = 5 Marks are at least 6 in. ft from surface Points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water Points =1 No marks of ponding above 6 in., or wetland has only saturated soils Points D 3.3 Contribution of wetland to storage in the watershed: 0 Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of wetland Points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the wetland Points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the wetland Points 0� Score section 1 for Depressional Wetlands, 41 Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands R 1.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (width of wetland)/(width ofstream). If the ratio is more than//20 Points = 9 if thv ratio iJ VVt�YV VI lL LV — 20 L VLI�tJ V If the ratio is 5- <10 Points = 4 If the ratio is 1- <5 Points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 Points = 1 R 1.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as `forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR Emergent plants > 2/3 area Points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR Emergent plants > 1/3 area Points = 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria Points = 0 Score section 1 for Riverine and Freshwater Tidal fringe Wetlands wetland field data form. doc/rev.2004.12.20 Page 6 Lake Fringe Wetlands L 1.1 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): Choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland. >'/4 of fringe vegetation is shrubs or trees at least 33 ft (l Om) wide Points = 6 > 3/4 of fringe vegetation is shrubs or trees at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide Points = 4 >'/4 of fringe vegetation is shrubs or trees at least 33 ft (10m) wide Points = 4 Fringe vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide Points = 2 Fringe vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide Points = 0 Score section 1 for Lake Fringe Wetlands Slope Wetlands S 1.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fit conditions in the wetland. Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows) points = 6 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland Points = 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area Points =1 More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not rigid Points = 0 S 1.2 Characteristics of slope wetlands that hold back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES Points = 2 NO Points = 0 Score section 1 for Slope Wetlands 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the wetland provides flood storage or reduction in water velocity to protect downstream or shoreline property and aquatic resources from flooding and/or erosion. Note which of the following conditions apply. `wetland is in a headwater of a-stream-that-has-flooding-pr-oblems i—)-o Wetland drains to a stream that has flooding problems. to - Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a stream that has flooding problems. V—'O Structures, facilities or natural resources exist downstream or along the shoreline (for lake frin e wetlands) that can be damaged by flooding. Other 0'"L- �IZV�[bt_1S �u Sh-ta�l-l. wav'koL V\.O+- CGS �Se J Asci►-� tal2 Gdn �u't, S —b If answer to section 2 is YES multiply score from section 1 by 2 for total score Gzm C 1�sC hydrologic functions assessment. Otherwise enter score from section 1 as total. y Total Score Hydrologic Functions Assessment 2. wetland field data form. doc/rev.2004,12.20 page 7 H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. �JO Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland -QQUndercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (lm) over a stream for at least 33 ft (10m) 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 K)-t>At least'/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg - lay' by amphibians) I Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants Point = Score section 1 for all hydrogeomorphic wetland classes q H 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H2.1 Existing Buffers: Choose the description that best represents the condition of the natural buffer existing -...........J F1 ... .. <1.... TL.. 7 L__< ___ .i t v r ui vui:u tctG vi Cccu/td 1 lte I'tiglte �t 1'( Ui'!%G�_ (i llCrlt7ii_Llwi UpphieJ' to [Yle_iA�ei and-is-to_De rating. _ g us d in the rating. 0 O 100 m 330ft of relativelyundisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No developed areas within undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing) Points = 5 f� 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open ;ter > 50% circumference. Points = 4 Hrvt5e5, (,ds b 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open G+YGu t^w�ater >95% circumference. Points = 4 100 m (33Oft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference. Points = 3 f �� ha s ,� b�� 3 1 wL GVC ��, fCi ,l C� wetland field data form.doc/rev.2004.12.20 Page 9 50 in (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, roc areas, or o�en water for > 50%circumference. Points = 3 L4 ��S W�vl 1 -7 p o W If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 in (80ft) o *land > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circum ce. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) or heavily grazed for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of we tland).Points = 0. I-L2.2-Corridors �t�crCnn„P t'—�, ------ Choose the description that best represents connections from the wetland to other natural areas and wildlife habitat. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. The wetland is 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 or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in -size. Points=4. The wetland is part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either r riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, �l and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size. OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above. Points=2. The wetland is: _ within 5 mi of a brackish or saltwater estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR withinf a lake greater than 20 acres? Point —1. If none of the above conditions are met. Points=0 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW: Which of the following priority habitats are within 33Oft (100m) of the wetland? U Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each -- - -- ------------- 0 Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. 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 t-�00 less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of wetland field data form. doc/rev.2004.12.20 Page 10 natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi -enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that, of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5% during the period © of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones C eaC eS, an maj' alsC.;nciude the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats Points=4 If wetland has 2 priority habitats Points=3 If wetland has 1 prio . habitat Point=l No habitats Poi s=0 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits. There are at least 3 other wetlands within % 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 q The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake - fringe wetlands within '/z mile Points = 5 y There are at least 3 other wetlands within ''/z mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed Points = 3 1 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake - ]A fringe wetland within %Z mile Points = 3 ,, nn There is at least 1 wetland within %Z mile. Points = 2 — i\6c, do served o� v,,c d There are no wetlands within '/z mile. Points = 0 CO}AWE "a Score section 2 for all hydrogeomorphic wetland classes Add score for section 1 and section 2 for total score habitat functions assessment. Total Score Habitat F na ctions Assessment wetland field data form.doe/rev.2004.12.20 Page 11 January 9, 2006 City of Edmonds Planning Division 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Steve Bullock RE: ANGLER'S CROSSING WETLAND PEER REVIEW Dear Mr. Bullock: LANDAU 14 ASSOCIATES JA N 1 1 2006 Landau Associates conducted a reconnaissance of the Angler's Crossing wetland on January 5, 2006. The purpose of the reconnaissance was to observe and compare current site conditions to two previous wetland delineations that were conducted on the property. The previous reports were prepared for this site by Pentec (1997) and Talasaea (2005) and show discrepancies in the size of the onsite wetland. The 1997 reconnaissance claims the wetland is composed of approximately 1,700 square feet, whereas the 2005 delineation shows the wetland is approximately 400 square feet. At the time of our field visit, the flags from the 2005 delineation were still on the site. Based on our January 5, 2006 field observations, it appears that the 2005 delineation is approximately correct. We agree with the dominant plant species and soil colors documented in the 2005 delineation report. We also agree that precipitation contributes to the hydrology of the wetland; however, shallow groundwater from the surrounding hillsides is likely the main source of wetland hydrology. While we generally agree with the boundaries of the 2005 delineation, a portion of the depression southeast of the wetland (Near TP-2 in the 2005 delineation report) was inundated. However, we cannot definitively conclude that the wetland is larger than the 2005 delineation report because there has been an abundance of recent precipitation (more than 2 weeks of moderate to heavy rain) and January is not considered the growing season in western Washington. During the growing season (starting in March), the area may or may not exhibit wetland hydrology for 2 consecutive weeks. In addition to conducting a field review of the wetland delineation, you also requested that we review the four conditions for exemption of wetland fill under the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.50.040 described in the 2005 delineation report. We agree with conditions 1 and 2: the wetland is less than 500 square feet in area and is a Category 3 or 4 wetland. However, for condition 3, we disagree that the wetland does not provide significant habitat value for wildlife. While the wetland ENVIRONMENTAL ( GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES File No. P-05-136 & PRD-05-137 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 fax (425) 778-6409 SEATTLE • SPOKANE • TACOMA • PORTLAND does score fairly low in habitat value on the Washington Wetland Rating System, the habitat that it does provide is significant in that there is no other wetland habitat nearby. Even small areas of wetland habitat are important within an upland forest, providing seasonal water for birds and small mammals, and potential habitat for amphibians. We also disagree with the assessment of condition 4. Filling the wetland will not maintain equivalent or greater habitat functions and values over existing site conditions. In fact, filling the wetland will eliminate the only existing wetland on this property and, thus, will eliminate the habitat functions it provides. The wetland likely does not meet the exemption conditions and therefore does not qualify for exemption of filling under the ECDC. If you have any questions regarding (his letter, please feel free to contact me at (253) 926-2493. Landau Associates appreciates the opportunity to provide wetland services to the City of Edmonds. We look forward to working with you on future projects. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Jennifer W. Olson Project Environmental Scientist JWO/jdr REFERENCES Pentec. 1997. Letter Report. From Ms. Lizzie Zemke, Project Botanist/Wetland Scientist, Pentec Environmental Inc. to Mr. Ian Z. Park c/o Mr. Charles Maki. February 11. Talasaea. 2005. Report: Critical Area Report, Angler's Crossing, Edmonds, Washington. Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Prepared for the McNaughton Group, LLC. November 2. 1/10/06 \\Edmdata\projects\074\132\FileRm\C\Mglers Crossing wetland_Itr.doc LANDAU AssocIATES 2