Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 29 - Lindsay Subarea Plan with Appendices vi�� '�i,`b Nn'� �1�. RA ' � y� "' '��'�, 'ti. �� � {� �+tip ri► t ��� � ;� _ �, V' '�1!' � •♦ Wit+[.. i QL T. JL City of Arlington / MJS Investors L*indsay Subarea llovember 2025 N Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge everyone in the Arlington community who supported this effort by attending meetings, providing feedback, and helping shape the vision. We thank you for contributing your time and effort to the development of this plan. DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT MJS Investors CITY OF ARLINGTON Amy Rusko, Community & Economic Development Director Jen Haugen, Planning Manager Thad Newport, Development Services Engineering Manager CONSULTANTS MAKERS architecture and urban design, LLP Land Technologies, Inc. Transpo Group Soundview Consultants Land Acknowledgement We gratefully acknowledge that the indigenous Stillaguamish, Tulalip, Upper Skagit, Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla people are the original caretakers of the waters and landscape that are known today as Arlington. With gratitude, we honor the land, the water, and its people. Lindsay Subarea Plan • November 2025 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Study Area 2 1.3 Existing Conditions 3 1.4 What We Heard 5 2 Vision and Plan Concepts 7 2.1 Vision and Guiding Principles 7 2.2 Framework Plan 7 2.3 Goals and Policies 14 3 Development and Design Standards 17 3.1 Context 17 3.2 Strategies 18 Land Use Mix and Density 18 Development Regulations 20 Design Standards 22 Airport Noise 36 Wildfire Risks 37 4 Transportation 38 4.1 Context 38 4.2 Strategies 39 SR 531 (172nd St NE) and Roundabout 39 Right-of-Way Dedication 41 Street Types and Design 42 5 Parks and Trails 50 5.1 Context 50 5.2 Strategies 52 Active Green Space 52 Parks Design 53 Common Open Space Design 54 Trails Design 55 Other Park and Trail Projects 55 Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 iii 6 Natural Environment 57 6.1 Context 57 6.2 Strategies 58 Native Growth Protection Areas Enhancement 58 Wetlands and Streams 59 Stormwater 62 7 Utilities 63 7.1 Context 63 7.2 Strategies 64 Water and Sewer 64 Electric and Communications 67 Stormwater 67 Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 iv Exhibits Exhibit 1-1. Study Area 2 Exhibit 1-2. Top Takeaways — Lindsay 3 Exhibit 1.4-1. Engagement Summary 5 Exhibit 2.2-1. Lindsay Framework Plan 8 Exhibit 2.2-2. Lindsay's Expected Housing Units 9 Exhibit 2.2-3. Housing Type Map 10 Exhibit 2.2-4. Housing Type Examples 10 Exhibit 2.2-5. Open Space and Trails 11 Exhibit 2.2-6. Recreational Facilities, Open Space, and Trail System 12 Exhibit 2.2-7. Common Open Space Illustrations 12 Exhibit 2.2-8. SR 531 (172nd St NE) Roundabout Concept 13 Exhibit 3.2-1. Land Use Map 19 Exhibit 2-. Future Development Area Minimum Residential Density 19 Exhibit 3.2-3. Lindsay Development Standards 21 Exhibit 3.2-2. Lindsay Design Standards Overview 22 Exhibit 3.2-3. Arlington Municipal Airport Traffic Patterns 36 Exhibit 3.2-4. Arlington Wildland Urban Interface Map 37 Exhibit 4.2-1. SR 531 (172nd St NE) Improvement Projects 39 Exhibit 4.2-2. Street Projects Map 41 Exhibit 4.2-3. Street Types Map 43 Exhibit 5.1-1. Neighborhood Meeting Open Space and Trails Survey Result 51 Exhibit 5.2-1. Conceptual Active Green Spaces and Trails 53 Exhibit 5.2-2. PRMP Proposed Park and Trail Improvements near Lindsay 56 Exhibit 6.1-1. Wetlands and Streams 58 Exhibit 6.2-1. Natural Buffer and Wetland Impact Mitigation Requirements. 60 Exhibit 7.2-1. Arlington Capital Projects near Lindsay Subarea 64 Exhibit 7.2-2. Existing offsite infrastructure 65 Exhibit 7.2-3. Existing offsite infrastructure and optional routes 66 Exhibit 7.2-4. Flood risk in Lindsay 68 Lindsay Subarea Plan • November 2025 v Chapter 1 1 Introduction 1 Introduction 1 .1 Purpose The Lindsay Annexation was completed in 2022 under Ordinance 2022-003, officially bringing Lindsay into the City of Arlington, where it is now one of the neighborhoods within the Hilltop Subarea. In November 2023, Ordinance 2023-016 amended Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) Section 20.44.032 Subarea Plans. This amendment reflects community priorities identified through the 2024 Comprehensive Plan engagement process and emphasizes the importance of coordinated land development through subarea planning. This amendment introduced several key changes: 1. Subarea plans must be created for all Comprehensive Plan-designated subareas, including the Lindsay and East Hill areas, both of which fall under the Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) overlay. 2. Each subarea plan must be developed in conjunction with a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 3. Planning must support a coordinated and efficient approach to neighborhood development, including a diverse mix of housing, transportation options, parks and trails, infrastructure, and capital improvements. In 2024, MJS Investors, in partnership with the City of Arlington, initiated the community planning process for the Lindsay Subarea. This process addresses planning elements such as future land use, transportation, environmental stewardship, parks and trails, and utilities and public services. The subarea plan is also being developed in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), countywide planning policies, and the City of Arlington's Comprehensive Plan. Once adopted, the subarea plan will be integrated into the City's development code. The Lindsay Subarea Plan offers a roadmap to guide growth and development. It articulates a long-term vision that reflects the subarea's unique character, identifies critical infrastructure and service needs, and outlines strategies to advance citywide goals and community priorities. The plan establishes a clear framework to shape Lindsay into a peaceful, connected community by cultivating spaces that support well-being and welcome all who call it home. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 1 Chapter 1 1 Introduction 1 .2 Study ,� The Lindsay Subarea, also referred to as the Subarea, is located at the south end of the Hilltop neighborhood and is approximately 87.49 acres. It is bounded by SR 531 (172nd St NE) on the north, the 84th Ave NE alignment on the east, the 168th St NE alignment on the south, and the 751h Ave NE alignment on the west. The SR 531 (172nd St NE) and SR 9 provide local and regional connections across Arlington and into neighboring cities. Edgecomb Creek tributaries flow through the site in two locations. The Lindsay Subarea includes two development areas: • Pending Project Area: Properties assembled by MJS investors, and where development is anticipated to follow soon after the subarea plan adoption. • Future Development Area: Properties within the Subarea that are outside of MJS land assembly. The timing and nature of development in this area remain uncertain. Exhibit 1-1. Study Area �d O � < 2 fD 172n�'" m_ { f Norpoint _ s ' Shooting Center _ Future m _• Pending Development Area � Project Area _ m `�`� rlington 168th St+NE Lindsay Subarea.. j Snohomish C Source: MAKERS, 2025 Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 2 Chapter 11 Introduction 1 .3 Existing Conditions The following topics are addressed in Appendix B Existing Conditions Report and summarized in Exhibit 1-2: • Land Use, Development, and Design • Transportation • Natural Environment • Utilities & Public Services Exhibit 1-2. Top Takeaways — Lindsay Topic Lindsay is zoned Rural Ultra Low Capacity(RULC) with a Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay.The primary existing land use is low- density residential homes,with 17 housing units as of 2024. The area retains a rural character,with large open fields and natural areas. 0 Unincorporated Snohomish County rural residential land, including a chicken farm and Stillaguamish Tribe property, abuts the subarea to Land Use,Development, the south and west. and Design • The Northern Hilltop and Gleneagle neighborhoods to the north, developed in the 1990s-early 2000s, include single family houses, parks,trails, and a golf course. ■ No residential development has occurred over the past two decades on the Lindsay properties. The low-density zoning limits development feasibility. ■ Anticipated commercial development at the intersection of SR 531(17211 St NE) and SR 9 presents opportunities for services to support Lindsay's growth. ■ AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans requires Lindsay development to include diverse housing types and open space. ■ Community interests for future land uses within the subarea include a strong desire to maintain a residential character, interest in small commercial (e.g.,corner store, cafe),and mixed views on housing, including both concerns and interest in smaller lot sizes and greater variety of home types. • Roads serving the Lindsay Subarea are SR 531 (172nd St NE) and SR 9. SR 531 (172nd St NE) runs along the northern edge of the Subarea and connects 1-5 to SR 9. SR 9,a north-south route,connects to Lake McMurray to the north and unincorporated Snohomish County to the south. ■ Sidewalks have only been developed where there are existing Transportation residential subdivisions. • There are no bicycle facilities along SR 531 (172nd St NE),and the Centennial Trail runs north-south along 671"Ave a little over half a mile to the west of Lindsay. ■ The nearest bus stop is 2.75 miles away at Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd St NE). ■ Lindsay lacks an internal street network;existing development directly accesses SR 531 (172nd St NE),79t"Ave NE,or 751"Ave NE. Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 3 Chapter 1 1 Introduction Topic ■Summary The City's Transportation Master Plan includes several planned motorized and non-motorized projects for this area. ■ No parks exist within Lindsay. The Gleneagle and Northern Hilltop neighborhoods directly north include public and HOA parks, a golf course,open space,and trails. G•:'lu ■ AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans requires that a portion of the site area is dedicated to parks and recreation (i.e.,trails). 0 ■ There are planned trail extensions along SR 531 (172nd St NE) and SR Parks and Trails 9, including the planned interconnected trail system as part of the subarea developed. • Edgecomb Creek and a tributary to the creek are within the Lindsay Subarea. The Tulalip Tribes and MJS Investors are coordinating on Edgecomb Creek,which runs through the wooded ravine located on the western portion of the site. Another stream just east of Lindsay connects to Tex Lake, Portage Creek,and the Stillaguamish River. • Edgecomb Creek provides suitable fish habitat for important Natural Environment salmonid species, such as the Coho Salmon and Bull Trout, and an existing fish barrier could be removed. The other two streams are non-fish bearing due to natural and manmade barriers. • Eleven wetlands have been identified either within Lindsay or within 300 feet of the Subarea. Many are considered degraded due to prior land clearing, mowing,encroachment of non-native species,and/or used for agriculture. • Vegetation includes pasture grasses,forests,and scrub-shrub patches and corridors. Disturbed/degraded areas include non-native invasive species. ■ The area supports typical urban wildlife,such as deer, squirrels, crows, songbirds, and other small birds and mammals. • Existing homes currently use on-site septic systems and domestic wells. Future water and sewer service will be provided by City of Arlington Public Works Water and Sewer Divisions. • The City is currently at maximum capacity and is planning numerous facility improvements, including increasing the production capacity of the water treatment plant. Utilities&Public Services Snohomish County Public Utility District(SPUD),Waste Management, Ziply, and Comcast serve the Lindsay area and are expected to continue coordinating with the City to accommodate growth in Lindsay. • The City recently updated its water and sewer system model. However,the modeling results have not yet been made available to fully assess the system's capacity to serve the Lindsay Subarea. This modeling would help clarify necessary offsite improvements to maintain systems capacity. • With continued planning, adequate funding,and interagency coordination, schools, police, and fire/emergency services are anticipated to adequately serve Lindsay. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 4 Chapter 11 Introduction 1 .4 What We Heard The input from the April 2025 EIS Scoping Neighborhood Meeting and 2024 Comprehensive Plan and Housing Action Plan outreach informed the ideas and goals for the subarea. The summary of the public engagement is below: Exhibit 1.4-1. Engagement Summary Event Date What We Heard • 48%of those surveyed are satisfied with the sense of community Comprehensive Plan among residents. Public Engagement 2022- 12%of those surveyed believed there was an availability of and Outreach - 2024 affordable housing within the city. Housing Survey 47%of those surveyed had acceptance of residents of all backgrounds. • Good appearance and has adequate lighting ■ No essential services nearby ■ No easy access to medical services Comprehensive Plan No variety of housing types Public Engagement No bus stops and Outreach - 2022- No fully improved streets Hilltop Subarea 2024 Not part of a trail network Survey* No obvious attractions ■ No public art ■ Mixed results on walkability, neighborhood safety,close to employment, public services, pedestrian concerns, and sites for socialization. ■ Community members value the rural character of the area but there are conflicting visions for future land uses within the Subarea. ■ Single-family homes and attached home styles are most preferred in the area. Some community members raised concerns about smaller lot sizes and higher housing density, noting they may not align with the character of surrounding neighborhoods. Others emphasized the importance of offering affordable housing options to support young EIS Scoping/ families and future generations. March 20 ■ There is equal interest in placing multifamily homes close or away Neighborhood - from 17211 St. Meeting April 10, ■ There is strong interest in expanding park and recreational (Planned Action 2025/ opportunities. The most desired park feature is an open field or Ordinance community April 7, lawn,followed by pedestrian lighting, playgrounds, and seating. Meeting as required by 2025 Parks located near 17211 St are considered the most likely to be RCW 43.21 C.440) used by participants. ■ Community members stressed the importance of conducting further traffic studies and prioritizing investments in infrastructure along 17211 St to address safety and meet anticipated capacity needs. ■ Preservation of cultural artifacts and environmental resources in coordination with the Tulalip and Stillaguamish Tribe. ■ Residents should be made aware of the proximity of their dwelling to the Arlington Municipal Airport and associated airport-related Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 5 Chapter 1 1 Introduction Event Date What We Heard impacts (noise and air pollution). Future plans should be reviewed for airspace hazard. *Note:The following survey response is for the broader Hilltop Subarea. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 6 Chapter 2 1 Vision and Plan Concepts 2 Vision and Plan Concepts 2.1 Vision and Guiding Principles Arlington's Comprehensive Plan,Arlington in Motion 2024 & Beyond, establishes a community vision for the Hilltop Subarea, including the Lindsay neighborhood: "In 2044 Hilltop has a diversity of housing types allowing all types of families to call this subarea home. Hilltop is home to many residents of Arlington and has entertainment and retail opportunities for the community" Building on this vision, the Lindsay Subarea will grow into a peaceful, connected neighborhood by cultivating spaces that support well-being and welcome all who call it home. The following guiding principles, as detailed in the framework plan, reflect the community's priorities for Lindsay and inform the strategies outlined in the chapters that follow: ❖ Encourage diverse housing options ❖ Invest in safe, multimodal connectivity ❖ Create a well-connected network of parks and open space ❖ Enhance natural environment health 2.1d Framework Plan Exhibit 2.2-1 illustrates the vision and key proposals for Lindsay Subarea, reflecting the guiding principles outlined above. The Lindsay Subarea Framework Plan aligns with the City of Arlington's land use planning framework and supports implementation of AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans. Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 Chapter 2 1 Vision and Plan Concepts Exhibit 2.2-1. Lindsay Framework Plan 172nd St NE O L — — — — — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — — i5311 I•: 1 l w Z � z v L - - - — — — —168th St NE O Accommodate planned 172nd 0 Consider using the power lines Create a total of at least 2+ St improvement and continue easement as a park with trails acres in park space(location advocating for implementation. and amenities like community flexible)that encourages © Install a roundabout to gardens and play spaces. public use,builds community improve traffic flow and foster pride,and supports community interaction to -; environmental stewardship. T neighboring sites. LA Lhji On-site stormwater treatment © Accommodate a variety of with bioretention and vaults housing types and allow for as planned in Action PT-2. mixed use and commercial. cnrerSeaith Trail,Seattle a Continue working with the Tulalip Tribes to restore O Connect to the city and regional Edgecomb Creek. Q Lay out residences for trails like Gleneagle and community interaction Forest Park,Airport,and ® Preserve Native Growth balanced with privacy. Centennial Trail. Protection Area(NGPAs)to protect habitat corridors © Develop a cohesive network 0 Set up street systems to and critical areas. of streets and trails to ensure facilitate future offsite convenient,safe connections connections. Enhance the wetland systems between homes,parks,and through a combination of other community destinations. Q Design parks and trail wetland mitigation bank Connect internal trails systems for comfort and credits,wetland creation, throughout the site,especially safety through"eyes and preservation of the along the other buffer of on the parks"strategies. wooded wetland. open spaces. Single family homes Public to private transition Easement Future Development Area-residential Public to private transition - Streams (and potential commercial)mix location to be determined with Natural areas future site planning Wetland Parks Wooded wetland Parks- location to be determined with future site planning Source: MAKERS, 2025 Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 8 Chapter 2 1 Vision and Plan Concepts Housing The City of Arlington and Snohomish County are planning for housing growth in the Lindsay Subarea (see Appendix B Existing Conditions Report — Land Use, Development, and Design), and employment growth within the larger Hilltop area. In accordance with AMC 20.44.032, the Lindsay Framework Plan aligns with these growth targets and includes a diverse mix of housing types. The plan accommodates a total of around 436 units at an average gross density of 5 units per acre, resulting in a net increase of around 419 housing units. Houses and townhomes are allowed to be up to 3 stories, and apartments up to 5 stories. Housing types are envisioned to be similar to the examples shown in Exhibit 2.2-4. To meet the City and community goals for housing variety, the plan accommodates single- family homes (approximately 70% of the expected housing units), townhomes (20% of units), and multifamily homes (10% of units). Additionally, AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans allows for a small portion of mixed-use, small commercial, and ADUs, which could be included in the Future Development Area. Exhibit 2.2-2. Lindsay's Expected Housing Units Single family Multifamily homes homes Townhomes or other' Total Pending Project 224 0 0 224 Area (51%) (0%) (0%) (51%) Future 81 87 44 212 Development Area' (19%) (20%) (10%) (49%) Lindsay Subarea 305 87 44 436 (70%) (20%) (10%) 1.Mixed-use,small commercial, and ADUs are allowed, but not included in draft proposal. 2. Example land use breakdown meeting AMC 20.44.032 and aligning with Pending Project Area developments. TotalExisting Net New Housing Units 17 419 436 Gross area(acres) 87.5 Gross density(Zits per acre) 1 5.0 Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 9 Chapter 2 1 Vision and Plan Concepts Exhibit 2.2-3. Housing Type Map I � 172ND ST NE Roadr- 1 iilL1 _ _I I II f1 ' L: 17- L - �I l_ i • . . . . .i STIME - L- j Single Family homes Easement Future Development Area- Active Green Space residential (and optional Natural Areas commercial) mix Streams Note:The types and configuration of development may be updated in future phases, provided the intent for land uses under AMC 20.44.032 is maintained. Source: MAKERS, Land Technologies,2025 Exhibit 2.2-4. Housing Type Examples Willi ram" � - IY4GI F Single Family homes Townhomes Multifamily homes Source: Land Technologies, MAKERS, 2025 Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 2 1 Vision and Plan Concepts Parks and Open Space Housing would be organized around two open space corridors that follow the Edgecomb Creek tributaries, and parks and trails would be interspersed throughout the development. The parks and open space plan features include: • Several active green spaces (see illustrations in Exhibit 2.2-5), including common open spaces between buildings and parks facing the natural open space corridors, some of which double as stormwater vaults. • A planned trail system connecting sidewalks and open spaces. • A preserved wooded wetland in the southeast corner. • Restoration of other wetlands and the historic Edgecomb Creek in coordination with the Tulalip Tribes. Exhibit 2.2-5. Open Space and Trails • — ` , � ..r 172NDSTNE - ----- --------- 531 -- 1 4s St_NE=_-_- zf i -- _ L Z. W A TT - L 168TH ST NE - Active Open Space Easement Trails Wetlands Natural Areas Streams Note:The types and configuration of development may be updated, provided the intent for land uses under AMC 20.44.032 is maintained. Source: MAKERS, Land Technologies,2025 Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 11 Chapter 2 1 Vision and Plan Concepts Approximately 12% of the site would be designated as active green space and trails, exceeding the AMC 20.44.032 requirement for 10% of the non-Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) site area to be recreation, open space, and trails. The NGPA would account for 30% of the site. Exhibit 2.2-6. Recreational Facilities, Open Space, and Trail System of Gross ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Lindsay Subarea 3,810,914 Gross Area Required Open Space 268,223 (10%of(gross area minus NGPA)) Native Growth Protection Areas 1,128,685 30% (NGPA) Open Space 108,244 3% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------............................................................................................_........................................................ Parks:Storm Management, 470,776 12% Recreation Areas Pending Project Area ----------------------------------------............................................................................................_........................................................ NGPA 337,425 9% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Space 43,834 1% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Parks:Storm Management, 122,426 3% Recreation Areas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Future Development Area NGPA 791,258 21% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Space' 64,410 3% Parks: Storm Management, 348,350 9% Recreation Areas' Sources: Land Technologies,2025 Exhibit 2.2-7. Common Open Space Illustrations „n. Sources: Land Technologies,2025 Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 12 Chapter 2 1 Vision and Plan Concepts Transportation The proposed street system would ensure the new neighborhood is interconnected and accessible with streets and trails for people walking, biking, rolling (e.g., wheelchair, stroller, scooter), transit riding, and driving. Major connections within Lindsay include a north-south connection-79t" Ave NE—and east-west connections (non-continuous because of the stream) approximately 176 ft, 670 ft, and 1,330 ft south of SR 531 (172nd St NE). To ensure the larger transportation system runs smoothly, the developer and/or City would install a roundabout at 80t" Dr NE, depending on timing of development, and the developer would improve SR 531 (172nd St NE) along the Subarea to help implement City and WSDOT plans for SR 531 (172nd St NE). Exhibit 2.2-8. SR 531 (172"1 St NE) Roundabout Concept n rr I. .. .. ��. .. Source: Land Technologies, 2025 Street types and associated cross sections can be found in Chapter 4 Transportation. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 13 Chapter 2 1 Vision and Plan Concepts 2.3 Goals and Policies Development and Design Objectives evolving needs of Arlington's Goals households. 1. Accommodate planned housing 2. Protect the privacy of individual growth within the subarea that properties while encouraging aligns with citywide goals. shared spaces that promote social interaction. 2. Encourage high-quality, pedestrian- oriented design that prioritizes 3. Integrate parks and common open walkability, safety, accessibility, spaces into neighborhoods to and opportunities for social create accessible areas for connection. informal gathering, recreation, and neighborly interaction. 3. Advance Arlington's tree canopy goals and climate resilience 4. Preserve existing mature trees strategies. where feasible and require tree retention and tree planting. Objectives 5. Require landscaping to minimize 1. Update development and design impervious surface area, increase standards to support a mix of green space, and enhance housing types that meet the aesthetics. Transportation - 3. Use complete street design to Goals improve connectivity, support 1. Develop a safe, comfortable, and multimodal travel, and strengthen accessible transportation network neighborhood identity. for people of all ages and abilities — 4. Reduce reliance on single- whether walking, biking, rolling occupancy vehicles by promoting (e.g., wheelchairs and mobility active transportation. devices), or driving. 5. Integrate sustainable design in 2. Design the transportation network transportation infrastructure to with the capacity and flexibility to minimize environmental impacts. support future growth and evolving travel needs. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 14 Chapter 2 1 Vision and Plan Concepts Objectives other vulnerable people by 1. Coordinate with WSDOT to improve separating paths for people from SR 531 (172nd St NE) to enhance fast-moving vehicles — encouraging safety, expand capacity for play and independent neighborhood increased traffic volumes, and travel. provide safe access for all users. 4. Connect to regional trail systems, 2. Develop a cohesive network of expanding recreational access and sidewalks, shared paths, and trails mobility options. to ensure safe and comfortable 5. Implement traffic calming multimodal connections throughout measures on internal roadways to the neighborhood. slow traffic and enhance pedestrian 3. Prioritize safety of children and comfort. Parks and Trails — NGPA) to recreation facilities, Goals parks, and trails 1. Create a cohesive green space and 2. Integrate the trails with the broader trail network. green space system to provide continuous, accessible pathways 2. Improve access to nature and throughout the neighborhood promote opportunities for both active and passive recreation. 3. Create flexible, multi-functional active green spaces that 3. Encourage environmental accommodate a variety of activities stewardship and habitat such as play, events, and quiet preservation through thoughtful reflection. park and trail design. 4. Design parks to respond to the 4. Design parks and trails as site's natural features, community gathering spaces that incorporating native vegetation, foster social interaction and stormwater features, and inclusion. topography. Objectives 1. Dedicate at least 10% or more of the total land area (minus the Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 15 Chapter 2 1 Vision and Plan Concepts Natural Environment - Goals Objectives 1. Protect and enhance wetlands, 1. Preserve the Native Growth critical areas, and their buffers to Protection Area (NGPA) and critical maintain ecosystem services. areas and their associated buffers 2. Restore the health of Edgecomb 2. Implement wetland mitigation plan Creek and its tributaries. and protect the wooded wetland. 3. Protect fish and wildlife habitat in 3. Partner with the Tulalip Tribes to the subarea. restore fish passage and ecological functions of Edgecomb Creek. Utilities feasible to filter and reduce runoff Goals and support wetland health. 1. Manage stormwater through 2. Coordinate with utilities to meet integrated systems that support a future capacity needs and support healthy natural environment. long-term development. 2. Serve the area with adequate 3. Integrate utility corridors with multi- infrastructure. functional uses (e.g., trails, habitat corridors, or greenways) where Objectives appropriate. 1. Manage stormwater with green stormwater infrastructure where Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 3 1 Development and Design Standards 3 Development and Design Standards 3.1 Contex Over the past two decades, while the greater Hilltop Subarea saw significant residential development, the Lindsay portion has seen no new development and retains much of its rural and agricultural character. Existing land uses are predominantly low density residential, with single family homes situated on large lots interspersed among open fields and wooded areas. Gleneagle and Northern Hilltop,just north of Lindsay, Glene yle include single family houses interwoven with public Edyecon,h Northern Hilltop parks, HOA mini-parks, and a private golf course. Newer developments east of SR 9 have introduced smaller lot single family, reflecting a shift toward more compact housing. Nearby subdivisions — Edgecomb, The Subarea benefits from proximity to the following Gleneagle,and Northern Hilltop hubs: Source: Google, 2025 • Commercial - the future SR 531(172nd St NE)/SR 9 commercial node • Civic - Pioneer Elementary School, Arlington High School, and the Byrnes Performing Arts Center northeast of Hilltop • Industrial - the Cascade Industrial Center, one of Snohomish County's employment centers These hubs attract residents and are a driving factor to foster housing growth in Lindsay. Community members envision Lindsay as a residential hub aligned with the Hilltop Subarea vision for diverse housing, retail, and entertainment. Lindsay Subarea planning participants were interested in compatible development patterns with quality design, parks and trails, and enhanced neighborhood connectivity. This chapter positions Lindsay to evolve into a complete, connected neighborhood that supports local residents and the broader community. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 17 Chapter 3 1 Development and Design Standards 3.2 Strategies The community's development and design goals for the Lindsay Subarea include: A. Promote diverse housing options (See Exhibit 2.2-2) to meet community needs, B. Complement the surrounding neighborhood pattern, and C. Promote a walkable and welcoming community. The following strategies advance these goals. Land Use Mix and Density AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans section (f) regarding Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) Overlay areas requires the following land uses: 70% small lot detached single family homes (3,600 SF to 4,500 SF). 20% attached residential (e.g., townhouses, rowhouses, duplexes). 10% multifamily, mixed-use (commercial/residential), accessory dwelling units (ADUs), or small commercial. 10% of the total area of land minus the Native Growth Protection Areas (NGPA) to be recreational facilities, open space, and trail system. Exhibit 3.2-1 Land use map illustrates the anticipated mix of land use types, with development in the Pending Project Area providing small lot detached single family homes, and the Future Development Area providing the remainder of the required mix of housing types. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 18 Chapter 3 1 Development and Design Standards Exhibit 3.2-1. Land Use Map I - I Rural Low Ca odi ./ l c.ez,row , lo'nare �. Co achy LC � 5 Ra d C r1 �o i 1 11 H 5 Y Y 3 -:• 5 5 �. Wetra d Creation wow�sc Wen Vt City of � a no Dmis, o 1 wo 40C lu \ aarnwY„alnsnc:o,,.,r County weer,d �aawAroeelrcnmel Z De'--ea- Er 60' f/.ee'Ebrhea/EaanAe -� '- !x ltlk)l) N Sp16112QY IIGM � fi AY(Mneulwrfewrcnl 6eatipl A.FN»teas rr,v rmeammz Zoning: E m Zoning: Zonrn9: ES..arnyess Ema,srdla*'Nre r R- Tribes IQ 1 A-h <FXr 1011e 91elhpJ.�gNA1%1y 9 Is I Existing Proposed 0 Pending Project Area 0 0 Wetlands Active green space 0 Stormwater vault Future Development Area -residential(and optional - Streams Bioretention type W Wetland creation i commercial)mix Buffers Trails Wetland enhancement L---I Slopes Easement Note:The Pending Project Area is likely to develop as illustrated. The Future Development Area is anticipated to develop completing the remainder of land uses to meet the required land use mix across Lindsay. Source: Land Technologies, MAKERS,2025 Exhibit 2-23. Future Development Area Minimum Residential Density Future Development d• Density Future Development Area gross area (acres) 39 Unbuildable land 20 critical areas, buffers, and easements (acres) Gross buildable land (acres) 19 Minimum Residential Density 11 Expected units/gross buildable land acres (units/acre) Source: Land Technologies, 2025 Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 19 Chapter 3 Development and Design Standards DS-1 Land use mix. Apply this subarea plan to the Lindsay Subarea, allow the land uses as described in AMC 20.44.032(f)(3), and require the land use mix described above. See also Strategy PT-1. DS-2 Residential density. Across the full Lindsay Subarea, residential development shall achieve a minimum density of 5 dwelling units per gross acre (includes critical areas, buffers, and easements), i.e., approximately 436 units/87.5 acres. Residential development shall not exceed 436 units across the full Lindsay subarea; however, if more units are proposed in the future the application for the additional units is required to update and/or revise all necessary documents to describe and mitigate any additional impacts, and provide a site plan and calculations that show compliance with the 70/20/10 residential housing split. Because the Pending Project Area includes approximately 227 small lot single family units, residential development in the Future Development Area must achieve a minimum density of 11 dwelling units per gross buildable area (excludes critical areas, buffers, and transmission lines easement) and maximum unit count of approximately 209 units (unless providing additional impacts analysis and information as described in the paragraph above). This density is required to ensure that the subarea as a whole meets the intent of AMC 20.44.032's required mix of land uses. If an individual future project area cannot meet the minimum density due to site constraints, the applicant must provide a site plan that illustrates how the Future Development Area as a whole would meet this density and land use mix requirement. If development in the Pending Project Area does not develop as anticipated, the subarea-wide minimum gross density and land use mix requirements continue to apply, though the distribution of density may be adjusted. Development may be configured across the full subarea differently than displayed in the example site plan. Development Regulations Exhibit 3.2-1 identifies the changes to apply to the Lindsay subarea, which are intended to encourage housing development and accommodate the growth anticipated in the city and region. DS-3 Apply the following dimensional standards to the Lindsay Subarea to accomplish the concept shown in Exhibit 2.2-1. Lindsay Framework Plan. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 20 Chapter 3 1 Development and Design Standards Exhibit 3.2-45. Lindsay Development Standards Single-family or cottage housing Minimum Lot Size 3,600 square feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------........................................................................................................................................................................ Maximum Lot Size 4,500 square feet Minimum Lot Width 30 feet Single-family houses, .g housing,or townhouses - Maximum Height 35 feet Building Setbacks Front— minimum: 10 feet* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Front — maximum: 15 feet (greater distance allowed if lot shaped requires it) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Side — minimum: 5 feet ................................................................................................ Rear Loaded Rear Setback from sidewalk or drive aisle paving edge if no sidewalk: • Garage: 2-5 feet or 20-22 feet,or • Surface parking only: 20' minimum if parking is perpendicular to drive aisle,or 10' if parking is parallel to drive aisle Front Loaded Rear Setback: 10 feet minimum Projections: Roof overhangs,fireplace projections, and bay and box windows are allowed to project up to 18" inches into the setbacks Parking Orientation Drive aisles are encouraged. When drive aisles are present, parking must be accessed from the drive aisle. Otherwise,front-loaded parking is allowed. Also see Vehicular Entrances and Driveways. Impervious Coverage Refer to setback and stormwater manual for initial development. For redevelopment, impervious surface area may not increase by more than 10%. A p.r I m e n t s m i x ed use,or small commercial Maximum height 50 feet ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Building Setbacks Front— minimum: 5 feet* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Side — minimum: 5 feet ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rear: 10 feet .......................................................... ---- Parking Orientation See Vehicular Entrances and Driveways and Parking Lots Location. ---- -.........................................................................................................................-.........--------...........................-------------.......................................................................................... Commercial Size Maximum:2,000 square feet --------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------..........------..............................------------........................................................................................... Impervious Coverage Refer to setback and stormwater manual for initial development. For redevelopment, impervious surface area may not increase by more than 10%. *Porches are allowed within the front setback up to 5'from the property line. Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 21 Chapter 3 1 Development and Design Standards Design Standards To fulfill community goals for Lindsay, the design standards guide development to be functional, well designed, and integrated into the surrounding natural and built environment. These standards supplement the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) Title 20 — Zoning and the Development Design Standards. The table below provides an overview of the citywide Development Design Standards that are either maintained or amended for the Lindsay Subarea as follows: V Existing citywide standard applies to Lindsay Subarea O Refined design standard applies to the Lindsay Subarea, as amended in the corresponding sections of this chapter New topic applies to the Lindsay Subarea, as outlined in the corresponding sections of this chapter Exhibit 3.2-6. Lindsay Design Standards Overview Citywide Development Design Street Character and Liveliness -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------..............................-------------------------------------------------- Inhabited Streets O Pedestrian-Oriented Facade ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pedestrian Environment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Access to Buildings from the Street %/ ...................................................................................................................................................------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Screening Blank Walls and Retaining Walls O Pedestrian-Oriented Facade -........... ---- ---- ---- ---- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Service Element Screening ./ Screening Parking Lots Screening Parking Garages %/ .. . .......................................................................................................................................-------------------- ----------------------------------------- Parking Garage Entries and Driveways O Vehicular Entrances and Driveways Lighting Design O Lighting -- ............... - -- -- ---- Landscape Design ..................................................................................................................................... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Continuity Along the Street V Parking Lots %/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trees Trees 20.76.124 Shade Trees on 1 Lots and 20.76.110 Required 7� Trees Along Dedicated Streets Transition Between Occupied Spaces and Street Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 22 Chapter 3 1 Development and Design Standards Citywide Development Design Standards Subarea Plan Reference " Relevant Codes Buffering Private Spaces O Trees 20.46.080 Walls and Fences ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Neighborhood Character .................................................................... ------------------------------...........-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Creating Streetscape Compatibility I/ Orienting the Building to the Street C Orienting to Public Spaces ................................................................................................................................................. ------- -........................................................................................... Compatibility within Emerging Centers V ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjacent Properties ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Retaining Privacy and Solar Access O Solar Access Parking Adjacent to Residences Parking Lots Location Chapter 20.72 Parking, 20.76.130 Shade Trees in Q Parking Areas, and 20.76.110 Required Trees Along Dedicated Streets Siting Creating Usable Open Space Residential Open Space 20.44.032 Subarea Plans Q and 20.52.030 Residential Usable Open Space Siting Parking Areas Parking Lots Location Chapter 20.72 Parking, Vehicular Entrances and 20.76.130 Shade Trees in O Driveways Parking Areas, and 20.76.110 Required Trees Along Dedicated Streets Siting Service Elements %/ ------------------ ­­­­­­----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Transit Facilitation Integrating Transit into Site Planning ./ Pedestrian Circulation in Multi-Family Parking Lots Location Chapter 20.72 Parking, Complexes 20.76.130 Shade Trees in O Parking Areas, and 20.76.110 Required Trees Along Dedicated Streets --------------- .................. ...................... ------------------------------------------------------------------.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Architecture Character --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.............-...................................................................- Consideration of Site Conditions V ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Unifying Design Concept %/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Compatibility with Neighborhoods V ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Character and Massing Articulation and Modulation %/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------......... ---- ---- ---- ---- Architectural Scale %/ Rooflines V ........ ........ ......... ......... .......- -- --...................................................................................... . Architecture Elements ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 23 Chapter 3 1 Development and Design Standards Citywide Development Design Standards Subarea Plan Reference Relevant Codes Human Scale ./ --------- --------.............. ---- ---- ---- ---- Building Features %/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.............- ---- ---- ---- ---- Entries %/ Exterior Finish Materials Appropriate Materials %/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parking Garages Compatibility with Occupiable Spaces %/ Integration with the Attached Building V Mixed-Use Buildings Site and Building Design %/ Legend: %/= Applicable citywide Development Design Standard O= Refined design standard for the Lindsay Subarea *= New topic for the Lindsay Subarea Orienting to Public Spaces Intent This standard adds to the citywide Development Design Standard 2.1, Access to Buildings from the Street, and Orienting to Public Spaces standards that require primary entries to face streets. In the Lindsay Subarea, many units' primary entries will face active green spaces instead of streets. Ensure that lots facing designated parks or common open spaces have direct and comfortable pedestrian connections to the public sidewalk network, supporting walkability, neighborhood sociability, and "eyes on the park" for safety. Standards DS-4 Orient buildings toward public space, which includes streets, parks, and common open space. When a townhouse complex or multifamily building abuts multiple public spaces (e.g., a corner lot on 2 streets or a street and a park), face at least one unit toward each public space when feasible. For lots abutting parks and common open space, relate to and connect to the space through the following measures: 4.1. Orient primary pedestrian entries toward the park or common open space. 4.2. Provide a direct path to the sidewalk or trail in the park or common open space (also see Trails). Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 Chapter 3 1 Development and Design Standards 4.3. See Public to Private Space Transitions to ensure primary entries balance privacy with opportunities for neighborly intOeraction. Pedestrian-Oriented Facade Intent These standards add to citywide Development Design Standards 1.1 Inhabited Streets about creating lively street edges and 2.2 Screening Blank Walls about preventing inactive spaces. It builds on these goals by clarifying requirements for residential facades facing streets and common open spaces. Standards DS-5 Create lively street edges through the following measures: 5.1. Transparency. Provide transparent windows or doors on at least 15% of the primary pedestrian fagade (all vertical surfaces of a residence facing the street or open space that contain living space or garage) to promote visibility and connection between the building interior and the public realm. For secondary streets on corner lots, a minimum of 10% transparency is required. All areas inside an individual window frame may be counted in transparency calculations (including, without limitation, window sashes, mullions, rails, stiles, and grilles). On each unit,windows cover at least 15%of W the front facade(yellow �I area shows 1 unit's front facade surface area) Windows on each —II inhabitable floor -- — --- r --— =-- -J 5.2. Blank walls. No ground floor may have a length of 15 feet or greater (measured parallel to the street) without a window, door, porch, special landscaping (e.g., vertical trellis, trees, and shrubs), or other architectural building elements that provide visual interest at the pedestrian scale. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 25 Chapter 3 1 Development and Design Standards Trees,trellis,and windows provide human-scale elements on side wall facing street ]go, Example of a corner lot with quality windows and materials facing the street. Vehicular Entrances and Driveways Intent This standard amends citywide Development Design Standards 2.6 Parking Garage Entries and Driveways and adds to 7.2 Siting Parking Areas to reinforce a walkable and people- oriented community by minimizing the impact of vehicles on the streetscape and pedestrian environment. Standards DS-6 Locate and design garages and driveways to support a people-oriented community in the following ways: 6.1. Primary pedestrian entrance. Buildings must prioritize individual pedestrian entrances over garages. Enhance primary entries with vegetation, trellis, small porch, or other architectural elements that provide a transitional space between private homes and the public realm, and where possible, weather protection. (Refer to Pedestrian-Oriented Facade standards.) 6.2. Garages. Allow street-accessed/front-loaded garages provided: 6.2.1 . Garage door maximum: 20 feet 6.2.2. Location: Garages must beset back at least 5 feet from the front projection of the residence (including porches or covered entry features) Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 3 Development and Design Standards fi r f Front-loaded homes with garages'visual impact minimized through prominent pedestrian entry and garage set back 5 feet from porch and roof projections. Source: Google,2025. 6.3. Driveway dimensions for street-accessed homes. 6.3.1 . Driveway width maximum: 20 feet (measured at the sidewalk perpendicular to driveway edge) 6.3.2. Driveway length (measured from the property line): minimum 20 feet, maximum 22 feet. Exception: Adjustments to driveway length are permitted when necessary to accommodate the shape of the lot or curvature of the street. 6.4. Drive aisles parking. Drive aisles that provide auto access from the rear are encouraged. Buildings on lots that have drive aisle access must provide parking access from the drive aisle and adhere to the following standards: 6.4.1 . Garage setback along drive aisle: Garage setback to be 5' maximum from edge of drive aisle or 20-22' from edge of drive aisle. Driveways between 5' and 20' long are not allowed to prevent parked vehicles encroaching on the drive aisle, which could block emergency vehicles and other vehicles in the drive aisle. 6.4.2. Drive aisle landscape: A minimum 20 square feet of landscaped area abutting the drive aisle is required per lot. These may be clustered but must be placed no more than 60 feet apart on average. Back yards (with or without fencing) count toward this requirement if a tree is provided. While trees are not required, the landscaping may include a combination of groundcover and Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 3 Development and Design Standards shrubs and/or small trees (and large trees where possible) to slow traffic by narrowing the visual width of the drive aisle and reduce the aesthetic and stormwater impact of paved surfaces. Decorative walls and retaining walls count toward this requirement. (See Trees) y f ■ 17' i. o Drive aisles with regular landscaped areas to narrow the visual width of the drive aisle and provide shade, and garage placement for either no parking or adequate parking in front of the garage. The bottom image is an example of inacceptable design treatments. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 28 Chapter 3 1 Development and Design Standards Lighting Intent Adjusts 2.7 Lighting Design to provide appropriate illumination for public space and streets. Consistent, low levels of light increase safety and support a positive atmosphere while minimizing unwanted light spillover into nearby residential areas and wildlife habitats. Standards DS-7 Provide appropriate exterior lighting: 7.1. Provide appropriate average lighting levels for all publicly accessible paths: 7.1.1 . Low or non-pedestrian and vehicular traffic areas, which include drive aisles and trails -minimum 0.2 foot-candles average , maximum 4 foot-candles average, except when adjacent to natural areas, trails may be unlit. 7.1.2. Moderate- or high-volume pedestrian areas, which include access and neighborhood streets and building entries-minimum .9 foot-candle average, maximum 5 foot-candles average, preferred average 2 foot-candles. 7.1.3. Parking lot lighting. Use fully shielded parking lighting fixtures; dark sky rated and mounted no more than 20 feet above the ground, with lower fixtures preferable so as to maintain a human scale. Public parking lots -minimum .5 foot-candle average, maximum 4 foot-candles average. 7.2. Maintain consistent lighting levels with a minimum lighting level uniformity ratio no greater than 4:1 to create gradual transitions between varying levels of lighting and between lit areas and unlit areas. Avoid highly contrasting pools of light and dark areas. 7.3. Pedestrian lighting maximum height: 15 feet, or 3-4-foot bollards 7.4. Parking area lighting maximum height: 20 feet, with lower fixtures preferred to maintain a human scale. 7.5. Use only fully shielded, dark sky-rated lighting fixtures. 7.6. Steady, non-flashing lighting of building features, artwork, and special landscape elements may be allowed, subject to the findings of the Director that the light causes no significant adverse impact. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 29 Chapter 3 1 Development and Design Standards Trees Intent Ensure adequate trees are near homes to provide access to nature and beauty, shade for cooling, stormwater management, air filtration, noise absorption or masking, and other ecosystem benefits. Create a cohesive aesthetic with rows of trees along the front, and where possible back, of homes. Standards DS-8 Provide trees along streets and paths and in parking lots, and preserve existing trees, in the following manner: 8.1. Preserve existing trees in the Native Growth Protection Area and designated open spaces. To the extent possible, preserve existing trees in designated parks. See designated parks and open space in Exhibit 5.2-1. 8.2. Select tree species per Arlington's approved species list (City of Arlington Tree List or Seattle's Green Factor tree list). 8.3. Along all streets, plant or preserve street trees in landscape strips at least every 40 feet on average (also see Street Types and Design). Note, trees are encouraged but not required in the landscaped areas along drive aisles. 8.4. Where development faces parks or common open spaces, plant or preserve trees at least every 40 feet on average along the path running roughly parallel to the front lot lines. (Trees may be on either side of the path and may alternate sides.) 8.5. See the Citywide Development Design Standards 3.2 Parking Lots for trees in parking lots standards. 8.6. Phased development must meet tree requirements for the portion of the site being developed, including conditions of approval. 8.7. See root barrier requirement in City of Arlington Tree List. Public to Private Space Transitions Intent This standard refines 4.1 Buffering Private Space to encourage safe and comfortable public and private realms, design "eyes-on-the-street" interaction between the building Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 3 1 Development and Design Standards interior and the public realm, clarify "ownership" of space (which helps people in their respective zones feel more comfortable occupying the space they're in), and maintain a sense of privacy in private space. Standards DS-9 Create a clear transition between private property and the public realm by establishing a physical "threshold" that defines a semi-public/semi-private zone, through the following measures: y Semi-public zone Private zone- defined by low home interior fence,hedges,etc. Semi-private zone Public zone- defined by porches sidewalk and street Transition between public and private areas to clarify"ownership" of the space and accommodate positive social interactions between people in public and private areas. 9.1. Define the edge of the property line by one or combination of the following elements, a low hedge, retaining wall, rockery, gate, low fence, railing. It may partially screen the home(s) but not fully block views to and from the street and help define individual units. 9.2. Front yard fences abutting streets, common open space, and parks may be a maximum height of 4 feet. Side and rear yard fences' opaque materials may be a maximum height of 5 feet, with 2 additional feet of lattice or other partial screening, up to a total of 7 feet in height. Private yard space, where no other private yard is provided, may be treated like a front, side, or rear yard. Refer to AMC 20.46.080 for fence and wall architectural and material requirements. Exceptions: 9.2.1 . Properties that have their rear yards abutting 172nd St NE may have rear yard fence heights up to 7 feet, except at intersections as described in 8.2.2 below. 9.2.2. At intersections along public streets, fence height is limited to 42" within 10 feet of the right-of-way for visibility sight lines as determined by AMC 20.48.100. 9.3. Provide opportunities for eyes on the public space, screen direct views into the home, and provide a clear public to private threshold (as Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 3 Development and Design Standards described in 8.1). Avoid eye level views from the public space into the home through window placement, ground floor elevation, landscape screening, or other technique. Direct views from a close distance into the home often result in residents keeping their blinds/curtains closed, reducing eyes on the public space. Views to the interior ceiling are acceptable. In general, reduced lateral transition space may be accommodated with increased elevation and/or a stronger threshold element. Entry weather protection Window(bottom of window generally above pedestrian eye level) Outdoor living space —Threshold element defining private property and public realm r 10'-1 5'setback f Examples of acceptable screening and elevation techniques that provide opportunities for eyes on the public space while protecting views into the home for positive public to private space transitions. 9.4. Covered entries are required. Porches and stoops are to have a minimum depth of 5 feet to accommodate seating and entry. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 3 Development and Design Standards 9.5. For retaining walls over 4 feet tall, refer to Citywide Development Standards 2.2.3. Vegetation is encouraged to soften the appearance of retaining walls. n� s Lindsay's single family home lots rendering with thresholds and elevated covered porches,defining the transition between public and private spaces. Source: Land Technologies. 2025. Solar Access Intent Replacing the citywide Development Design Standards 6.1 Retaining Privacy and Solar Access, this standard promotes site and building design that enhances solar access for new development, promotes energy efficiency, supports the future integration of solar energy systems, and minimizes impacts to adjacent structures and public areas. Standards DS-10 When feasible, orient structures and outdoor open spaces to maximize wintertime solar access, improve passive heating and cooling, and create opportunities for future solar energy infrastructure. Use strategies such as: 10.1. As feasible, minimize wintertime shading on parks and neighboring properties through site planning, stepped building forms, and tree species selection to the extent possible (also see Parks Design). For example, plant conifers on northern park boundaries (where shadows would have minimal wintertime impacts on the park) and deciduous trees in southern areas (where shadows on the park would be appreciated during summer). Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 3 1 Development and Design Standards 10.2. When providing solar panels over parking, relax parking lot tree requirements to provide an equivalent area of shade. Residential Open Space Intent Given the extensive provision of ground level parks and open space, adjust Citywide Development Design Standard 7.1 Creating Usable Open Space to add flexibility to balcony design on multifamily buildings and allocation of private outdoor space. Standards DS-11 Private outdoor space minimum per unit: 50 contiguous square feet. Private yard space, covered patio or deck, and/or shared private courtyards (or any mix of these) may count toward this requirement. This area may count toward alley landscaping (see Strategy 5.4.2 Drive aisle landscape if abutting an alley). Exception: Where topography, site configuration, or other constraints make this requirement infeasible, the requirement may be reduced or waived provided the lot connects to a park or common open space. DS-12 Balconies have no minimum depth when a multifamily building orients to a courtyard, park, or common open space. Parking Lots Location Intent This standard adds to 6.2 Parking Adjacent to Residence, 7.2 Siting Parking Areas, an 8.2 Pedestrian Circulation to Multi-Family Complexes. It adds flexibility for parking lot location that prioritizes park or common open space activation over street activation, while continuing to emphasize pedestrian comfort and safety, maintains an attractive, cohesive streetscape, and ensures buildings relate to streets, parks, and common open space. Standards DS-13 Allow parking areas and lots between a residence and the street only as an exception, when a building is intended to orient toward a park, trail, or common open space and the following design treatments are provided: 13.1. Adhere to Orienting to Public Spaces. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 3 1 Development and Design Standards 13.2. To the extent feasible, locate and design the building to activate both the park/common open space and the street, even if just for a portion of the street or park/open space front. 13.3. Install landscaping consistent with the Citywide Development Design Standards 3.2 Parking Lots and 2.4 Screening Parking Lots to soften the visual impact of the parking area and support stormwater management. 13.4. See citywide Development and Design Standards 5.3 Compatibility within Emerging Centers regarding pedestrian circulation routes through all residential complexes (5.3.3.6) and grouping buildings in a way to orient to courtyards and gardens, avoiding orientation to parking lots (5.3.3.3). Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 35 Chapter 3 1 Development and Design Standards Airport Noise As Lindsay lies near Arlington Municipal Airport, more homes could be affected by airport- related air traffic noise. Aircraft follow standard National Business Aircraft Association noise abatement procedures and are advised to avoid noise sensitive areas. Shown in Exhibit 3.2-3. Arlington Municipal Airport Traffic Patterns, Lindsay is not currently designated as a noise abatement area. Updating the Arlington Municipal Airport Traffic Patterns map to include the Lindsay Subarea as a noise abatement area would encourage flight paths that reduce noise impacts to Lindsay. DS-14 Incorporate the Lindsay Subarea within the Noise Abatement Area on the Arlington Municipal Airport Traffic Patterns Map. Exhibit 3.2-7. Arlington Municipal Airport Traffic Patterns Am 14 f► r+ll Ohio"AD"IunnA Source:Traffic Patterns, City of Arlington,2025 Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 36 Chapter 3 1 Development and Design Standards Wildfire Risks The Department of Natural Resource wildland-urban interface (WUI) map and Arlington's Comprehensive Plan indicates Lindsay is located within a WUI intermix area, characterized by lower-density housing interspersed with undeveloped wildland vegetation. The Snohomish County Wildfire Hazard Map shows much of the City of Arlington falls within the lowest wildfire risk zone. In recognition of this potential risk, Lindsay development should consider the guidance in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 51-55 Wildland-Urban Interface Building Code, or standards the City and/or State may adopt over time, to minimize potential risks and impacts of wildfires. Exhibit 3.2-8. Arlington Wildland Urban Interface Map ARLINGTON r - . PLANf Wildlife urban Interface Legend w Mhldlaid urban leterlacr �ii - lr�tser.Non-Rul/aNe - po Ip�. l tar arts. ! IM trUl-Intr4ce \\ t � NUI-Inb•mu t t N rn 4bgruted f.hd6.W - f Non-,*Ruud • ' - Unn•a►tIN t _trtRetated Vnln�ab•tN � ~`�-' WNe• u•9rn C.~%btt � *.ails ^ _- - R.t. = �Ssue."O•wer CNYsIw j � ' —Stau Route Sweet t 'a Ikgort aotd MerrtM - f.i e S e.15 o e S r"�� Mties 4 • r i7 Source: City or Arlington Comprehensive Plan, 2024. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 37 Chapter 4 1 Transportation 4 Transportation 4.1 Context Lindsay is located along SR 531 (172nd St NE), a critical east-west corridor for the City of Arlington that carries local and regional traffic. The highway runs along the northern edge of the Subarea, connecting Interstate 5 (1-5) to the west and State Route 9 (SR 9) to the east. Connectivity. Within Lindsay, the area has not developed with a street system; all properties have direct access to SR 531 (172nd St NE); 791h Ave NE, a north-south street running through the center of the subarea; or 75th Ave NE at the southwest corner. With redevelopment, greater internal connectivity will be necessary. Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The area only includes sidewalks where residential subdivisions developed, meaning there are currently no sidewalks within Lindsay, and a disconnected system on the north side of SR 531 (172nd St NE). SR 531 (172nd St NE) also currently has no bike facilities, though the City is planning for a trail. The Centennial Trail runs north-south along 671h Ave a little over a half-mile west of Lindsay. The nearest bus stop is 2.75 miles away at the Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd St NE) intersection. Traffic. As part of planning for growth and responding to community concerns about congestion and safety, the City of Arlington's Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) have planned major upgrades to SR 531 (172nd St NE). These include road widening, new roundabouts, improved lighting, and other street amenities (see Exhibit 4.2-1 SR 531 (172nd St NE) Improvement Projects). As Lindsay develops, street and trail networks need to prioritize connectivity, safety, and multimodal access. Design considerations include continuous and protected pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, effective traffic control measures to ensure safety and comfort, and landscaping and street trees to enhance the public realm and corridor appearance. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 4 1 Transportation 4.2 Strategies SR 531 (172nd St NEB and Roundabout Transportation projects planned in and around the Lindsay Subarea are described in Exhibit 4.2-1 and shown in Exhibit 4.2-2 Street Projects Map. The primary access to the Subarea is at the 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) intersection. To support this connection and other planned improvements along SR 531 (172nd St NE), a two- lane roundabout will be constructed at this intersection (see Exhibit 4.2-1). Responsibility for constructing the roundabout will fall to the developer and/or the City, depending on whether the development or the SR 531 (172nd St NE) widening project (Phase 2) occur first. If the developer constructs the roundabout, it will count toward impact fee credits since it would be implementing a City-planned improvement. The developer will also be responsible for frontage improvements along SR 531 (172nd St NE). AMC 20.76.090 Special Screening Requirements , which requires 30-foot-wide landscape screens along SR 531 (172nd St NE), is not applied to the Lindsay Subarea. Instead, SR 531 (172nd St NE) street design includes a buffer and design elements (e.g., trees, shrubs, and residential fences) consistent with Complete Streets, Lindsay Design Standards, and planned improvements. These features improve comfort for all users and may reduce perceived impact of traffic noise. Exhibit 4.2-1. SR 531 (172nd St NE) Improvement Projects Projects Extents Description SR 531 (172nd St NE) 0 Widen SR 531 (172nd St NE) from 43rd Ave NE to 59th Ave NE widening — Phase 1 to a four-lane facility with two travel lanes in each direction. (City TIP Item #8, 43rdAve to 0 Construct roundabouts at 51 st Ave NE and 59th Ave NE Project#R-14A) 59th Ave NE Managed and funded through WSDOT with expected City contribution as needed. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2025 and be completed in 2026. SR-531 Trail Construct a multiuse (ped/bike)trail along the north side of Segment 67th to SR 531 (172nd St NE) between 67th Ave and Highway 9. Hwy 9 (City TIP Item Design phase is Federally funded. #12) ■ Widen SR 531 (172nd S NE) between 591h Ave NE and SR 9 to SR 531 (172nd Street a four-lane facility with two travel lanes in each direction. NE)widening — ff Construct a roundabout at 67th Ave NE Phase 2 (City TIP 59th Ave NE ffConstruct a two-lane roundabout at 80th Dr NE/SR 531 Item #18) to SR 9 (172nd St NE). Funded and led by the developer and/or City depending on timing (see row below). . Listed in WSDOT TIP and anticipated for completion before 2044. Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 39 Chapter 4 1 Transportation ProjectsDescription Installation of a roundabout at the intersection of 801h Dr NE 801h Dr. NE and SR 801h Dr NE/ and SR 531 (172nd St NE). 531(172nd St NE) SR 531 0 Coordination with WSDOT. Roundabout(City (172nd St 0 If development comes before the SR 531 Phase 2 project TIP Item #45) NE) listed above,this is a developer driven and funded project. Source: 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan, 2024 T-1 City to support the construction of SR 531(172nd St NE) Widening - Phase 1. T-2 City to collaborate with WSDOT and support the construction of SR 531 (172nd St NE) Widening - Phase 2 to accommodate growth and safety improvements. Accommodate access points as mapped in Exhibit 4.2-2 Street Projects Map, which includes a right-in/right-out only intersection east of 80th Dr NE and west of 80th Dr NE is a full access (no turn restrictions) until completion of the SR 531 (172nd St NE) Widening - Phase 2, after which it will convert to a right-in/right-out only. T-3 80th Dr NE Roundabout. Design and construct the 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) roundabout. Implementation will depend on timing of development and SR 531 Phase 2 project. The 80th Dr NE roundabout project will be developer funded and led, and count toward their City transportation impact fees, if development occurs prior to the Phase 2 project. Ensure the following elements are incorporated: 3.1 Accommodate large vehicles such as trucks and emergency vehicles. 3.2 Provide safe and comfortable pedestrian crossings, including appropriate traffic control measures. 3.3 Ensure safe and comfortable trail connections. T-4 SR 531 (172nd St NE) Frontage Improvements. Improve SR 531 (172n6 St NE) in a manner that supports the SR 531 (172nd St) Phase 2 project and planned access points as illustrated in Exhibit 4.2-2 Street Projects Map. Frontage improvements will be developer funded and led for portions redeveloping, and will be eligible to count toward their City transportation impact fees, unless the City/WSDOT completes the project prior to development. 4.1 Locate sidewalks, curb, gutter, and other utilities to accommodate the planned SR 531 (172nd St NE) widening. 4.2 Align improvements with the City's Complete Streets Program and support non-motorized travel, including a trail. Buffer sidewalks from roadway traffic with landscaped strips with street trees. Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 40 Chapter 4 1 Transportation 4.3 Provide landscaping to improve corridor appearance and increase comfort for pedestrians. Integrate green storm water infrastructure when feasible. Right-of-Way Dedication As part of required frontage improvements, developers will be responsible for constructing street infrastructure consistent with City regulations and the Lindsay Subarea street design guidelines (See Street Types and Design). Ongoing maintenance will depend on whether the streets are publicly or privately owned. T-5 Dedicate primary thoroughfares as public streets to be publicly owned and maintained by the City, subject to City approval, as shown in Exhibit 4.2-2. Street Projects Map. T-6 Maintain internal streets that provide localized access as private streets to be privately owned and maintained as shown in Exhibit 4.2-2. Street Projects Map. Long-term maintenance must be provided by a homeowners' association or other responsible entity. Exhibit 4.2-2. Street Projects Map SR 531(172ndSt NE)Project-Phase I(T--1) r - • 172ND ------------ 5T NE ��• `�531 1r71'30stINE f , Road D l 1 �Q Road C m Road l• R«dK e„b�'A ZMRoad N I — W /\\ x � 1 Road F n �R oad0 SR 531 (172nd St NE)Project � Public(T-5) Active Green Space -Phase 2(T-2) � Private(T-6) Trails 80th Dr NE and SR 531 Natural Areas (172nd St NE)Roundabout(T-3) Streams Note: Location and alignment of streets may be updated with future phase development,as long as the intent for connected streets and trails is maintained. Source: Land Technologies, Makers,2025. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 41 Chapter 4 1 Transportation T-7 As streets are developed in phases, maintain private access and utility easements over the 79t" Ave NE, 1681" St NE, and 751" Ave NE public rights-of-way. Street Types and Design The following map and subsequent cross sections present the vision of a safe, connected street network in Lindsay. As street improvements are implemented in phases, construction and design should not preclude opportunities for future street extension and connectivity. Design Priorities. The proposed streets design emphasizes safe, comfortable, and accessible movement for all users while enhancing the natural character of the neighborhood through landscaping and green infrastructure. Key design considerations include: • Connected Sidewalk and Trails Network. A continuous and well-defined system of sidewalks and trails ensures seamless movement throughout the neighborhood. This network enhances walkability, strengthens access to open spaces, and connects residents to community destinations. Sidewalks are a minimum of 5 feet wide to accommodate two people walking side by side, including those using mobility devices. • Landscape. Streets typically feature landscape strips at least 5 feet wide, providing a buffer between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. These landscape areas accommodate small to medium-sized street trees and support green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) to promote shade and natural drainage. • Traffic Calming Measures. Traffic calming elements through physical barriers (speed tables, traffic circles, chicanes, and textured pavement) or visual cues (street trees, landscaping, and on-street parking) are encouraged, particularly along Access Streets, to manage vehicle speeds and enhance pedestrian safety. • Bicycle Facilities: Support active transportation—including a protected multi-use trail along SR 531 (172nd St NE), a trail under the powerlines that run alongside 791" Ave NE, and bike facility on 168t" St NE—to connect residents to destinations within Lindsay and nearby areas (e.g., Centennial Trail and bus stop to the west and emerging commercial center to the east). • Parking. On-street parking is minimized to allow more room for landscaping and pedestrian space, as most homes are designed with dedicated off-street parking provided in garages or surface lots. Where on-street parking is provided, it may be located intermittently and designed to double as a traffic calming feature. Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 42 Chapter 4 1 Transportation Exhibit 4.2-3. Street Types Map I r _ __ � . � . _ . . STNE -- -— --- I i --- 531 -- ---------- I Q ' I' FrOad W III z Ra w I I x - _ .Ln Road J - i �00mr— Access Streets Active Green Space Neighborhood Streets Natural Areas 0 Drive Aisles Streams Trails Note: Locations,alignments,and types of streets may be updated with future phase development, as long as the intent for connected streets and trails is maintained. Source: Land Technologies, MAKERS, 2025 T-8 Street Types. Design streets according to the street types designated in Exhibit 4.2-3 Street Types Map and their associated Access Streets, Neighborhood Streets, Drive Aisles, and Trails design guidance (starting on page 44). Each street type serves a distinct purpose in the neighborhood's circulation system: 8.1 Access Streets serve as the primary routes for residents entering or exiting Lindsay, linking the neighborhood to the broader Arlington community. 8.2 Neighborhood Streets provide secondary circulation within Lindsay, supporting internal connectivity between residential areas, parks, and community amenities. 8.3 Drive Aisles are designed as shared streets acting as alleys providing vehicular access to rear-lot parking, while encouraging slower vehicle speeds and prioritizing pedestrian movement. Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 Chapter 4 Transportation 8.4 Trails are integrated into the green space network to offer active recreation opportunities and strengthen neighborhood-wide connectivity. Refer to Trails Design for additional trail design guidance. T-9 Implement street design concepts consistent with the Complete Streets Program. Consider the following: 9.1 Sidewalks and landscape areas minimum width: 5 feet 9.2 Parking maximum width: 8 feet 9.3 Travel lane maximum width: 10 feet 9.4 Provide landscape features and plant trees along streets to enhance appearance. Integrate green stormwater infrastructures within landscape areas, as opportunity allows. Refer to Vehicular Entrances and Driveways for drive aisles landscaping design standards. 9.5 Consider incorporating bicycle infrastructure along Access Streets to promote active transportation and improve neighborhood connectivity, and include as part of frontage improvements along 172nd St. T-10 Integrate traffic calming features at no greater than 400-foot intervals along 171 st St NE, designated Access Streets, and other streets with wide, straight alignments. All other Neighborhood Streets and Drive Aisles to be designed to naturally reduce vehicle speeds through curving alignments and narrow travel lanes. Appropriate traffic calming measures may include traffic circles, speed tables, or chicanes, depending on the street type and surrounding context. ■1 it IF— •tea !�� ,s Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 44 Chapter 4 Transportation s Examples of traffic calming measures include (from left to right):first row-traffic circles and curb extensions (bulb-outs); second row-speed cushions and speed tables;third row-chicanes and speed dots; and fourth row-midblock crossings with median refuges and midblock curb extensions. T-11 Design and construct streets such that opportunities for future street extensions are not precluded. Use street stubs to allow the street network to expand as adjacent properties develop. T-12 Design all new streets to accommodate emergency service vehicles. Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 45 Chapter 4 1 Transportation Access Streets Option A: No On-Street Parking This cross-section is appropriate for the short segments accessing SR 531 where on- street parking is not desirable and may also be used adjacent to natural areas where parking is unnecessary. 5'min 5'min 10' 10' 5'min 5'min SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE DRIVING LANE DRIVING LANE LANDSCAPE SIDEWALK 40'ROW Option B: Intermittent On-Street Parking Travel lanes may shift within the right-of-way to prioritize parking where it is most needed, with roadway curves (i.e., chicanes) serving as traffic calming measures. 5'min 5'min 8' 10' 10' 5'min 5'min SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE FLEXLANE-PARKING/ TRAVELLANE TRAVELLANE LANDSCAPE SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE STRIPS 48' ROW Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 46 Chapter 4 1 Transportation Neighborhood Streets Neighborhood Streets allow for two-way travel where motorists may occasionally need to yield to an oncoming vehicle by pulling over out of the travel lane. 5'min 5'min 8' 10, 8' S'min 5'min SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE FLEXLANE-PARKING/ TRAVELLANE FLEXLANE-PARKING/ LANDSCAPE SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE STRIPS 46'ROW LANDSCAPE STRIPS Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 47 C Drive Aisles An 18-foot wide drive aisle is the preferred standard for drive aisles. A 20-foot wide drive aisle is allowed as an alternative. 9-10' 9-10, DRIVING LANE DRIVING LANE 18-20'TRACT 01 ! 1 �ii Ir r k' -- Source:Top left image- Land Technologies,2025. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 48 Trails Refer to Trails Design for • • • design guidance. ice'♦ _ ?- "� _ r, `� �i'" �'. �- �� r��be _ �k� ' ' i"- ' -. w`'..• - [- :�� •} ^ � } ��.�° :� '� tit �' Source: •• image • Technologies, 12025 SubareaLindsay November 1 49 Chapter 5 1 Parks and Trails 5 Parks and Trails 5.1 Context Currently, there are no existing parks or formal trail network within the Lindsay Subarea. However, to the north, the adjacent Gleneagle and Northern Hilltop subdivisions offer a model for a cohesive, amenity-rich neighborhood design. These communities feature interconnected open space and recreational amenities, including public parks, HOA- managed mini-parks, and a private golf course, that are woven into the neighborhood fabric. These features not only enhance quality of life but also promote walkability, social interactions, and access to nature. During the neighborhood meeting, community members expressed a strong interest in expanding the local park and recreational opportunities. The preferred park feature is an open field or lawn for informal play and community gatherings. Other highly desired amenities include pedestrian lighting, playgrounds, and seating. Parks located away from SR 531 (172nd St NE) and near natural areas were identified as likely to be frequently used by residents. See Exhibit 5.1-1 for neighborhood meeting open space and trails survey results. As Lindsay continues to grow, coordinated planning for parks and open space will be essential to support community well-being and strengthen the sense of community and identity. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 5 1 Parks and Trails Exhibit 5.1-1. Neighborhood Meeting Open Space and Trails Survey Result What amenities would you like to see in the parks? (Select your top 4) %ayP,ro m 6 Response options Count Percentage Open f.ldrlawn—10 DoP,N" 3 Paved sports court 1 Ea--lygardener 3 Playground 6 13% Interp.,_signanpe■ 1 Sea[inglbenches— 6 Picnk tables— 3 Pedestrian fighting- 7 Open field/lawn 10 22% Exercise equipment 0 P—i-i atural areas 6 Other 0 Dog park 3 7% Paved sports court 1 2% 45 Community garden 3 7% Responses Interprative signange 1 2% Seating/benches 6 13% Picnic tables 3 7% Pedestrian lighting 7 16% Exercise equipment 0 00/0 Passive/natural areas 5 110/0 Other 0 0% If you lived in the area,which parks would you likely use the most? (Click on up to 2 17 locations) r . _ . � • ... . � 772ND 5lNE _ • _�-- @dt __,_ r• • •l Ro.d nt Road N P R l 9 %• Parks Road F l Road - Open Space • Easement ■ L _ I . 16&TH UT FIE_ — Trails ■ _.nt uie ..... qui. hme Ure ent•c;amn._.rl lro et pA-.-.,'.pp ■■ Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 51 Chapter 5 1 Parks and Trails 5.2 Strategies Active Green Space The Lindsay Subarea Framework Plan outlines a vision that allocates 12% of the total land area to Recreational Facilities, Open Space, and Trail System (called "active green space" in this plan), exceeding the minimum requirement outlined in AMC 20.44.32(f)(3)(iv) Subarea Plans: iv. Fourth element shall be the location of Recreational Facilities, Open Space, and Trail System that consists of ten (10)percent of the total area of land, minus areas to be preserved as Native Growth Protection Areas (NGPA). (A) This designation shall include areas proposed to be dedicated to the city as public spaces. All dedicated parks shall be a minimum of two (2) acres in size and coordinated with the city prior to approval. (B) The trail system shall consist of a paved trail that connects the required sidewalk system and to all recreation facilities and open spaces. This plan implements the community shared goal to prioritize outdoor access for residents for livability and community well-being. Exhibit 5.2-1 presents the planned distribution of active green space. This includes a connected network of parks, common open spaces, and multi-use trails. Each neighborhood enclave includes parks and/or common open spaces to ensure access to nature and recreational opportunities. These spaces accommodate a range of users and activities, from playgrounds and sports fields to picnic areas and quiet, passive green spaces. The proposed trail system provides direct connections to sidewalks and integrated into the green space network, enhancing connectivity and promoting active transportation for heathy lifestyle opportunities. U-1 Design parks, common open spaces, and trails that are responsive to community needs and meet or exceed AMC 20.44.32(f)(3)(iv) requirements. See also Strategy DS-1. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 52 Chapter 5 1 Parks and Trails Exhibit 5.2-1. Conceptual Active Green Spaces and Trails — . _ _ — _ — _ —172NDSTNE _______________ — 531 171 st St NE I oa W I Z S •o a .o I�o u 4 A 0 « c Road E (toad K Road A I i z 60 RoaaP = a JA J r I 168TH ST NE— T-� . — . — . — . — . — . Parks Trails Common Easement open space Streams ` Natural areas Wetlands Note:The types of developments may be updated in future phases, provided that the intent for land uses under AMC 20.44.032 is maintained. Source: MAKERS,2025. Parks Design Parks are thoughtfully woven into the community fabric to provide accessible green spaces that foster social connection, active and passive recreation, and connection to nature. For parks that abut natural areas, emphasize low-impact uses such as trails, nature observation, and educational signage to complement natural area preservation. Use native landscaping and natural barriers to define boundaries, prevent encroachments, and preserve ecological health. Design guidelines for Public to Private Space Transitions and Orienting to Public Spaces help ensure that parks are welcoming and accessible, while clearly delineating the separation between private and public property. U-2Design flexible, multi-functional parks by incorporating the following elements: Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 -ks and Trails 2.1 Take advantage of natural views and incorporate scenic viewpoints along trails and within parks, accompanied by wayfinding and interpretative signage to share the area's ecological and cultural history. 2.2 Incorporate shading and seating structures like picnic tables, benches, and lighting to provide comfort for park users. Refer to the Trails Design section for complementary trail design guidelines. 2.3 Integrate green stormwater facilities such as stormwater vaults and bioretention into park design where feasible. 2.4 Provide age-appropriate recreational facilities tailored to community needs (e.g., tot lots for young children, multipurpose courts for all ages). 2.5 Enhance the park environment with attractive landscaping that emphasizes native vegetation. Refer to Trees for tree planting strategies to support shade and habitat. Common Open pace Design Common open spaces, while typically more limited in size than parks, are intended to be inviting, thoughtfully designed areas that support casual gathering, recreation, and neighborhood interaction. Their design should strike a balance between offering shared community benefits and maintaining privacy for adjacent homes. (See Trees) U-3Design corridor open spaces to be accessible, safe, and functional for informal recreation and leisure activities. Consider the following: 3.1 Manage access and create a sense of privacy from street entry points by using low fencing, shrubs, and other vegetation to help define the boundary between shared and public space. 3.2 Provide pedestrian-friendly amenities such as trails, seating areas, and lighting to make the area more enjoyable. Refer to the Trails Design section for trail design guidelines. 3.3 Place children's play areas in locations that are safely distanced from street edges and parking lots. 3.4 Orient common open space to receive year-round sunlight, facing east, west, or (preferably) south when feasible. 3.5 Where feasible, integrate green stormwater facilities such as rain gardens or bioswales into the landscape. Refer to Trees for tree planting opportunities to support shade and improve overall aesthetics. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 54 Chapter 5 1 Parks and Trails Trails Design A well-connected trail network provides key connections through the neighborhood, parks and other destinations while supporting healthy, active lifestyles. For small areas, trails provide an alternative mode of travel and minimize reliance on cars. Trail design should respect the surrounding natural environment, accommodate future connections, and define public access. Note, the outer 25% of critical area buffers may be used for passive recreation, such as trails, wildlife viewing, and benches. U-4Design trails for comfort following these design considerations: U-5Trails must be a minimum width of five feet and must be hard surfaces outside of the critical area buffers, and may be soft surfaces when in critical area buffers. 5.1 Maintain a minimum five-foot setback from the outer edge of the property line to ensure privacy and reduce potential conflicts with adjacent private properties. U-6Enhance trails with pedestrian-scale lighting and wayfinding elements to promote safety and ease of navigation, except within critical areas and their buffers. U-7Avoid placing trails within wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and other critical areas (except within critical area buffers is ok) to minimize environmental impacts. Trails could be located within natural areas only if appropriate mitigation is provided and the project is reviewed and approved by the City. 7.1 Leverage existing utility corridor along 79th Ave NE to improve trail connectivity. Refer to Other Park and Trail Projects for trail alignments to potential trail and park projects near Lindsay. Other Park and Trail Projects The 2024 Park and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) reinforces these local priorities with system-wide findings that emphasize investment in multiuse trails and playground, indoor activity spaces for youth programs, and enhancements of natural areas, particularly along creek corridors and open space. Drawing on this feedback and an assessment of existing facilities, the PRMP recommends conceptual projects focused on expanding trail and park capacity near Lindsay. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 5 1 Parks and Trails Exhibit 5.2-2. PRMP Proposed Park and Trail Improvements near Lindsay Proposed' SR 531 (172nd St NE) Trail Extend Airport Trail east on SR 531 (172nd St NE) to SR-9; 1.7 miles SR-9 Trail Develop trail on SR-9 from Centennial Trail south to SR 531 (172nd St NE) Skate Dots at Forest Trail Park Install skate dot in park activity area Sport court at Wedgewood Park Install sports court in park activity area ' The park proposals are conceptual and subject to further study and coordination with public and private partnerships to refine and develop. Source: Parks and Recreation Master Plan,2044 Arlington's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan identifies the anticipated motorized and non-motorized projects. One of these projects is the multiuse trail expansion along SR 531 (172nd St NE) from 67t" Ave NE to SR 9. The project's design phase is federally funded and aligns with the proposed SR 531 (172nd St NE) trail listed in the PRMP. U-8City to continue coordinating with WSDOT and Snohomish County to develop trails along SR 531 and SR 9 and improve regional connectivity. U-9City to support park amenities expansion at Forest Trail Park and Wedgewood Park. U-10 City to pursue and encourage with redevelopment safe and comfortable connections between parks in neighboring areas and Lindsay to facilitate active transportation, green space access, and social interaction. Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 56 Chapter 6 1 Natural Environment 6 Natural Environment 6.1 Context Lindsay is located in a rural residential area characterized by a rolling topography with pastures, open fields, and a forested ravine. Lindsay's vital natural resources are the seasonal Edgecomb Creek (the ravine on the western portion of the site), its tributary, and the wetlands distributed throughout the area. These conditions support a variety of habitats and animals that contribute to the area's ecological function and overall watershed health. Edgecomb Creek and other streams. As determined through coordination with the Tulalip Tribes, Edgecomb Creek runs through the north-south ravine in western Lindsay and should support fish. Significant improvements have been made to Edgecomb Creek downstream to improve fish passage, and there is opportunity to continue improvements into the Subarea. Stream Z (a tributary to Edgecomb Creek) runs through central Lindsay, and Stream 2 runs north-south just east of Lindsay (see Exhibit 6.1-1) and flows to Tex Lake, Portage Creek, and ultimately the Stillaguamish River. Wetlands. Eleven wetlands have been identified either within or nearby and many are considered degraded due to prior land clearing, mowing, agricultural activities, and encroachment of non-native species. The southeastern wetland is forested. Plants and animals. Vegetation is predominantly pasture grasses, forests, and scrub-shrub patches and corridors. Disturbed/degraded areas include non-native invasive species. The area supports urban wildlife, such as deer, squirrels, crows, songbirds, and other small birds and mammals, which are typically capable of adapting to human land uses. The Edgecomb Creek provides suitable fish habitat for important salmonid species, such as the Coho Salmon and Bull Trout. The northern reach of Stream Z is also regarded as a suitable fish habitat; however, most of Stream Z and Stream 2 are considered seasonal streams that do not support fish presence. Future development is expected to involve grading and an increase in impervious surfaces, which will alter existing topography and hydrology. Land clearing is expected to result in some loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat within the Subarea. All development will be Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 6 1 Natural Environment required to comply with the critical area regulations specified in AMC 20.93 to protect and enhance environmental health within the Subarea. Exhibit 6.1-1. Wetlands and Streams ` .. . Q•_�fj,!_ �.[• Wit` ��� ,rs"� t� . i IF _ I t ..•. ........ i ..� I JAArea ' TotalFish Total F Offsiter Stream """Ditch Wetland Future Blockage Onsite Develo 0 Culvert Total N j Wetland —— Pending Stream Project Area Source: SoundView,202: 6.2 Strategies Native Growth Protection Areas Enhancement Native Growth Protection Areas, which include wetlands, streams, and their associated buffers, will, for the most part, be preserved and restored to a healthier state. Development will result in some loss of open fields, forests, and pasture areas. However, as the area is mostly disturbed, development presents an opportunity to enhance ecological functions. Restoring disturbed or degraded areas, particularly within degraded wetland buffers, with dense plantings of native trees, shrubs, and groundcover will improve habitat quality. It could also improve riparian habitat, increase shading of the stream channels, and help improve water quality onsite. These are consistent with the mitigation preferences outlined in AMC 20.93.740 (streams) and 20.93.840 (wetlands). These enhancements will support Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 6 1 Natural Environment the establishment of native forest and scrub-shrub wetland communities and promote the creation of connected wildlife and habitat corridors. NE-1 Preserve and enhance NGPAs to maintain habitat corridors, support long-term ecological function, and compensate for any impacts on critical area buffers. Wetlands and Streams Development activities are anticipated to avoid, as much as feasible, areas that contain critical areas and their associated buffers, as described in AMC 20.93. However, to support efficient neighborhood growth, new development may directly or indirectly impact wetlands and streams due to grading, an increase in impervious surfaces, potential land clearing and loss of vegetation and habitat within wetland and stream buffers, and expansion of 79th Ave NE. Edgecomb Creek includes one manmade fish passage barrier (on parcel 31052600100300), which could be removed as part of a mitigation plan to allow fish to travel upstream in the southwest portion of Lindsay. Wetland impacts, such as partial wetland fill, and indirect impacts resulting from buffer intrusions that cannot be fully mitigated through buffer averaging, will be addressed through a combination of onsite and offsite mitigation strategies. Onsite mitigation includes buffer creation, enhancement/restoration, and averaging. As of 2025, AMC 20.93 does not have any code mechanisms requiring the enhancement of degraded wetlands. Likewise, AMC 20-93 does not allow for any outright stream buffer reductions and does not require stream buffer enhancement. As many of the stream and wetland areas are degraded with invasive plants and lack native trees and shrubs, flexibility in the site plan provided by reducing and averaging buffers, paired with required enhancement, would result in a net ecological lift. The preferred offsite mitigation strategy is purchasing credits from a wetland mitigation bank within the same watershed. Lindsay is located within the service areas for Skykomish Habitat Mitigation Bank (SHMB) and Snohomish Basin Mitigation Bank (SBMB), both of which are approved for use and have credits available for purchase. The City and developers should continue coordinating with the Tulalip and Stillaguamish Tribes to support the restoration of Edgecomb Creek and the surrounding wetlands. Upgrading the culverts will be necessary to improve and restore watershed health. Overall, these mitigation measures are expected to result in a net ecological lift both onsite and at the watershed scale. NE-2 Wetland buffers flexibility. Adhere to AMC 20.93 code allowances for wetland and buffer impacts, including mitigation as identified in Exhibit 6.2-1, with the following exceptions within the Lindsay Subarea: Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 6 Natural Environment 2.1 The City will allow a 25-percent wetland buffer reduction beyond the minimum wetland buffer requirements identified in AMC Table 20.93-4, if the wetland is enhanced with native tree and shrub plantings and non- native invasive plants are removed. 2.2 The City will allow wetland buffer averaging of the 25-percent-reduced wetland buffers (beyond the minimum wetland buffer requirements identified in AMC Table 20.93-4) when associated with wetland enhancement. NE-3 Future Development Area stream buffers flexibility. Adhere to AMC 20.93 code allowances for stream and buffer impacts, including mitigation as identified in Exhibit 6.2-1, with the following exceptions: 3.1 Allow a 25-percent stream buffer reduction beyond the standard buffers for any buffer over 50 feet (as identified in AMC Table 20.93-3), if the stream buffers are enhanced and/or restored through the removal of non- native invasive plants and installation of native trees and shrubs. 3.2 Allow stream buffer averaging of the reduced stream buffers beyond the minimum stream buffer requirements identified in AMC Table 20.93-3. NE-4 Pending Project Area stream buffer. In the Pending Project Area, the buffer of Edgecomb Creek/Stream Z shall be 50 feet, as generally depicted in Appendix D. Exhibit 6.2-1. Natural Buffer and Wetland Impact Mitigation Requirements. Code Allowancel Mitigation uirements' Mitigation Proposed Conditions -. Options' Natural Buffer Retention Avoid Retain natural None Buffers remain degraded AMC 20.93.330 buffer condition required. Increase buffer None Buffer width increased, but remains Standard Buffer width required degraded Requirements Implement AMC Avoid mitigation Avoid and/or limit impacts to critical 20.93.830(a) measures and Enhancement areas and their buffers while improve improving buffer condition degraded buffer Buffer Impacts Impacted buffers are restored, in (Temporary) Minimize Where disturbed, Restoration areas where the buffers are currently and rectify revegetate degraded,this will result in improved AMC 20.93.330 conditions Buffer Impacts Minimize Onsite in-kind, Replace impacted buffer area onsite, (Permanent) and presumed 1:1 Creation degraded areas will be improved compensate replacement through enhancement measures. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 60 Chapter 6 1 Natural Environment Code Allowance Mitigation Requirements' Mitigation Proposed Condition5 Sequencing2Option AMC 20.93.820 Impacted buffer will be Offsite Mitigation compensated through the purchase replacement Bank of credits from a mitigation bank within the same watershed Buffer width Average buffer to avoid impacts and Buffer reduction up to Enhancement improve buffer conditions for any Averaging Avoid 25%, net zero (if degraded) part of the existing buffer that is AMC 20.93.320 loss of buffer degraded area Restore areas Ensures temporarily impacted areas temporarily are restored with native vegetation, Rectify impacted by Restoration construction may provide improvement over activities existing degraded condition Mitigation Wetland Onsite in-kind Creation, Impacted critical area will be Impacts Compensate replacement restoration, replaced onsite at a higher ratio according to and/or resulting in overall net increase of AMC 20.93.840 Table 20.93-7 enhancement that critical area onsite Impacted critical areas will be Compensate Offsite Mitigation compensated through the purchase replacement Bank of credits from a mitigation bank within the same watershed 1. AMC 20-93 code allowances for buffer modifications,temporary and permanent buffer impacts, indirect wetland impacts,and permanent wetland impacts. 2. Mitigation sequencing as outlined in AMC 20.93.100 "Mitigation". 3. Mitigation requirements per AMC 20-93 to offset impacts to critical areas or associated buffers. 4. Mitigation allowances to offset impacts to critical areas per AMC 20-93,20.93.740,and 20.93.840. 5. Description of conditions of mitigation implementation. NE-5 Coordinate with Tulalip and Stillaguamish Tribes to preserve and enhance Edgecomb Creek and surrounding wetlands. NE-6 Preserve the wooded wetland in Lindsay's southeast corner and native plant communities in stream buffers. NE-7 Fully enhance and/or restore—through the removal and control of non-native invasive species and the installation of native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers— all degraded stream buffers. This will significantly improve riparian habitat, increase shading of the stream channels, and improve water quality onsite and downstream of the Subarea. NE-8 Create new wetland area(s) and enhance degraded wetland areas to improve onsite wetland functions and mitigate the loss of wetland areas elsewhere onsite. Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 61 Chapter 6 Natural Environment NE-9 Purchase credits from the Skykomish Habitat Mitigation Bank and/or Snohomish Basin Mitigation Bank to offset any mitigation deficits. NE-10 Coordinate with Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) to upgrade the 79th Ave NE culvert. As part of required frontage improvement for 79th Ave NE, replace the existing culvert with a spanning crossing design to improve fish passage and restore natural drainage patterns. The Pending Project will improve 79th Ave NE up to the stream buffer, and subsequent projects will improve the 79th Ave NE culvert. Private access and utility easements will remain in place over the 79th Ave NE public right-of-way. NE-11 Coordinate with Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) for the 1681h St NE Edgecomb Creek crossing. As part of required frontage improvement for 168th St NE, include a spanning crossing design to protect fish passage and natural drainage patterns. Subsequent projects (following the Pending Project) will build the 1681h St NE stream crossing. Private access and utility easements will remain in place over the 168th St NE public right-of-way. NE-12 Fully restore buffers with native plantings following any temporary impacts from construction activities such as site grading and the installation of utilities/stormwater infrastructure. Stormwater The overall increase in impervious surfaces and homes across the Subarea is expected to generate greater runoff and introduce additional pollutant loads to the landscape, such as 6PPD and 6PPD-q which are chemicals from automobile tires that are toxic for salmonids species such as ESA listed bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook salmon. Stormwater will be managed through the installation of stormwater facilities with enhanced water quality treatment to ensure runoff is collected and treated before reaching critical area buffers. NE-13 Use low-impact development (LID) techniques and stormwater facilities to manage increased runoff from impervious surfaces, protecting water quality, and supporting watershed health. NE-14 Apply best available science provided by the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) and the Washington Stormwater Center for best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater treatment and erosion control. Use approved media filter, infiltration, biofiltration, and/or vegetated filtration of parking surfaces and roads stormwater to effectively reduce 6PPD and 6PPD-q below toxicity thresholds at a minimum. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 7 1 Utilities 7 Utilities 7.1 Context The Lindsay Subarea's utilities—electricity, natural gas, refuse service, telephone, cable, water, sewer, and stormwater—are available at varying capacities to accommodate increased land use intensity. Water and sewer. Existing homes currently use domestic wells and on-site sewage septic systems. Future service will be provided by the City of Arlington Public Works Water and Sewer Divisions. Drinking water flows from a water storage tank located east of SR 9 along SR 531 (172nd St NE) to Lindsay. Sewer flows northwest from Lindsay through the Gleneagle and Hilltop neighborhoods with two routes available, both meeting on 67t" Ave NE near 188t" St NE, then continuing north to the water treatment plant. The City's Water Department maintains a Water System Plan (WSP) reviewed and approved by the Department of Health to assure provision of safe and ample water supplies for public health and fire protection. The Arlington 2024 Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement states that the City is currently at maximum capacity and is planning numerous water and sewer improvements, including increasing the production capacity of the water treatment plant. Power, communications, and gas. Snohomish County PUD, Puget Sound Energy, Comcast, and Ziply (cable) serve the subarea. Existing infrastructure is located along SR 531 (172nd St NE). The City encourages placing electric utilities underground with redevelopment. Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 Chapter 7 1 Utilities 7.2 Strategies Water and Spy, As Lindsay develops in phases, each project would include new connections to the existing water and sewer systems and increase water demand and sewage flows. According to the City of Arlington's reported water use data, the subarea will require an average of approximately 85,000 gallons of water per day. Preliminary estimates indicate an increase in peak sewage flows of approximately 306.8 gallons per minute (GPM) or 0.614 cubic feet per second (cfs). Water and sewer system modeling, being completed by the City, will determine offsite infrastructure upgrades necessary to maintain system capacity. Most new utility infrastructure would be installed along or under the future road alignments. In some cases, short segments may extend outside of roadways. These segments may affect wetland or stream buffers, and appropriate site-specific mitigation measures would be determined through project-level analysis. The City's Capital Improvement Plan includes the following City-funded improvement projects identified near Lindsay: 13 Project SM27 — Primary Interceptor (67t" Ave Trunkline) Improvements (Phase 1 & 2), horizon year 2025 2025 Utility Improvement & Pavement Preservation Project to install new utility lines and preserve pavement surfaces (green line along Gleneagle Blvd in Exhibit 3.5-3) — construction began Summer 2025 Exhibit 7.2-1. Arlington Capital Projects near Lindsay Subarea Layers ® Arlington City Limits nedg1. B Transportation CIP Projects GOH Course PHASE Construaion r''rr1'Club Or — u ^ Design Y- i ,Planning i Completed 1 i \ M utility Projects i PHASE J Consvuaion ---� McPherson Rtl JDesign lbPlanning Notes: Green line- Install new utility lines and preserve pavement surfaces; construction started Summer 2025. Orange line — Design and construct 12-foot wide trail along SR 531, estimated start date based on funding. Source:Arlington,WA Capital Projects. City of Arlington, 2025 Lindsay Subarea Plan• November 2025 64 Chapter 7 1 Utilities U-1 Design and construct water and sewer systems to accommodate anticipated demand, proportionately and fairly sharing costs with the City and other development projects for offsite improvements. 1.1 Plan infrastructure lines for efficiency to maximize the number of homes and businesses served. 1.2 Avoid impacts to critical areas, but where pipes must extend through streams, wetlands, and/or associated buffer areas, mitigate any impacts. Exhibit 7.2-2. Existing offsite infrastructure -- -� f 16" DI Water Main T� Lindsey Q Subarea 12" DI Water Main Water Tank Existing 16" DI Water Main - -—Existing 12" DI Water Main p - - - Existing Existing Hydrants _- Lindsey Null Subarea Source: City of Arlington, Land Technologies,2025 Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 65 Exhibit 7.2-3. Existing offsite infrastructure and optional routes SSMH 111 Pion Element ry School J 1 `ice gle jai 3 _'t L -08 — PV Gravity Flow I Lindsey Subarea 3" DI Force Main ■ LS-08 Lift Station Source: City of Arlington, Land Technologies, 2025 Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 66 Chapter 7 1 Utilities Electric and Communications As electric vehicle use increases and buildings include more electric systems and appliances, loads on the electric system continue to increase. At the same time, power sources and battery storage continue to evolve. New neighborhoods have the opportunity to build resiliency into their utility systems. To protect utilities from storms, fire, and human interaction, and to avoid visual clutter, power and cable lines will be underground. Also see the Solar Access development standards. U-2 Continue coordinating with the Snohomish County PUD to ensure adequate power supply. U-3 When improving SR 531 (172nd St NE), underground the electric/cable lines (not including the existing transmission lines). U-4 Design and construct new electric and communications lines to be underground throughout Lindsay. U-5 To the extent feasible, design and construct Lindsay's power system as a microgrid with back-up power storage for emergencies and renewable energy sources. U-6 Consider solar power or other alternative energy sources to light the street and trail system. U-7 Encourage streets and the electric systems to support future EV charging infrastructure along public streets that include street parking. Stormwater In Lindsay, stormwater generally flows toward the two Edgecomb Creek tributaries and wetlands. Stormwater facilities protect public health, safety, and welfare by preventing or reducing floods and improving water quality (see water quality related measures in the Natural Environment chapter's Stormwater section). According to Flood Factor, Lindsay's flooding risk is relatively low. The City is planning some culvert and other natural enhancements along Edgecomb Creek. Lindsay Subarea Plan- November 2025 67 Chapter 7 1 Utilities Exhibit 7.2-4. Flood risk in Lindsay Mep Layers r Ni CumnS 8 Futuro Rlek � aeaa less This year In 15 years In 30 years Select a flooding likelihood this yser Rare avant-0.2Y.likely Q (�Probable event•1ya likely Q Vary probable event-5 k likely Q t (�Regular even[-20%likely QQ j Vary regular avant-50°/.Iikey Q 4 0 O SO O Averege depth of flootling arountl Damage causes by the {, he bulltling flaoeing event 4�- 0 hdepth of Gooding et the lovrest point of the structure.O 0 pepm or nooemg In.l Note:Environmental risk data is provided by First Street'. First Street models are designed to approximate risk and not intended to include all possible scenarios. Source: First Street Flood Factor,2025. To prevent downstream flooding, the Arlington Public Works Standards and Specifications and the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington require development to include stormwater systems that slow and clean water onsite as well as natural conditions would have. This means that Lindsay will be graded and stormwater collected to flow to a series of rain gardens and stormwater vaults. U-8 Design green stormwater infrastructure systems with best management practices and capacities beyond the minimum Arlington stormwater manual requirements when feasible, especially when projects are small and trigger limited stormwater code compliance. Ensure each project phase has adequate stormwater infrastructure. U-9 Limit paving widths and use pervious paving systems to the extent possible to minimize impervious surfaces. Lindsay Subarea Plan a November 2025 City of Arlington / MJS Investors indsay Subarea Plan Appendices NG November 2025 Appendices Lindsay Subarea Plan Appendices • Appendices • November 2025 2 List of AppendicL-.. A Lindsay Scoping Engagement Summary B Existing Conditions Report Land Use, Development, and Design Pending Project Area Traffic Impact Analysis Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Utilities & Public Services C Conceptual Mitigation Plan D Updated Pending Project Area Site Plan and Mitigation Lindsay Subarea Plan Appendices • Appendices • November 2025 3 A LindsayScoping Engagement Summary Lindsay Subarea Plan Appendices • Appendices • November 2025 A-1 Public Neighborhood Meeting On March 20, 2025, the City of Arlington issued a scoping notice advertising a 30-day written comment period on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concluding on April 10, 2025. As part of the community planning process and to meet the Planned Action community meeting provisions in RCW 43.21 C.440(3)(b), a community neighborhood meeting was held in person on April 7, 2025, and advertised in the scoping notice. The scoping notice identified the study of two alternatives and the following preliminary environmental topics: • Natural Environment: Earth and Water Quality-, Plants and Animals • Land Use: Relationship to Existing Plans and Aesthetics • Transportation • Public Services: Parks, Schools, Police, Fire/Emergency Services • Utilities: Sewer, Water, Stormwater, Street Lighting lama e � u Meeting Objectives • Identify key EIS topics • Highlight community assets and challenges • Gather feedback on the preliminary site plan, proposed housing types, transportation improvements, and park/open spaces A-2 Results About 15 people attended the neighborhood meeting. 5 written comments were received, either written directly on the board and/or sticky notes. The presentation included a survey to gather feedback on the meeting objectives. The following are summarized responses from community members: • Single-family homes and attached home styles are most preferred in the area. Some community members raised concerns about smaller lot sizes and higher housing density, noting they may not align with the character of surrounding neighborhoods. Others emphasized the importance of offering affordable housing options to support young families and future generations. • There is equal interest in placing multifamily homes close or away from 172nd St. • There is strong interest in expanding park and recreational opportunities. The most desired park feature is an open field or lawn, followed by pedestrian lighting, playgrounds, and seating. Parks located near 172nd Street are considered the most accessible and likely to be used by residents • Community members stressed the importance of conducting further traffic studies and prioritizing investments in infrastructure along 172nd Street to address safety and meet anticipated capacity needs. • Preservation of cultural artifacts and environmental resources in coordination with the Tulalip and Stillaguamish Tribe. • Residents should be made aware of the proximity of their dwelling to the Arlington Municipal Airport and associated airport-related impacts (noise and air pollution). Future plans should be reviewed for airspace hazard. A-3 Survey Response Images Visioning Question 7. I'm interested in the Lindsay Subarea because (Select all that apply) ti I'm interested in the Lindsay Subarea because(Select all that apply) %924 1 live nearby 58% 1 work nearby — 8% 1 work for an agency that will review this plan 0% I'm an involved community member'. 25% Other — 8% r91arttMP+iwiWionbsae IWcaNalrt.Forsa wl#om sdhrarrr,slwn the M1AQw"A"Mllival C0w—*&pp Question 2. What makes the Hilltop Area (including the Linsday Subarea) special? (Select your top 3) ti What makes the Hilltop Area (including the Lindsay Subarea)special? (Select your top 3) %938 Neighborhood/homes 24% Community feel/social connections 11% Urban amenities 3% Proximity to rural and agricultural area 11% Greenery/natural environment 32% Transportation access 11% Schools — 5% Other — 5% Start tha prewntation to sae tive content.For—i slurs soltnrwe,share the wMie screen.Get help ae polle—o-app % A-4 Question 3. What do you value most about living or working in your community? (Enter one word responses) o p Join by Web PollEvxom/makers350 Join by Text Send makers350 and your message to 22333 FRI What do you value most about living or working in your community?(Enter one word responses) 19 space seclusion entradvanacemen outdoor l U ra'I peaceful peacefulness rc nature safety convenient farmland activities solitude quiet Question 4. What are you interested in seeing as this part of Arlington develops? (Select all that apply) ti ■' What are you interested in seeing as this part of Arlington develops? (Select all that e9 29 apply) Homes 21% Businesses(comer store,bakery/cafe,gym,etc.) 7% Parks and open space 34', Trails 28% Other 1OND Start thn pravxrtation to s..Irvv mntrnt.for urem sham wltwam,sham thn mhrr r�r.m.(t halp at potkv .c pp A-5 Question 5. Knowing that properties here are allowed to build homes and the City's Comprehensive Plan is counting on this area to provide housing options, what types of homes would you like to see? N Knowing that properties here are allowed to build homes and the City's Comprehensive Plan is counting on this area to provide housing options,what types of homes would you cr30 like to see? (Select all that apply) Single family homes 47% Attached dwelling units(ADUs) 7% Duplexes,town homes,or other attached home style 27% Multifamily homes(garden apartments,flats,etc.) 0% Mix of home types 17% Other 3% A■ start the presentation to sw live content.For sawn share software,share the entim wean.Get hvip at polev—Napp A-6 Housing Question 6. Knowing that a variety of housing types is needed in the area, where would you most like to see multifamily homes? (Select up to 2 options) Knowing that a variety of housing types is needed in the area,where would you most like �022 to see multifamily homes? (Select up to 2 options) Close to 172nd St 36% Away from 172nd St 36% Mix throughout 18°/b Does not matter to me 0% Other 9% Start 0.p—tatio.to sev live content.Far share software.share the emir.xraan.Cat 6alp at pottay.mrnJapp �. Parks Question 7. What amenities would you like to see in the parks? (Select your top 4) What amenities would you like to see in the parks?(Select your top 4) ­� Response options Count Percentage Paved sports court C.—,IY ,dena� Playground 6 13% Mnpnti,e vFnanKe� n -.bl s— 6 Padesfnan tighln Open field/lawn 10 22% �ere,eea;pmer P�.a,apra a.eae Dog park 3 7% Paved sports court 1 2% Community garden 3 7% Interprative signange 1 2% Seating/benches 6 13% Picnic tables 3 7% Pedestrian lighting 7 16% Exercise equipment 0 0% Passive/natural areas 5 11% Other 0 0% A-7 Question 8. If you lived in the area, which parks would you likely use the most If you lived in the area,which parks would you likely use the most? (Click on up to 2 ce 17 locations) r . _ . � . � • � • _ l _ 171st St NE ' Z lW - - e • �• ,�- Ro c!C i • a. l Roed C � RoadM Road%- R _ l -Rea3fi �v i l Road N • — ` R IRoger oa��� Parks l Road O Open Space l Easement L • l • — ' — — - — _ _ _ 16,$TH S7 NE_ --• Trails • ■ .,�, v ,, ,e polMv.comJapp Transportation Question 9. What street elements would you prioritize? ■ i What street elements would you prioritize? (Select your top 4) �v29 Street trees 17% Sidewalk 21% Shared spaces between people and cars(i.e.,wooneif) 0% Parking 17% Natural drainage/greens stormwater infrastructure 7% Native and/or hardy vegetation 24% Design elements that slow traffic 7% 2-way travel 7% Other 0% �■ Start the prowtation to sx live content.For—ven sharp software,sMro the entae screen.(t Wp at p.11iii eNapp ■■ A-8 EIS Scoping Question 10. What do you think are the 4 most important EIS topics to understand environmental implications and tradeoffs of Lindsay Subarea development options? ti What do you think are the 4 most important EIS topics to understand environmental implications and tradeoffs of Lindsay Subarea development options? Earth and water quality 11% Plants and animals 15% Energy and natural resources - 2% Noise 13% Relationship to existing land use plans 11% Housing 11% Aesthetics;urban form 11% Cultural and historic resources 0% Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions - 2% Transportation ■ Start tM pres wion to sae Irvo content.For wean sham software,srury tM vMire wwn.r,ot MIp M po6ev corryapp Response Count Earth and water quality 6 Plants and animals 8 Public services(Parks,Schools,Police,Fire/Emergency 3 Services) Noise 7 Utilities(sewer,water,stormwater,street lighting) 2 Transportation 6 Other 1 Aesthetics/urban form 6 Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions 1 Housing 6 Energy and natural resources 1 Relationship to existing land use plans 6 A-9 Question 11. If you selected "Other '; what topic would you like to add for the environmental analysis? If you selected "Other", what topic would you like to add for the environmental analysis? The amount of traffic back ups Traffic Note: Participants were informed that a transportation analysis model will be completed as part of the EIS. A-10 B Existing Conditions Report Lindsay Subarea Plan Appendices • Appendices • November 2025 B-1 City of Arlington � Lindsay Subarea Plan Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report September 2025 Prepared by: MAKERS architecture and urban design 1 Introduction Subarea Planning Purpose and Process The Lindsay Annexation was completed in 2022 under Ordinance 2022-003, officially designating Lindsay as one of the neighborhoods within the Hilltop Subarea. In November 2023, Ordinance 2023-076 amended Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) Section 20.44.032 related to Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) development. This amendment introduced several key changes: 1 . Subarea plans must be created for all fourteen Comprehensive Plan-designated subareas, including both the Lindsay and East Hill areas, both of which fall under the MPN overlay. 2. Each subarea plans must be developed in conjunction with a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 3. Planning efforts must support a coordinated and efficient approach to neighborhood development, including a diverse mix of housing, transportation options, community amenities, infrastructure, and capital improvements. See AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans for more details. The Lindsay Subarea Plan will establish a long-term vision for development, address current and future infrastructure needs, and recommend strategies to support citywide and community goals. An initial step toward implementation is expected to include updates to zoning and development standards to align with the vision outlined in the plan. This document is part of the first stage to summarize existing conditions in the Lindsay subarea. This analysis will inform options development and evaluation for inclusion in the subarea plan. Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-3 Study Area The Lindsay Subarea, or Subarea, encompass an area of approximately 87.49 acres. It is bounded by SR 531 (172nd St NE) on the north, the 84th Ave NE alignment on the east, the 168th St NE alignment on the south, and the 75th Ave NE alignment on the west. The Lindsay Subarea is subdivided into two development areas: • Pending Project Area: Properties assembled by MJS investors, and where development is anticipated to follow the Subarea Plan adoption. • Future Development Area: Properties within the Subarea that are outside of MJS land assembly. The timing and nature of development in this area remain uncertain. Exhibit 1. Top Takeaways — Lindsay 9P i y i� c`Q7� 3 172nd � Norpoint Ii�nL • �+ Shooting Center �' ,f►'' � Pending m Project Area G Future Ln Development Area 3 r. XI rlin ton '. 168th)StiNE Lindsay Subarea, Snohomish County Source: MAKERS,2025. Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-4 2 Land Use Regional Context and Location Lindsay is located in southeast Arington, Washington. Surrounding land uses includes low density residential, undeveloped forest lands, and open spaces. Unincorporated Snohomish County abuts Lindsay to the east and south. Arlington is bounded by Port Susan in the Puget Sound to the west, the Stillaguamish River to the north, and the Cascade Mountain Range to the east. Arlington is roughly 40 miles north of Seattle and 10 miles north of Everett, home to Snohomish County's Paine Field Airport. According to the 2020 US Census, the city of Arlington's population is roughly 20,000 people. The are currently 17 existing homes in the Linsay Subarea. The SR 531 (172nd St NE) and SR 9 provide local and regional connections across Arlington, and into neighboring cities. • Interstate 5 (1-5) to Mt Vernon, Burlington, Bellingham, and British Columbia to the north and Marysville, Everett, the Seattle area, Oregon, and California further south • State Route (SR) 530 eastward to Old Town Arlington, Darrington, and the Cascade Range • SR 531 west to Warm Beach and Port Susan on the Puget Sound • SR 9 to Lake Stevens, Bothell, and Bellevue The land is the traditional homeland of the Stillaguamish, Tulalip, Upper Skagit, Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Tribes, and falls within the Treaty of Point Elliott area. The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians owns the property to the east of Lindsay. The Stillaguamish Reservation is located north of the Stillaguamish River, about 1 .5 miles northeast of the subarea. The Tulalip Indian Reservation is about 4 miles southwest of the subarea. Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-5 Exhibit 2. Arlington Region Map Stanwood 1 Bryant a -, Sunday Lake 1� FIo1e�ce 9 w Silvana d Heights 530 Warm Beach Arlington Srnokey Point 531 9 f _ 531 Lake Goodwin Li ndsay Kayak Point Subarea North Marysville d Source: MAKERS, 2025 Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report Lindsay Subarea Plan September 2025 B-6 Subarea Context Lindsay is located at the south end of the Hilltop neighborhood. To the west and south, the Subarea is bordered by Snohomish County rural residential lands. This is similar in pattern to the existing land uses within Lindsay. The property to the east is owned by the Stillaguamish Tribe and is largely an undeveloped open space. Lindsay's vital natural resources are the seasonal tributaries of Edgecomb Creek which flow through the site at two locations, the large ravine on the western portion of the site, and the wetlands distributed throughout the area. These conditions support a variety of habitats and animals that contribute to the area's ecological function and overall watershed health. There are existing subdivisions to the north, including Gleneagle and Northen Hilltop. These neighborhoods typically feature two-story single-family homes on lot sizes ranging from 7,000 to 8,000 square feet. Small parks and a golf course are interwoven in the neighborhood. Future development in Linsay is anticipated to mirror the development of nearby subdivisions. Exhibit 3. Lindsay Northward Perspective Map MUM R` (YYY1 lyhi�d:t sso f �•o : . sd Y ub, yw Source: MAKERS, 2025 Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report Lindsay Subarea Plan September 2025 B-7 Planning Context Arlington Comprehensive Plan The City's Comprehensive Plan, was adopted in December 2024. As part of this process, the City collaborated with the community to establish a framework guiding future growth in the Hilltop area. The Subarea chapter of the Comprehensive Plan outlines the community's vision for Hilltop, including the Lindsay Subarea, as follows: "In 2044 Hilltop has a diversity of housing types allowing all types of families to call this subarea home. Hilltop is home to many residents of Arlington and has entertainment and retail opportunities for the community". Arlington in Motion 2024 & Beyond include goals and policies to ensure the subareas develop in a way that is consistent with the community's visions to promote sustainable, equitable growth that will improve the City's quality of life for generations to come. The following selected goals addressed in the Lindsay Subarea Plan includes: Economic Development E-1 Preserve and enhance open space, natural, and cultural resources and strive for equitable geographic and demographic distribution. E-5 Identify, protect, and enhance natural areas to foster resiliency to climate impacts, as well as areas of vital habitat for safe passage and species migration. Land Use LU-1 Provide unique places and context for the growth of social capital and community resiliency. LU-8 Ensure new services and facilities are provided within a reasonable time after the annexation of unincorporated Urban Growth Areas. LU-10 Future growth in the City will be accommodated and served consistent with the PSRC Regional Growth Strategy. Housin HU-1 Encourage a quality and diverse housing stock within the City. HU-2 Provide housing options affordable to all demographics and incomes in all areas and zoning districts of the City. H-5 Encourage mixed-income and mixed-use neighborhoods. Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-8 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space P-1 Develop an equitable, high-quality parks and recreation system that provides a diversity of recreational, cultural, and educational opportunities that are inclusive and welcoming for all. P-5 Utilize the parks and recreation system to protect unique environmental qualities, natural amenities, wildlife habitats, forest lands, and scenic areas within the city. P-6 Provide a trail system that creates links between commercial and residential areas in Arlington and connects to regional trails, parks, recreation facilities, and open spaces. Transportation T-73 Consider the special needs of subarea transportation facilities including appearance and safety. T-15 Use "Vision Zero"and "Safe Routes to School" guidelines to provide safe walking and biking routes for our residents." AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans Ordinance No. 2023-016, adopted in November 2023, amended AMC 20.44.032, formerly titled Master Planned Neighborhood Development, which is now referred to as Subarea Plans. This amendment reflects the city's current housing needs and emphasizes the importance of coordinated land development through a subarea planning process. The ordinance establishes specific requirements under the Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay. Key amendments to the municipal code include the following "(c) A subarea plan is typically developed to encompass the entire subarea, however under certain circumstances it may be developed to include only specific neighborhoods, corridors, downtown, or other types of special districts that show cohesive characteristics. The East Hill and Lindsay Annexation subareas shall be developed in their entirety. (d) As subarea plans are created, elements of form based code are proposed to be included to provide the community with a predictable design and development pattern that is customized for the specific area (e) Subarea plans are to be processed in conjunction with a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A planned action is a development project whose impacts have been identified and addressed through an EIS associated with the subarea plan for the specific geographical area before individual projects are proposed. A planned action involves detailed State Environmental Policy Act Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-9 (SEPA) review and preparation of EIS documents in conjunction with subarea plans, consistent with RCW 43.21 C.031 and WAC 197-11-164 through WAC 197- 11-772. The up front analysis of impacts and mitigation measures then facilitates environmental review of subsequent individual development projects. (f) A subarea plan application under the Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) Overlay shall include the following information: (7) A land use application and submittal checklist with all required documents. (2) Permit fee, as shown on the most current fee schedule. (3) The subarea plan shall include the following elements: i. One element shall be small lot detached single-family residential or cottage housing, with a minimum lot size of 3,600 square feet and a maximum of 4,500 square feet and consisting of seventy (70) percent of the total lots. ii. Second element shall be attached residential, such as town homes, row houses, or duplexes, and shall be developed as fee simple lots through a unit lot subdivision (subject to §20.44.020 Unit lot Subdivisions) and consisting of twenty (20) percent of the total lots. iii. Third element shall be one of the below options and shall consist of ten (10) percent of the total lots. (A) Accessory Dwelling Unit (constructed with residence) (B) Mixed-Use Development (vertical) (C) Multi-Family Apartments (D) Multi-Family Fourplex (E) Multi-Family Garden Apartments (F) Small Commercial iv. Fourth element shall be the location of Recreational Facilities, Open Space, and Trail System that consists of ten (10) percent of the total area of land, minus areas to be preserved as Native Growth Protection Areas (NGPA). (A) This designation shall include areas proposed to be dedicated to the city as public spaces. All dedicated parks shall be a minimum of two (2) acres in size and coordinated with the city prior to approval. (B) The trail system shall consist of a paved trail that connects the required sidewalk system and to all recreation facilities and open spaces. (4) The subarea plan shall show the location of each housing type listed above in the way of a subdivision layout. (5) The architectural design of the structures shall comply with the Development Design Standards pursuant to §20.46 Design. (6) The subarea plan shall show the conceptual infrastructure plans that include location, types, and sizes of streets, sewer, water, stormwater, etc. Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-10 (7) Public infrastructure impacts and financing strategies including any improvements to existing on or off-site facilities necessary to support the proposed subarea plan. (8) Transportation impact analysis and financing strategies including any improvements to existing on or off-site facilities necessary to support the proposed subarea plan. The analysis shall also include all current and future designated multi-model plans. (9) The subarea plan shall adhere to the Arlington Complete Streets Program. (70)The subarea plan shall provide anticipated phasing or sector lines on the subarea map. (g) The subarea plan for the East Hill and Lindsay Annexation area serves as the typical preliminary plat document for development and shall follow the process of a conditional use permit (§20.7 6.225 Special Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits). " Land Use Patterns Existing Land Use Over the past two decades, while the greater Hilltop Subarea saw significant residential development, the Lindsay portion has seen no new development and retains much of its rural and agricultural character, partly due to its zoning prior to the City's annexation. Lindsay's current land uses are predominantly low-density residential. These single-family homes are interspersed within expansive open fields, wetlands, and forested areas. This development pattern is remnant of the area's agricultural heritage. Lindsay currently lacks a connected street network, with 79t" Ave NE serving as the primary internal Glene�yle d roadway for existing residents, and parks or other N©,til,ern Hilltop recreational facilities. Within one mile of the Subarea is commercial, civic, and industrial hubs. Residential. North of the study area, the Gleneagle and Northern Hilltop neighborhoods consist mostly of Nearby subdivisions — Edgecomb, single-family homes on lots ranging from 7,000 to Gleneagle, and Northern Hilltop 8,000 square feet. These established communities are Source: MAKERS interwoven with public parks, HOA mini- parks, and a private golf course. East of SR 9 is a growing subdivision with new single-family homes on 4,000 square feet lots, reflecting a shift toward more compact, yet still low-density, residential development. Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-11 Consistent with the Hilltop Subarea vision, community members have expressed strong interest in shaping Lindsay as a residential hub. Together, these adjacent residential areas present an opportunity for the Lindsay Subarea to adopt compatible development forms and neighborhood design strategies that promote continuity and enhance connectivity. Surrounding rural lands. To the west and south, Lindsay is bordered by Snohomish County rural lands, which are primarily residential and similar in character with Lindsay. East of the study area are properties owned by the Stillaguamish Tribe. Future planning efforts must consider compatibility with these lands and seek to minimize potential land use conflicts. This will require updated zoning, and context-sensitive design standards to ensure development in Lindsay complements the surrounding rural context. Nearby supportive hubs. Lindsay benefits from proximity to key commercial, civic, and industrial hubs that support its evolution as a complete neighborhood: • Commercial: The intersection of SR 531 (172nd St NE) and SR 9 is identified as a future commercial node, offering opportunities for retail, services, and community-focused businesses that can serve nearby residents and visitors. • Civic: Just northeast of Hilltop, at the intersection of Crown Ridge Blvd and SR 9, a cluster of civic institutions, including Pioneer Elementary School, Arlington High School, and the Byrnes Performing Arts Center. • Cascade Industrial Center (CIC): West of 67t" Avenue NE lies the second-largest Manufacturing-Industrial Center in Snohomish County. The CIC includes resource- based manufacturing and processing facilities, as well as the Arlington Municipal Airport. These uses are key employment centers for the broader region and may attract family and working-age households to the Lindsay area, further supporting its residential development. Urban Form Lindsay's character is shaped by its prior unincorporated Snohomish County rural residential zoning and agricultural legacy. The area maintains a rural character defined by low-density residential development, large open fields, and natural areas like forests and wetlands. Existing single-family homes are located on large lots and are typically set far back from the road, resulting in no or limited build-to-street relationship. This area is largely car-dependent, with limited pedestrian pathways, bicycle infrastructure, and transit. Roads serving homes in Lindsay lack sidewalks are unpaved and lack street lighting. The existing subdivisions to the north are screened from SR 531 (172nd St NE) with fences and street trees. Sidewalks along SR 531 (172nd St NE) are limited and exists only where adjacent to these subdivision developments, resulting in a sporadic and fragmented sidewalk network. Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-12 Future Land Uses Zoning In 2022, Lindsay was annexed into the Hilltop Subarea under AMC 20.44.032, following the sewer plant expansion that enabled service to the area. As part of the adoption, the City proposed a zoning designation of Residential Ultra Low Capacity (RULC) with a Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) overlay to support the goals of the Growth Management Act. See Exhibit 4. Lindsay Zoning Map. Exhibit 4. Lindsay Zoning Map M GC = General Commercial /b% �► M RHC = Residential High Capacity w a RLc RLC = Residential Low Capacity ��1 a 9 L=aim P/SP = Public/Semi-Public 71NQ-10 L1ST.7y __t` / RULC = Residential Ultra Low Capacity ---- 2NDSTN -------------- -- -------- Master Planned Neighborhood per' -------a------ - RHC (MPN) y� ------- _----------- - ---- ----------- - PHER50 Airport District F-1 Lindsay Source: City of Arlington, MAKERS 2025 RULC allows for 1 -4 dwelling units per acre and primarily accommodates single-family homes on large lots, 9,600 square feet or more, and permitted building height up to 35', or three stories tall (See Exhibit ). The intent of the MPN overlay is to promote a more coordinated, efficient, and effective land development. Section AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans provide more details about the specific policies and criteria to meet the provisions of AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans for MPN designated areas. Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-13 Exhibit 5. RULC Density and Dimension Standards da Residential Ultra Low Capacity Minimum Lot Size (square feet) 9,600 or larger Minimum Residential Densities 1-4 Du/AC ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minimum Lot Width (feet) 1 70 ..........:...................................................................................................... Building Setback Requirements Non-Arterial Street Building 25 —Minimum Distance, in feet Right of Way Line from: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Freestanding Sign 10 Arterial Street Right Building 40 ofWay Line ........................................ ...................................................................................................... Freestanding Sign 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rear Lot Boundary Building Primary— 20 Line Accessory—5 ............................................................... ..............................................................................................__.......................................................................... Side Lot Boundary ; Building and 5 Line or Alley I Freestanding Sign ECA Buffer 15 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Height Limit(feet) 35 Max. Lot Coverage (%) 35 Source: AMC Chapter 20.48 Density and Dimensional Regulations. Airport Protection Subdistrict The majority of Lindsay lies within the Airport Protection Subdistrict C (See Exhibit ), which restricts uses that would interfere with airport and flight operations, limits building/structure heights to 166 feet, deters uses that increase bird impact problem, and does not limit residential or employment intensities. Noise Noise sources in and near Lindsay include typical neighborhood sounds, such as lawn equipment, children playing, car horns, sirens, and music played outdoors; roadway-related noise from vehicles' tires hitting pavement and engine sounds, especially along SR 531 (172nd St NE); Arlington Municipal Airport-related air traffic noise; an indoor shooting range east of Lindsay; and a chicken farm south of Lindsay. Aircraft follow standard National Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-14 Business Aircraft Association noise abatement procedures and are asked to be aware of noise sensitive areas. AMC 20.44.210 — Noise, pursuant to WAC Chapter 173-60, limits the maximum permissible noise level within a residential zone to 55 dBA, with limits reduced by 10 dBA between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am. Louder intermittent sounds are allowed with limits on their time (1 .5 to 15 minutes depending on volume) in a one-hour period. Sounds generated from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity are exempt from this provision between the hours of 7:00am and 10:00pm, or when conducted beyond 1,000 feet from any residence. Motor vehicle and aircraft noise follow separate rules. AMC Chapter 9 — Peace, Morals and Safety and AMC Chapter 7 — Nuisances provide additional guidelines regarding allowable noise, violations, and exemptions. Noise must not rise to the level of public nuisance that disturbs a community or neighborhood. Variances may be approved subject to City approval. Homeowners' associations may also enforce supplemental regulations. Exhibit 6. Noise levels near Lindsay Subarea r" Noise (dBA) J 24-hr LAeq It F; > 90.0 ' 80.0-89.9 70.0-79.9 _ 60.0-69.9 E 55.0-59.9 50.0-54.9 45.0-49.9 Note: Map includes road and rail-related noise. Aviation noise data is not available. Source: National Transportation Noise Map, 2020 Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan September 2025 B-15 Exhibit 7. Arlington Municipal Airport Traffic Patterns jr ice{ \" fA y 3 y- �ignred d5xk� /A pan Off- 7 RU '44 i 1 � Trldflc Pettams Edit " $ 4�. It{f 76-34 Fixed Wing 7 f► 11 29 Fued Wing �-► 76-34 Helicopter T< TWIN LAKES t► 11-29 Helicopter 76-34 Glider �► UMralight Noise Abatement Area Source: Traffic Patterns, City of Arlington, 2025 Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report Lindsay Subarea Plan September 2025 B-16 Housing Capacity The table below presents housing capacity to accommodate growth targets and projected housing needs in Arlington, as analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan and by PSRC. Recognizing Lindsay's redevelopment potential, the City identified the Subarea as a key opportunity area to accommodate housing growth. No significant job growth is anticipated in this area. To plan proactively, the City has analyzed a higher-end growth scenario in the Comprehensive Plan, reflecting a more aggressive pace of development to accommodate HB 1220 (housing needs by income) requirement and to concentrate growth near Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC) and high-capacity transit stations. As a result, the City's Comprehensive Plan's estimated housing capacity across the city is higher than PSRC's estimates. Under the Comprehensive Plan, the City planned for the Lindsay Subarea to see about 85 net new housing units, for a total of 102 housing units, and significant growth within the broader Hilltop area, especially the southeastern corner. The PSRC growth target is not an alternative to be analyzed in this EIS, but included for information purposes only. In the Lindsay Subarea, it closely aligns with the intent for a subarea plan developed under the City's Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay regulations, rather than the underlying ultra-low intensity residential zoning. Lindsay is part of the broader Hilltop geographic area—Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZes) 423, 424, and 441—for which housing capacity is modeled. Two TAZes extend beyond the Lindsay Subarea boundary, and the southeastern TAZ is critical to the Hilltop area as a whole, so the "Outside of Lindsay" area shows the housing capacity for that larger area excluding Lindsay. Exhibit 8. Lindsay Comprehensive Plan and PSRC Growth Targets for 2044 Net New Housing 2044 Total Housing Units 2044 Existing I Comprehensive Comprehensive -----------------------Plan---------------------------------------PSRC----------------- Plan PSRC' Lindsay --------------------------------------------------------------------------------.................................-.............................................................-..............................................-...........................................................------------------------------------------------. TAZ 423 9 34 242 43 251 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TAZ 424 8 51 239 59 247 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal 17 I� 480 102 497 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------.................................-.............................................................-..............................................-...........................................................------------------------------------------------ Outside of Lindsay ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TAZ 423 542 - - 542 542 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------.................................-.............................................................-..............................................-...........................................................------------------------------------------------. TAZ 424 382 20 20 402 402 Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-17 LNet New Housing 2044 Total Housing Units 2044 Comprehensive Comprehensive -----------------------Plan----------------------1---------PSRC-- ---------------------------------------Plan PSRC --------------------------------------- - ------.- 92 1,916 466 2,008 588 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------................................._............................................................._.............................................._...........................................................------------------------------------------------. Subtotal 1,016 1,936 486 2,952 1,502 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------................................._............................................................._.............................................._...........................................................------------------------------------------------. Total 1,033 2,021 966 3,054 1,999 Source: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Forecasts PSRC targets are included only for informational purposes. Exhibit 9. TAZ Growth Targets Model Map Lindsay Subarea Outside of Lindsay TAZ Boundary 423 424 441 Source: MAKERS, 2025 Key Findings and Implication fo. Assets • Zoning. The Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay provides an opportunity to increase residential density. The adoption of AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans provides guidance for land development, and when paired with regulatory updates, support community desired development patterns. • Nearby supportive hubs. Lindsay benefits from proximity to key commercial, civic, and industrial hubs that support its evolution as a complete neighborhood. The SR 531 Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-18 (172nd St NE) and SR 9 provide local and regional connections across Arlington and into nearby towns and cities. • Opportunity for community serving uses. Additional commercial, service-oriented, and recreational opportunities can be incorporated to better meet community needs. Explore opportunities for private-public partnerships to support needed amenities, including civic and community spaces. • High-quality, efficient development. New homes and streetscape design can be functional, well designed, and integrated into the surrounding natural and built environment by, and not limited to, updating design standards, requiring green infrastructure and low impact development techniques, and promoting energy-efficient building practices Challenges • Housing target. The Subarea would not likely meet housing goals without the subarea planning efforts under the Master Planned Neighborhood overlay to reach desired densities and encourage more growth than the existing zoning. • Connectivity. This area is largely car-dependent, with limited pedestrian pathways, bicycle infrastructure, and transit. 79t" Ave NE serves as the main access road within Lindsay, connecting many of the existing homes to SR 531 (172nd St NE). This road remains unpaved and lacks sidewalks and street lighting. As Lindsay develops, planned street networks should prioritize connectivity, safety and multimodal access. New streets are designed to support developments, improve mobility and non-motorized connectivity. Land Use, Development,and Design Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-19 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS INVESTORS PARCELS Prepared for: MJS Investors December 2024 Prepared by: transpogroup �r WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE. 12131 113th Avenue NE, Suite 203 Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425-821-3665 Fax: 425-825-8434 www.transpogroup.com 1.24222.00 ©2024 Transpo Group B-20 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 Table of Contents Introduction ..............................................................................................................................2 ProjectDescription................................................................................................................. 2 StudyScope........................................................................................................................... 2 Existing & Future Without-Project Conditions .....................................................................5 StreetSystem ........................................................................................................................ 5 TrafficVolumes...................................................................................................................... 6 TrafficOperations ................................................................................................................ 10 TrafficSafety........................................................................................................................ 10 ProjectImpacts ......................................................................................................................12 TripGeneration.................................................................................................................... 12 Trip Distribution &Assignment............................................................................................ 12 TrafficVolume Impact.......................................................................................................... 14 TrafficOperations ................................................................................................................ 16 SiteAccess.......................................................................................................................... 16 Mitigation ................................................................................................................................18 Transportation Mitigation Fees............................................................................................ 18 Findingsand Conclusions....................................................................................................19 Appendix Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: LOS Definitions Appendix C: LOS Worksheets Appendix D: Detailed Trip Generation List of Figures Figure 1. Site Vicinity& Study Intersections....................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Preliminary Site Plan........................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes............................................. 7 Figure 4. Future (2024) Without-Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.......... 9 Figure 5. Weekday PM Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution &Assignment..................... 13 Figure 6. Future (2029)With-Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes............. 15 List of Tables Table 1. Existing and Future (2029)Without-Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary............................................................................... 10 Table 2. Five-Year Collision Summary—2019 to 2023................................................... 11 Table 3. Estimated Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation ................................................... 12 Table 4. Future (2029)Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Impacts at Study Intersections...................................................................................................... 14 Table 5. Future (2029) Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary................ 16 r B-21 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 Introduction The purpose of this traffic impact analysis (TIA) is to identify potential transportation-related impacts to the surrounding street network associated with the development of the proposed MJS Investors Parcels development in Arlington, WA. Project Description The project site is located south of 172nd Street NE (State Route [SR] 531)west of SR 9 in Arlington (see Figure 1). The project is located within the Lindsay Sub area and constitutes the first phase of development within the planned area. The proposed project would consist of 177 single family homes. Access to the site is proposed via three access roads on 172nd Street NE: • 79th Avenue NE will be paved as part of the project's construction process to provide access to the site. Full access will be permitted at 172nd Street NE. • The main access road will be across from 80th Drive NE. The intersection with 172nd Street NE will be improved to provide a single-lane roundabout. • A right-in/right-out access road at 172nd Street NE will be provided between 80th Drive NE and 85th Avenue NE. Figure 2 illustrates the preliminary site plan. It is anticipated that the development would be constructed and operating by the end of 2029. Study Scope The scope of this analysis is based on coordination with City staff and consistent with the City of Arlington's Traffic Analysis Procedures & Checklist(Revised 1012013). The following intersections were identified for study during the weekday PM peak hour by City staff: 1. 67th Avenue NE/172nd Street NE (SR 531) 2. 80th Drive NE-Project Access/172nd Street NE (SR 531) 3. SR 9/204th Street NE 4. SR 9/172nd Street NE (SR 531) A. West Project Access (79th Avenue NE)/172nd Street NE (SR 531) B. East Project Access/172nd Street NE (SR 531) The analysis includes a review of existing conditions in the vicinity of the project site, including the street network, non-motorized facilities, transit service, existing and future (2029)without- project peak hour traffic volumes, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Future (2029)with-project conditions are evaluated by adding site-generated traffic to future (2029)without-project volumes and were then compared to future (2029)without-project conditions to identify the relative impacts the proposed project has on the surrounding transportation system. Tr B-22 f -Lil Al �P t � 204T ST NE �G �2 lQ CEMETERY RD tp 9 IDV- P w z j w a w x z > a ---LJ SR 531 (172ND ST NE) 2 4 w T I i 0 z LEGEND OStudy Intersection Project Site Vicinity and Study Intersections FIGURE Lindsay Sub Area transpogroup 1 Nov 25,2024-12:42pm jeffreyc M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Graphics\DWG\Graphics_24222.dwg Layout:Site Vicinit B_23 '*IS ors Parcels ` JI I , I 253252 _ - ,. I 1i' 256 5 .23b36 sf••�4d 4 \\ f 2 - 2 - 84&5 86 Bj B8 B9 90 91 92 93 94 96 96 9J 98 99 1°1 \V/V ' S9 58 ia25dasi 264 8 8 29 9 �- 237 Fe ` ~ A 99B 16i I 12°121 2'2 2 2 2 2 2 2 A-88] 236 .3.q -n 3s� i] JAI 313 9 3 311J111 54 , 52 T .J 181 �lo�J,y: 19 IS]5 5 5 A396i �54J 4] 140 14I 59 s NL / �JO ,813 1B0 :2Y 166 14514 t4 142 I ag i9,3 � 27I _ 311 .S S iA D2 I sr � TT / 186 3334 \ s / 6\ A 997 J 36 3J ipg 39 40 41 31 � I h 90 6 f/ 6 A-H8/27 3510 299a 4 £n �� 2 �99 h 2 222 93 S 41C — i - i I I I 1 1 122 221 195 t 1—999 t i 45 57,614 If S�I( /\ �'sy 191 k88 J 986 .3 A-09 d p I 0 O i , 8 L _ d - - _ I —.McphersottRd. I — — — ♦�°a �� IQ Project Site Plan FIGURE Lindsay Sub Area transpogroup Vr 2 B-24 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 Existing & Future Without-Project Conditions This section describes existing and future (2029)without-project conditions within the study area. Study area characteristics are provided for the existing street network, existing and future without-project peak hour traffic volumes, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Street System The following describes the existing street network within the vicinity of the proposed project and any anticipated changes resulting from planned improvements. Existing Inventory Existing characteristics of 67th Avenue NE, 80th Drive NE, SR 9, 204th Street NE, and 172nd Street NE (SR 531) near the project site are described below. 67th Avenue NE is a 3-lane roadway classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. No parking or bike lanes are available. 80th Drive NE is a local road with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Sidewalks are provided in both sides of the roadway; however, no bike lanes are available. SR-9 is a highway with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour close to the project site. Current channelization along SR-9 is predominantly 2 lanes with turn lanes at major intersections. This is the primary north/south roadway connection near the project site. Sidewalks and bike lanes are not available close to the site. 204th Street NE is classified as an arterial, with a posted speed limit is 20 mph east of SR-9 and 35 mph west of SR-9. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. No bike lanes are available. 172nd Street NE (SR 531) is a highway of regional significance with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. The current channelization along 172nd Street NE is predominantly 2 lanes east of 67th Avenue NE. There are no sidewalks, bike lanes, or on-street parking available on both sides along 172nd Street NE east of 67th Avenue NE. Transit service in the study area is provided by Community Transit with service primarily along 172nd Street NE (SR 531) and Smokey Point Boulevard. The nearest bus stop to the project is located at Smokey Point Boulevard/172nd Street NE approximately 2.75 miles away and is served by routes 201 and 202. Routes 201 and 202 provide service between the Smokey Point Transit Center in Arlington and the Lynnwood Transit Center. Transit service for routes 201 and 202 is provided 7 days a week with AM and PM peak hour headways of approximately 40 minutes on weekdays and 60 minutes on weekends. Planned Improvements Based on a review of the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan's Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (2024-2029) and Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 2024- 2027 Statewide Transportation Program (STIP), there are two planned roadway improvements in the study area, which include: • 172nd Street NE (SR 531) Widening, Phase I: Widening of 172nd Street NE (SR 531) from 43rd Avenue NE to 67th Avenue NE to a four-lane facility with two travel lanes in each direction. The improvement project would install roundabouts at the 51 st Avenue NE, 59th Avenue NE, and 67th Avenue NE intersections along 172nd Street NE (SR 531). The project is completely funded by WSDOT with construction beginning in 2025 Tr 5 -25 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 and completed in 2026. The roundabout at 67th Avenue NE & 172nd St NE is assumed as part of the future without-project analysis. • 172nd Street NE (SR 531)Widening, Phase II: Widening of 172nd Street NE (SR 531) between 67th Avenue NE and SR-9 to a four-lane facility with two travel lanes in each direction. The timing of this widening project is anticipated following the project's 2029 opening year, such that this improvement was not assumed in the future analysis. Traffic Volumes The following summarizes the traffic volumes for existing and future without-project conditions. Existing Traffic Volumes Existing weekday PM peak period (4-6 p.m.)traffic counts were collected in June 2024 and November 2024. Figure 3 illustrates the existing weekday peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. Volumes are rounded to the nearest 5 vehicles to account for the daily fluctuations in traffic volumes. Detailed traffic counts are provided in Appendix A. Tr 6 -26 DSR 9 67th Ave NE D204th St NE 2 SR 531(172nd St NE) 295 210 z� 155 ) �,155 260, �-45 355 f235 480— —305 1201 `160 55 j65 315 200 204T ST NE �G OSR 9 80th Dr NE �2 SR 531(172nd St NE) OSR 531(172nd St NE) IpQ 370 110 30 30 5 95�� LA,20 60,J LA-10 95 y f60 480 —355 280 `15 (;:1 N 185 5 i9 385 Ok P w z j w a w x z > a J SR 531 (172ND ST NE) 2 4 CO T I t 0 LEGEND OStudy Intersection X Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Existing (2024) Peak Hour Volumes FIGURE Lindsay Sub Area transpogroup 3 Nov 25,2024-12:43pm jeffreyc M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Graphics\DWG\Graphics_24222.dwg Layout:Existing Vols B_27 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 Future Without-Project Traffic Volumes Future (2029)without-project PM peak hour traffic volumes were forecasted by applying an annual growth rate to existing traffic volumes and adding traffic from "pipeline" development projects that would also contribute traffic to study intersections. An annual growth rate of 2 percent was applied to existing study intersection traffic volumes to estimate 2029 horizon year background traffic growth, as coordinated with City of Arlington staff. Six pipeline projects were identified by the City to be included in the analysis which include: • The Allen Townhomes development would construct 43 single-family attached residential units on the north side of 172nd Street NE, east of SR 9. The project is anticipated to be constructed and occupied by 2028. • The Amber Grove development would construct 84 single-family attached residential units along the west side of SR-9, south of 204th Street NE and east of 74th Avenue NE. The project is anticipated to be constructed and occupied by 2028. • The Arlington Crossroads development would construct a shopping center, a gas station, and a coffee/donut shop with a drive-through. The project is located at the northeast corner of the SR 9/172nd Street NE intersection. The project was planned to be constructed and occupied by 2023 but has not yet been constructed as of December 2024. • The Harmony at Arlington development would construct 60 single-family townhomes. The project is located north of 204th Street NE on the west side of SR 9. The project is anticipated to be constructed and occupied by 2027. • The Wet Rabbit Car Wash development would construct a car wash at the southeast corner of the SR 9/204th Street NE intersection. The project is anticipated to be constructed and occupied by the end of 2025. • The Zahradnik development would construct 334 residential units with 51,500 square feet of commercial space. The project is located along the north side of 172nd Street NE between 85th Avenue NE and SR 9. The project is anticipated to be constructed and occupied by 2026. The forecast future (2029)without-project weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4. CT B-28 DSR 9 67th Ave NE D204th St NE 2 SR 531(172nd St NE) 345 235 180 ) �,175 295, �-65 415 f280 605— —400 Q 150 `205 60 j 90 370 225 204T ST NE �G OSR 9 80th Dr NE �2 SR 531(172nd St NE) OSR 531(172nd St NE) IpQ 410 140 125 35 5 115�� ('��,115 65,J Lk-10 190 y �155 650 —500 320 j35 (;:1 N 225 25 �a0 425 Ok P w z j w a w x z > a J SR 531 (172ND ST NE) 2 4 CO T I 0 LEGEND OStudy Intersection X Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Future (2029) Without-Project Peak Hour Volumes FIGURE Lindsay Sub Area transpogroup 1 Nov 25,2024-12:43pm jeffreyc M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Graphics\DWG\Graphics_24222.dwg Layout:Baseline Vols B_29 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 Traffic Operations The operational characteristics of an intersection are determined by calculating the intersection level of service (LOS). At signalized and roundabout intersections, LOS is measured in average control delay per vehicle and is typically reported using the intersection delay. At unsignalized side-street, stop-controlled intersections, LOS is measured by the average delay on the worst- movement of the intersection. Traffic operations and average vehicle delay for an intersection can be described qualitatively with a range of levels of service (LOS A through LOS F), with LOS A indicating free-flowing traffic and LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. Appendix B contains a detailed explanation of LOS criteria and definitions. For the operations analysis of existing conditions at the signalized study intersections, signal timing and phasing information was obtained from the WSDOT and City of Arlington. Future (2029) analysis parameters such as channelization was maintained with the exception of the planned roundabout installation at the 67th Avenue NE/172nd Street NE intersection as noted above as well as signal timing optimization of splits (cycle lengths and offsets were maintained along corridors). Weekday PM peak hour traffic operations for existing and future without-project conditions were evaluated at the study intersections based on the procedures identified in the Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition, unless otherwise noted for signal timing constraints, and were evaluated using Synchro 12. Synchro 12 is a software program that uses HCM methodology to evaluate intersection LOS and average vehicle delays. Roundabout controlled intersections were evaluated utilizing Sidra 9.1 and the WSDOT methodology for analyzing roundabouts. Results for the existing and future without-project operations analyses are summarized in Table 1. Detailed LOS worksheets for each intersection analysis are included in Appendix C. The City of Arlington and the WSDOT intersections have an LOS Standard of LOS D for the study area intersections. For the roundabout controlled intersections, a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio less than or equal to 0.90 is also generally targeted. Table 1. Existing and Future(2029)Without-Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary Future 2029 Existing Without-Project Traffic Control WM3 Intersection (Existing/Future) LOS' Delay2 or v/c° LOS Delay WM or v/c 1.SR 9/204th St NE Signal C 33 D 44 - 2.67th Ave NE/172nd St NE(SR 531) Signal/Roundabout5 D 47 A 8 0.59 3.SR 9/172nd St NE(SR 531) Roundabout A 7 0.32 A 8 0.48 4.80th Dr NE/172nd St NE(SR 531) TWSC C 20 SBL D 30 SBL Note:TWSC=two-way stop controlled.Bold indicates the intersection is operating below standard. 1. Level of Service(A—F)as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual(HCM)7th Edition(TRB). 2. Average delay per vehicle in seconds. 3. Worst movement reported for two-way stop-controlled intersections.SBL=southbound left movement. 4. Volume to capacity ratio reported for roundabouts. 5. Roundabout with planned improvements. As shown in Table 1, all intersections operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour under both existing and future (2029) conditions, meeting the LOS standard. Traffic Safety Recent collision records were reviewed within the study area to identify existing traffic safety issues at the study intersections. The most recent complete five-year summary of accident data `�r B-30 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 from the WSDOT is for the period between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2023. This information is summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Five-Year Collision Summary—2019 to 2023 Number of Collisions Annual Location 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Average 1.SR 9/204th St NE 6 5 4 6 2 23 4.60 2.67th Ave NE/172nd St NE(SR 531) 8 4 8 2 5 27 5.40 3.SR 9/172nd St NE(SR 531) 2 2 3 2 0 9 1.80 4.80th Dr NE/172nd St NE(SR 531) 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.20 Source:WSDOT,2024 Under 23 U.S.Code§409 and 23 U.S.Code§148,safety data,reports,surveys,schedules,lists compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying,evaluating,or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites,hazardous roadway conditions,or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports,surveys,schedules,lists,or data. As shown in Table 2, the study intersections had between 1 and 6 collisions reported per year on average during the review period. The collisions in the study area were primarily rear end collisions resulting in property damage only. One fatal collision was reported at the SR 9/204th St NE intersection, which involved a driver under the influence of alcohol striking 2 pedestrians. Additional non-fatal collisions involving a pedestrian or cyclist also occurred at SR 204th St NE and 67th Ave NE/SR 531. As identified above, there are planned SR 531 corridor improvements that will result in widening between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE, as well as implementing a roundabout at the 67th Ave NE/NE 172nd St intersection. These changes are anticipated to relieve congestion by adding capacity, which is a common cause of rear-end collisions. Additionally, studies have shown that roundabouts result in reductions in the overall severity of collision relative to traditional signalized intersections. These reductions are achieved through lower travel speeds through roundabouts, yielding behavior of roundabouts, and one-way travel. As such, it is anticipated that the collision rate would improve at 67th Ave NE/NE 172nd St in the future. There are no current improvements planned at the SR 9/204th St NE intersection. CT B-31 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 Project Impacts This section of the report documents the proposed project's impacts on the surrounding street network and study intersections. First, estimated traffic volumes generated by the proposed project are distributed and assigned to adjacent streets and intersections within the study area for the weekday PM peak hour study period. Next, project trips are added to future without- project traffic volumes and any potential impact to traffic operations. Site specific items are also discussed. Trip Generation Trip generation for the proposed project was calculated based on trip rates using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual(11th Edition, 2021). ITEs Single- Family Detached Housing (LU #215)was assumed for the proposed project. There is no existing use on the proposed site. Table 3 shows the weekday vehicle trips generated by the proposed project. The detailed trip generation calculations are included in Appendix D. Table 3. Estimated Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation Daily PM Peak Hour Land Use' Size Trips In Out Total Proposed Single-Family Detached Housing(LU#210) 177 du 1,706 105 61 166 Net New Total 1,706 105 61 166 Note:du=dwelling units,sf=square feet 1.Average trip rates and equations from ITE Trip Generation Manual,11th Edition(2021). As shown in Table 3, the proposed project is estimated to generate 1,706 weekday daily trips with 166 occurring in the PM peak hour. Trip Distribution & Assignment Trip distribution patterns developed for the project were based on existing travel patterns and coordination with City of Arlington staff. Figure 5 illustrates the vehicle trip distribution and assignment for the proposed project. Tr B-32 Al 2� 14 AIL f 5 g / ' _ 1 5 204T ST CEMETERY RD r--r— UJ i s� �10 6 r � pk 1 6 w Ir z a � a f 7 0 LO -S1i-5{1 (172ND ST NE) , ' 2 4 COT 12 3 3 LEGEND 2 If OStudy Intersection 4 I 21 © Site Access 1 37 , X Project Trips o Trip Distribution Z Project Trip Distribution and Assignment FIGURE Lindsay Sub Area transpogroup / 5 Dec 06,2024-8:04pm jeffreyc M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Graphics\DWG\Graphics_24222.dwg Layout:Trip Dist B-33 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 Traffic Volume Impact The assigned project generated traffic was added to the future without-project weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections under future 2029 conditions. The future (2029)with-project weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 6. Table 4 summarizes the project share of traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday PM peak hour under the future 2029 conditions. Table 4. Future(2029)Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Impacts at Study Intersections PM Peak Hour Total Entering Vehicles 2029 Without- Project 2024 With- Intersection Project Trips Project Project Share 1.SR 9/204th St NE 2,565 48 2,613 1.8% 2.67th Ave NE/172nd St NE(SR 531) 2,430 27 2,457 1.1% 3.SR 9/172nd St NE(SR 531) 2,281 130 2,411 5.4% 4.80th Dr NEM72nd St NE(SR 531) 1,265 142 1,407 10.1% As shown in Table 4, the proposed project is estimated to account for less than 6 percent of the total weekday PM peak hour traffic at the majority of study intersections, with the exception of the central site access at 80th Dr NE/172nd St NE, where the proposed project is estimated to account for approximately 10% of the total weekday PM peak hour traffic. Traffic volumes fluctuate day-to-day and the anticipated traffic increase at study intersections are within the range of typical daily traffic fluctuations. Tr B-34 DSR 9 67th Ave NE D204th St NE 2 SR 531(172nd St NE) 359 235 180! k_175 295, 4,66 395 —265 617— —407 Q 158 i203 60 j 92 bN 378 225 204T ST NE �G OSR 9 80th Dr NE �2 R 531(172nd St NE) OSR 531(172nd St NE) IpQ 410 180 125 35 5 139 J� ('��,115 65,J Lk-10 193 �160 670 f523 341 j35 4 �, i59 261 i(� �1 34 425 West Access(79th Ave NE) East Access O SR 531(172nd St NE) TOSR 531(172nd St NE) 734--p- f537 699 f597 4-) i23 15 11 5 9 pk P w toz w a w x z > � a x SR 531 (172ND AVE NE) 2 4 CO LEGEND Site O z Study Intersection Site Access x X Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Future (2029) With-Project Peak Hour Volumes FIGURE Lindsay Sub Area transpogroup / 6 Dec 09,2024-1:46pm jeffreyc M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Graphics\DWG\Graphics_24222.dwg Layout:WP Vols B-35 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 Traffic Operations The following section summarizes the future with-project LOS at the study intersections relative to the without-project conditions to identify project-related impacts. Intersection parameters such as channelization and intersection control applied to the future with-project analyses were consistent with those used in the evaluation of future without-project conditions. A comparison of the future (2029)without-project and with-project weekday PM peak hour traffic operations are summarized in Table 5. Detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Table 5. Future(2029)Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary Traffic Control Future 2029 Without-Project Future 2029 With-Project (Future/With- WM or Intersection Project) LOS' Delay2 WM'or v/c LOS Delay v/c 1.SR 9/204th St NE Signal D 44 - D 47 - 2.67th Ave NE/172nd St NE(SR 531) Roundabout A 8 0.59 A 8 0.59 3.SR 9/172nd St NE(SR 531) Roundabout A 8 0.48 B 11 0.61 4.80th Dr NE/172nd St NE SR 531 TWSC D 30 SBL A 6 0.68 ( ) /Roundabouts A.West Access(79th Ave NE)/172nd TWSC - C 17 NB St NE(SR 531) B. East Access/172nd St NE(SR 531) TWSC B 14 NB Note:TWSC=two-way stop-controlled.Bold indicates the intersection is operating below standard. 1. Level of Service(A—F)as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual(HCM)7th Edition(TRB) 2. Average delay per vehicle in seconds. 3. Worst movement reported for two-way stop-controlled intersections.SBL=southbound left movement. 4. Volume to capacity ratio reported for roundabouts. 5. Single-lane roundabout assumed at project completion. As shown in Table 5, all study intersections continue functioning at an acceptable LOS under with-project conditions with increases in delay of 3 seconds or less. All roundabouts that are planned to be completed by 2029 function with an acceptable v/c ratio below 0.90. Site Access Access to the site is proposed via three driveways on the south side of 172nd Street NE. Full access on the western end of the site would be created along the existing 79th Ave NE, which would be paved as part of the project. A central access would be created as a south leg at the 80th Drive NE/172nd Street NE intersection, and a roundabout is planned at this intersection as part of this project. A third access point would be constructed at the east end of the site. This east access would be right in/right out access only. The future (2029)with-project weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes at the site access are shown in Figure 7 which are assumed for the analysis. The traffic operations at the proposed project's site accesses are reviewed below. Traffic Operations As noted above, the west site access is assumed and evaluated as a full access driveway, while the east site access is assumed and evaluated as a right in/right out access only. The operations as summarized in Table 5 above show the west site access functioning at LOS C with 17 seconds of delay, and the east site access would function at LOS B with 14 seconds of delay. 80th Drive NE Project Access/I72nd Street Roundabout Upon project completion, a roundabout is planned to be constructed at the 80th Drive NE/172nd Street intersection to provide full access. The roundabout will be constructed to have �r B-36 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 one circulating lane, along with one inbound and outbound lane in each direction at the project opening. Widening of 172nd Street to a 4-lane roadway is planned to be constructed after the project's estimated completion date of 2029. Frontage improvements will reflect the ultimate configuration of the roundabout as much as feasible to minimize the scope of reconstruction when the SR 531 Phase II improvements are constructed. Tr B-37 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 Mitigation The project impacts to the surrounding transportation system would be mitigated through the City of Arlington, Snohomish County and WSDOT impact fee programs. Transportation Mitigation Fees To mitigate impacts of the proposal on the surrounding transportation system, the developer would be required to pay impact fees to three jurisdictions: the City of Arlington, Snohomish County, and WSDOT based on current interlocal agreements that have been established between these entities. The following provides an estimate only, the final fees will be calculated at time of permit issuance. City of Arlington The City of Arlington traffic mitigation fees are currently$3,355 per PM peak hour trip. Based on the anticipated trip generation of 166 primary trips the resulting City of Arlington impact fee would be$556,930 ($3,355/trip x 166 trips). The fee rate is subject to annual increases and will be based on the adopted rates at the time of building permit issuance. Snohomish County Snohomish County has an interlocal agreement with the City of Arlington. Per the Snohomish County Traffic Worksheet and Traffic Study Requirements for Developments in the City of Arlington, the percentage of trips impacting County Streets was determined to be 70 percent. Per SCC 30.66B.330 the fee for residential uses within the urban growth area of TSA A is $185 per average daily trip (ADT). The resulting fee was estimated to be approximately$220,927 (70% x 1,706 ADT x$185 per ADT). The fee rate is subject to annual increases and will be based on the adopted rates at the time of building permit issuance. WSDOT Per the interlocal agreement with WSDOT, project-related impacts can be mitigated through the payment of a flat fee of$36 per ADT or a proportional share based on the WSDOT projects currently planned. Based on the project distribution, the project would impact the WSDOT projects on 172nd Street NE (SR 531); however, those projects have been identified as funded. As such no impact fees would be paid to WSDOT. `T B-38 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 Findings and Conclusions This transportation impact analysis summarizes the transportation impacts associated with the proposed MJS Investors Parcels development in Arlington, WA. • The proposed project would consist of 177 single family homes and is estimated to generate 1,706 weekday daily trips with 166 occurring in the PM peak hour. • Upon project completion, a roundabout is planned to be constructed at the 80th Drive NE/172nd Street intersection to provide full access. The roundabout will be constructed to have one circulating lane, along with one inbound and outbound lane in each direction at the project opening. Widening of 172nd Street to a 4-lane roadway is planned to be constructed after the project's estimated completion date of 2029. Frontage improvements will reflect the ultimate configuration of the roundabout as much as feasible to minimize the scope of reconstruction when the SR 531 Phase II improvements are constructed. • Under future (2029)with-project PM peak hour conditions, all study intersections continue functioning at an acceptable LOS under with-project conditions with increases in delay of 3 seconds or less. Access to the site is proposed via three driveways on the south side of 172nd Street NE. All driveways are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS. • The developer would be required to pay transportation mitigation fees. The mitigation fees are estimated to total $777,857 (including both Arlington and Snohomish County). The final fees are calculated at the time of building permit issuance. Tr 19 B-39 Appendix A: Traffic Counts B-40 67th Avenue NE @ 172nd Street NE Arlington, WA e Peds Crossing North Leg= 0 W Bicycles = 0 Count Period Z d 3 Heavy Vehicles= 14 Date C N Q SB Total= 448 Tue 11/12/2024 4:00 PM-6:00 PM Right Thru Left U-Turn .r 155 211 82 0 504 172nd Street NE 172nd Street NE 45 N M � O 0 503 Intersection 41111111111111 304 v II n n j6 L N II tP V W Peak Hour 4:00 PM-5:00 PM 64 > u 3 'm 0° 1 v W rn o Volume 1992 0 = L c .N o II � •O d 260 M9 PHF 0.95 N U 11 n V N 0 N a cTi > F- 478 HV 2.9% ssa ` li m m w = 56 l � 1 Approach PHF HV 331 a 44 199 94 W NB Approach 0.81 1.2% Z U-Turn Left Thru Right to 3 C SB Approach 0.88 3.1% > NB Total= 337 Q EB Approach 0.97 1.9% n Heavy Vehicles= 4 to WB Approach 0.88 5.8% Bicycles= 0 Intersection 0.95 2.9% Peds Crossing South Leg= 0 PHF=Peak Hour Factor HV=Heavy Vehicles TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM PEAK HOUR SUMMARY TTRA FFIC DATA GATHERING B-41 TTRAFF/C OATA GATHER/NG INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: 67th Avenue NE A 172nd Street NE DATE OF COUNT: Tue.11/12/2024 COUNTED BY: TDG Arlington,WA START OF COUNT: 4:00 PM DATE OF REDUCTION: 11/14/2024 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM-6:00 PM DURATION OF COUNT Hrs: 2 TIME FROM NORTH ON(Southbound) FROM SOUTH ON(Northbound) FROM EAST ON(Westbound) FROM WEST ON(Eastbound) INTERVAL 67th Avenue NE 67th Avenue NE 172nd Street NE 172nd Street NE INTERVAL ENDING TOTALS AT Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Right Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Ri ht Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Right Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Ri ht 04:15 PM 0 0 5 0 26 56 46 0 0 1 0 9 51 13 0 0 7 0 22 85 11 0 0 5 0 68 120 16 523 04:30 PM 0 0 5 0 17 41 39 0 0 3 0 12 60 32 0 0 5 0 13 74 11 0 0 4 0 58 112 13 482 04:45 PM 0 0 2 0 24 65 36 0 0 0 0 10 44 27 0 0 6 0 15 74 11 0 0 2 0 70 123 12 511 05:00 PM 0 0 2 0 15 49 34 0 0 0 0 13 44 22 1 0 6 0 14 71 12 0 0 4 0 64 123 15 476 05:15 PM 0 0 4 0 26 40 49 0 0 1 0 8 40 22 2 0 5 0 4 61 12 0 0 5 0 75 131 20 488 05:30 PM 0 0 3 0 16 36 39 0 0 0 0 7 43 22 0 0 3 0 12 65 14 0 0 3 0 64 137 13 468 05:45 PM 0 0 2 0 12 41 48 0 0 3 0 6 28 14 0 0 4 0 17 61 9 0 0 3 0 66 136 13 451 06:00 PM 0 0 4 0 10 29 40 0 0 0 0 4 33 14 0 0 2 0 5 74 7 0 0 4 0 61 122 15 414 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 0 0 14 0 82 1 211 155 0 0 4 0 1 44 1 199 94 1 0 1 24 0 64 304 45 0 1 0 15 0 260 1 478 56 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 448 1 337 413 794 1992 %HV 3.1% 1.2% 5.8% 1.9% 2.9% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.88 0.81 0.88 0.97 0.95 HV=Heavy Vehicle PHF=Peak Hour Factor 4:00 PM-6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:00 PM-5:00 PM ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM NORTH ON(Southbound) FROM SOUTH ON(Northbound) FROM EAST ON(Westbound) FROM WEST ON(Eastbound) 67th Avenue NE 67th Avenue NE 172nd Street NE 172nd Street NE INTERVAL TOTALS TIME INTERVAL Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Right Peds Bicycle HVMU-Turn Thru Ri ht Peds Bic cle HV U-Turn Left Thru Ri ht PedsMBicycIeHVU-Turn Left Thru Ri ht 4:00 PM-5:00 PM 0 0 14 0 82 211 155 0 0 4 199 94 1 0 24 0 64 304 45 0 0 260 478 56 1992 4:15 PM-5:15 PM 0 0 13 0 82 195 158 0 0 4 188 103 3 0 22 0 46 280 46 0 0 267 489 60 1957 4:30 PM-5:30 PM 0 0 11 0 81 190 158 0 0 1 171 93 3 0 20 0 45 271 49 0 0 273 514 60 1943 4:45 PM-5:45 PM 0 0 11 0 69 166 170 0 0 4 155 80 3 0 18 0 47 258 47 0 0 269 527 61 1883 5:00 PM-6:00 PM 0 0 13 0 64 146 176 00 4 144 72 2 0 14 0 38 261 42 0 0 266 526 61 1821 4:00 PM-6:00 PM Total: 0 0 27 0 146 357 331 0 0 8 0 69 343 166 3 0 38 0 102 565 87 0 1 0 30 0 526 1004 117 3813 B-42 Location: 1 80TH DR NE& 172ND ST NE PM atd— Date: Thursday,June 27, 2024 ALL TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES Peak Hour: 04:00 PM-05:00 PM (303)216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Peak 15-Minutes: 04:30 PM-04:45 PM Peak Hour Motorized Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk (82) 36 0.82 71 (126) 1 BOTH DR NE 0 0 o o rn o L 1 t 4-0 () L 172ND ST NE (784) 0 �~ ~ �L 12 (738) 1 t N59 t 386 4— N 356 4- 368 2 0 N L 0 2 O O 0.90 482 y W 0.93 E r 0 0.93 O W �_ E 4 o WAGW o 541 --* S -.* 488 0 y r 0 0 0 0 ^ (1,044) �•1 4 1 r� (954) 0 �yA� C► 07 1 0 1 o 0 0 0 172ND ST NE • 41 i t ~� 0 0 0 0 �~0 0~� BOTH DR NE 1 t 0 0 0.00 0 O 1 t 0 0 Note:Total study counts contained in parentheses. HV% PHF EB 0.0% 0.90 WB 0.5% 0.93 NB 0.0% 0.00 SB 0.0% 0.82 All 0.2% 0.93 Traffic Counts- Motorized Vehicles 172ND ST NE 172ND ST NE 80TH DR NE 80TH DR NE Interval Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Rolling Start Time U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Hour W4:00 PM 13 110 0� 0 89 0 0 945 4:15 PM = 17 118 0 0 0 84 5 0 11W0 0 0 1 0 10 235'1 940 4: PM 17 1 y0 0 0 93 4 0 0 0 4:4545 PM 12 120 20 0 0 0 90 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 236 918 5:00 PM 0 6 109 0 0 0 87 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 216 919 5:15 PM 0 14 119 0 0 0 89 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 232 5:30 PM 0 14 118 0 0 0 88 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 234 5:45 PM 0 12 111 0 0 0 97 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 237 Count Total 0 105 939 0 0 0 717 21 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 67 1,864 Peak Hour 0 59 482 0 0 0 356 12 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 30 945 Traffic Counts- Heavy Vehicles, Bicycles on Road, and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Interval Heavy Vehicles Interval Bicycles on Roadway Interval Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk Start Time EB NB WB SIB Total Start Time EB NB WB SIB Total Start Time EB NB WB SB Total 4:00 PM 0 or 0'W 0 0 4:00 PM 04F 01F 0 0 0 4:00 PM 4:15PM 0 0 1 0 1 4:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:15PM 0 0 4:30 PM rmmr 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 0 1 0 1 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 1 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 3 0 3 Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0 2 0 2 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 B-43 SR-9 @ 204th Street NE Arlington, WA Ie Peds Crossing North Leg= 4 Bicycles = 0 4&ount Period Heavy Vehicles= 16 Date LL' SB Total= 465 Tue 11/12/2024 4:00 PM-6:00 PM Right Thru Left U-Turn 108 294 63 0 625 204th Street NE 204th Street NE Is rn II o N 0 409 Intersection � „ V N V Peak Hour 4:00 PM-5:00 PM F- i, u d 'm E v ui o, 0 1 Volume 2185 = c d °o 154 Mt PHF 0.95 N 2 V a cTt > F 356 HV 2.2% 576 a m m w = 120 l � 1 Approach PHF HV s7s o s7 31s 157 NB Approach 0.94 2.6% U-Turn Left Thru Right SB Approach 0.92 3.4% NB Total= 540 N EB Approach 0.82 1.6% Heavy Vehicles= 14 WB Approach 0.93 1.6% Bicycles= 0 Intersection 0.95 2.2% Peds Crossing South Leg= 7 PHF=Peak Hour Factor HV=Heavy Vehicles TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM PEAK HOUR SUMMARY TTRA FFIC DATA GATHERING B-44 TTRAFF/C OATA GATHER/NG INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: SR-9 A 204th Street NE DATE OF COUNT: Tue.11/12/2024 COUNTED BY: TDG Arlington,WA START OF COUNT: 4:00 PM DATE OF REDUCTION: 11/14/2024 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM-6:00 PM DURATION OF COUNT Hrs: 2 TIME FROM NORTH ON(Southbound) FROM SOUTH ON(Northbound) FROM EAST ON(Westbound) FROM WEST ON(Eastbound) INTERVAL SR-9 SR-9 204th Street NE 204th Street NE INTERVAL ENDING TOTALS AT Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Right Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Ri ht Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Right Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Ri ht 04:15 PM 3 0 8 0 9 87 31 1 0 7 0 14 85 37 1 0 2 0 41 64 39 0 0 3 0 43 101 23 574 04:30 PM 0 0 1 0 19 75 32 0 0 2 0 14 76 43 0 0 1 0 43 63 41 0 0 1 1 32 76 29 544 04:45 PM 0 0 4 0 24 56 23 0 0 1 0 22 75 30 0 0 3 0 34 64 36 0 0 6 0 43 111 38 556 05:00 PM 1 0 3 0 11 76 22 6 0 4 0 17 80 47 0 0 3 0 43 42 39 0 0 0 0 36 68 30 511 05:15 PM 0 0 4 0 11 76 19 0 0 0 0 19 75 33 0 0 0 0 33 60 22 0 0 1 0 27 97 34 506 05:30 PM 0 0 1 0 16 65 22 1 1 0 1 0 0 16 80 36 0 0 2 0 31 51 45 0 0 0 0 34 75 16 487 05:45 PM 0 0 1 0 16 53 27 0 0 0 0 7 81 36 0 0 1 0 33 50 31 0 0 1 0 26 68 16 4" 06:00 PM 0 0 0 0 11 51 19 1 0 0 0 9 57 31 0 0 0 0 34 59 20 0 0 4 0 17 84 18 410 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 4 0 16 0 63 1 294 108 7 0 14 0 1 67 1 316 157 1 0 1 9 0 161 233 155 0 1 0 10 1 154 1 356 120 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 465 540 549 631 2185 %HV 3.4% 2.6% 1.6% 1.6% 2.2% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.92 0.94 0.93 0.82 0.95 HV=Heavy Vehicle PHF=Peak Hour Factor 4:00 PM-6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:00 PM-5:00 PM ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM NORTH ON(Southbound) FROM SOUTH ON(Northbound) FROM EAST ON(Westbound) FROM WEST ON(Eastbound) SR-9 SR-9 204th Street NE 204th Street NE INTERVAL TOTALS TIME INTERVAL Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Right Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Right Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Right Peds Bicycle HVMU-TurnjLeft Thru Ri ht 4:00 PM-5:00 PM 4 0 16 0 63 294 108 7 0 14 0 67 316 157 1 0 9 0 161 233 155 0 0 10 356 120 2185 4:15 PM-5:15 PM 1 0 12 0 65 283 96 6 0 7 0 72 306 153 0 0 7 0 153 229 138 0 0 8 352 131 2117 4:30 PM-5:30 PM 1 0 12 0 62 273 86 7 0 5 0 74 310 146 0 0 8 0 141 217 142 0 0 7 351 118 2060 4:45 PM-5:45 PM 1 0 9 0 54 270 90 7 0 4 0 59 316 152 0 0 6 0 140 2 33 137 0 0 2 308 96 1948 5:00 PM-6:00 PM 0 0 6 0 54 245 87 2 0 0 0 51 293 136 0 0 3 0 131 220 118 0 0 6 324 84 1847 4:00 PM-6:00 PM Total: 4 1 0 22 0 117 539 195 1 9 0 14 0 118 609 293 1 0 12 0 292 453 273 0 1 0 16 1 258 680 204 4032 B-45 SR-9 @ 172nd Street NE Arlington, WA Ie Peds Crossing North Leg= 0 Bicycles = 0 4&ount Period Heavy Vehicles= 11 Date LL' SB Total= 512 Tue 11/12/2024 4:00 PM-6:00 PM Right Thru Left U-Turn 111 371 30 0 499 172nd Street NE 172nd Street NE 18 u � N 0 360 Intersection 4111111111111 62 0 T n R t d u Peak Hour 4:00 PM-5:00 PM 16 1m u d 'm E v w o, o Volume 1654 1 c .N o n � •o U u d 95 PHF 0.97 N U V y V N 0 N d cTi > F- 93 HV 3.1% y 130 a m m w = 278 l � 1 Approach PHF HV sss o 1s7 ass s NB Approach 0.92 4.8 SB Approach 0.90 2.1% NB Total= 579 N EB Approach 0.89 2.4% Heavy Vehicles= 28 WB Approach 0.84 1.0% Bicycles= 0 Intersection 0.97 3.1% Peds Crossing South Leg= 0 PHF=Peak Hour Factor HV=Heavy Vehicles TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM PEAK HOUR SUMMARY TTRA FFIC DATA GATHERING B-46 TTRAFF/C OATA GATHER/NG INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: SR-9 A 172nd Street NE DATE OF COUNT: Tue.11/12/2024 COUNTED BY: TDG Arlington,WA START OF COUNT: 4:00 PM DATE OF REDUCTION: 11/14/2024 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM-6:00 PM DURATION OF COUNT Hrs: 2 TIME FROM NORTH ON(Southbound) FROM SOUTH ON(Northbound) FROM EAST ON(Westbound) FROM WEST ON(Eastbound) INTERVAL SR-9 SR-9 172nd Street NE 172nd Street NE INTERVAL ENDING TOTALS AT Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Right Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Ri ht Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Right Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Ri ht 04:15 PM 0 0 5 0 6 92 30 0 0 7 0 45 95 3 0 0 1 1 4 20 4 0 0 7 0 23 25 76 424 04:30 PM 0 0 1 0 7 113 22 0 0 6 0 53 103 2 0 0 0 0 4 13 4 0 0 1 0 17 23 67 428 04:45 PM 0 0 3 0 4 84 31 0 0 8 0 39 91 1 0 1 0 0 7 16 1 0 0 2 0 29 21 81 405 05:00 PM 0 0 2 0 13 82 28 0 0 7 0 50 97 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 9 0 0 1 0 26 24 54 397 05:15 PM 0 1 1 0 3 76 35 0 0 9 0 44 95 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 0 0 3 0 28 26 78 398 05:30 PM 0 0 2 0 5 93 21 0 0 2 0 51 83 5 0 0 0 0 2 12 0 0 0 1 0 29 29 61 391 05:45 PM 0 0 2 0 4 69 26 0 0 1 0 39 80 2 0 0 2 0 0 9 8 0 0 1 0 40 28 34 339 06:00 PM 0 0 0 1 6 48 23 0 0 3 0 45 76 4 0 0 0 0 0 13 6 0 0 2 0 29 20 41 312 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 0 0 11 0 30 371 111 0 0 28 0 1 187 386 6 0 1 1 1 1 16 62 18 0 0 11 0 95 1 93 278 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 512 579 97 466 1654 %HV 2.1% 4.8% 1.0% 2.4% 3.1% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.90 0.92 0.84 0.89 0.97 HV=Heavy Vehicle PHF=Peak Hour Factor 4:00 PM-6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:00 PM-5:00 PM ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM NORTH ON(Southbound) FROM SOUTH ON(Northbound) FROM EAST ON(Westbound) FROM WEST ON(Eastbound) SR-9 SR-9 172nd Street NE 172nd Street NE INTERVAL TOTALS TIME INTERVAL Peds Bicycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Right 2PedsB!cycle HV U-Turn Left Thru Ri ht Peds Bic clegHVU-TurnT222 , Peds Bic cle HVMU-Turn Thru Ri ht 4:00 PM-5:00 PM 0 0 11 0 30 371 111 28 0 187 386 6 0 1 0 0 11 93 278 1654 4:15 PM-5:15 PM 0 1 7 0 27 355 11630 0 186 386 4 0 1 0 0 7 94 280 1628 4:30 PM-5:30 PM 0 1 8 0 25 335 11526 0 184 366 7 0 1 0 0 7 100 274 1591 4:45 PM-5:45 PM 0 1 7 0 25 320 11019 0 184 355 8 0 0 0 0 6 107 227 1525 5:00 PM-6:00 PM 0 1 5 1 18 286 10515 0 179 334 12 0 0 0 0 7 103 214 1440 4:00 PM-6:00 PM Total: 0 1 16 1 48 657 216 1 0 0 43 0 366 720 18 0 1 3 1 18 100 40 1 0 1 0 18 0 221 196 492 3094 B-47 Appendix B: LOS Definitions B-48 Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition Signalized intersection level of service (LOS) is defined in terms of a weighted average control delay for the entire intersection. Control delay quantifies the increase in travel time that a vehicle experiences due to the traffic signal control as well as provides a surrogate measure for driver discomfort and fuel consumption. Signalized intersection LOS is stated in terms of average control delay per vehicle (in seconds) during a specified time period (e.g., weekday PM peak hour). Control delay is a complex measure based on many variables, including signal phasing and coordination (i.e., progression of movements through the intersection and along the corridor), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes with respect to intersection capacity and resulting queues. Table 1 summarizes the LOS criteria for signalized intersections, as described in the Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2022). Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Average Control Delay Level of Service (seconds/vehicle) General Description A <10 Free Flow B >10—20 Stable Flow(slight delays) C >20—35 Stable flow(acceptable delays) D >35—55 Approaching unstable flow(tolerable delay,occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) E >55—80 Unstable flow(intolerable delay) F' >80 Forced flow(congested and queues fail to clear) Source:Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition,Transportation Research Board,2022,respectively. 1. If the volume-to-capacity(v/c)ratio for a lane group exceeds 1.0 LOS F is assigned to the individual lane group.LOS for overall approach or intersection is determined solely by the control delay. Unsignalized intersection LOS criteria can be further reduced into two intersection types: all-way stop and two-way stop controlled. All-way stop controlled intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the weighted average control delay of the overall intersection or by approach. Two-way stop-controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average control delay for each minor-street movement(or shared movement) as well as major-street left-turns. This approach is because major-street through vehicles are assumed to experience zero delay, a weighted average of all movements results in very low overall average delay, and this calculated low delay could mask deficiencies of minor movements. Table 2 shows LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay(seconds/vehicle) A 0-10 B >10—15 C >15-25 D >25—35 E >35—50 F' >50 Source:Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition,Transportation Research Board,2022,respectively. 1. If the volume-to-capacity(v/c)ratio exceeds 1.0,LOS F is assigned an individual lane group for all unsignalized intersections,or minor street approach at two-way stop-controlled intersections.Overall intersection LOS is determined solely by control delay. B-49 Appendix C: LOS Worksheets B-50 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Lindsay Sub Area 1: SR 9 & 204th St NE Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r 1 t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 155 355 120 160 235 155 65 315 155 65 295 110 Future Volume(veh/h) 155 366 120 160 235 155 65 315 155 65 295 110 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 163 385 126 168 247 163 68 332 163 68 311 116 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap,veh/h 204 469 392 209 483 403 88 408 200 88 647 544 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.05 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 1563 1781 1870 1560 1767 1170 574 1767 1856 1561 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 163 385 126 168 247 163 68 0 495 68 311 116 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 1563 1781 1870 1560 1767 0 1744 1767 1856 1561 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.6 16.6 5.6 7.9 9.7 7.4 3.3 0.0 22.1 3.3 11.2 4.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 7.6 16.6 5.6 7.9 9.7 7.4 3.3 0.0 22.1 3.3 11.2 4.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 204 469 392 209 483 403 88 0 608 88 647 544 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.82 0.32 0.80 0.51 0.40 0.77 0.00 0.81 0.77 0.48 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 539 566 473 530 548 457 320 0 1200 320 1276 1074 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 37.0 30.3 26.2 36.8 27.1 26.3 40.2 0.0 25.4 40.2 21.8 19.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 7.0 8.5 0.6 7.0 1.0 0.8 13.1 0.0 3.8 13.1 0.8 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.7 8.3 2.1 3.8 4.3 2.8 1.7 0.0 9.4 1.7 4.9 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.0 38.7 26.7 43.8 28.2 27.1 53.3 0.0 29.2 53.3 22.6 19.9 LnGrp LOS D D C D C C D C D C B Approach Vol,veh/h 674 578 563 495 Approach Delay,s/veh 37.8 32.4 32.1 26.2 Approach LOS D C C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.8 35.9 14.6 26.4 8.8 35.9 13.9 27.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 6.1 4.5 *4.9 4.5 6.1 4.1 4.9 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 15.5 58.9 25.5 *26 15.5 58.9 25.9 25.1 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 5.3 24.1 9.9 18.6 5.3 13.2 9.6 11.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 5.4 0.4 1.9 0.1 3.7 0.4 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay,s/veh 32.6 HCM 7th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. *HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report B-51 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Lindsay Sub Area 2: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St NE) I Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour ---* --0- 4\ t # 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r T+ 1� 1: Traffic Volume(veh/h) 260 480 55 65 305 45 45 200 95 80 210 155 Future Volume(veh/h) 271 480 55 65 305 51 45 200 95 84 210 155 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1811 1811 1811 1885 1885 1885 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 285 505 58 68 321 54 47 211 100 88 221 163 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 6 6 6 1 1 1 3 3 3 Cap,veh/h 626 1129 957 472 829 140 98 239 113 165 217 160 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.60 0.60 0.03 0.55 0.55 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1725 1511 254 1795 1208 572 1767 991 731 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 285 505 58 68 0 375 47 0 311 88 0 384 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1725 0 1765 1795 0 1780 1767 0 1722 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.8 23.4 2.4 2.8 0.0 19.5 3.3 0.0 27.2 6.2 0.0 35.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 10.8 23.4 2.4 2.8 0.0 19.5 3.3 0.0 27.2 6.2 0.0 35.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.42 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 626 1129 957 472 0 969 98 0 352 165 0 378 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.45 0.06 0.14 0.00 0.39 0.48 0.00 0.88 0.53 0.00 1.02 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 815 1129 957 749 0 969 275 0 391 301 0 378 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 13.9 17.2 13.0 15.5 0.0 20.7 52.2 0.0 62.4 49.4 0.0 62.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.5 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.2 3.6 0.0 20.2 2.7 0.0 50.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr4.4 10.6 0.9 1.1 0.0 8.5 1.6 0.0 14.3 2.9 0.0 20.7 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.5 18.5 13.2 15.7 0.0 21.8 55.8 0.0 82.7 52.1 0.0 113.0 LnGrp LOS B B B B C E F D F Approach Vol,veh/h 848 443 358 472 Approach Delay,s/veh 16.8 20.9 79.1 101.6 Approach LOS B C E F Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s9.3 101.5 9.2 40.0 18.1 92.7 12.7 36.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.9 Max Green Setting(Gmaap,.5 55.1 20.5 35.1 30.5 55.1 20.5 35.1 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I14,8; 25.4 5.3 37.1 12.8 21.5 8.2 29.2 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 5.5 0.1 0.0 0.8 3.7 0.1 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay,s/veh 47.0 HCM 7th LOS D Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report B-52 MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 3 [3. SR 9/SR 531 (Site Folder: Existing 2024)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version:9.1.3.210 Existing(2024)PM Peak Hour Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Mov Turn Mov Demand Arrival Deg. Aver. Of Prop. ID Class Flows Flows Satn Delay Service Queue Que Stop No.of Speed [Total HV] [Total HV] [Veh. Dist Rate Cycles South:SR 9 OF 3 L2 All MCs 191 5.0 191 5.0 0.189 11.0 LOS B 0.9 22.4 0.38 0.64 0.38 32.1 8 T1 All MCs 397 5.0 397 5.0 0.319 5.0 LOS A 1.7 44.6 0.40 0.46 0.40 35.1 18 R2 All MCs 5 5.0 5 5.0 0.319 5.0 LOS A 1.7 44.6 0.40 0.46 0.40 34.8 Approach 593 5.0 593 5.0 0.319 6.9 LOS A 1.7 44.6 0.39 0.52 0.39 34.1 Est: 172nd St NEFINE 1u U All MCs 1 1.0 1 1.0 0.107 14.2 LOS B 0.4 10.2 0.49 0.61 0.49 33.9 1 L2 All MCs 15 1.0 15 1.0 0.107 11.7 LOS B 0.4 10.2 0.49 0.61 0.49 33.9 6 T1 All MCs 62 1.0 62 1.0 0.107 5.9 LOS A 0.4 10.2 0.49 0.61 0.49 34.6 16 R2 All MCs 21 1.0 21 1.0 0.107 5.7 LOS A 0.4 10.2 0.49 0.61 0.49 34.3 Approach 99 1.0 99 1.0 0.107 6.8 LOS A 0.4 10.2 0.49 0.61 0.49 34.4 North:SR 9 7 L2 All MCs 31 2.0 31 2.0 0.321 10.9 LOS B 1.7 42.6 0.41 0.49 0.41 34.3 4 T1 All MCs 381 2.0 381 2.0 0.321 5.1 LOS A 1.7 42.6 0.41 0.49 0.41 35.0 14 R2 All MCs 113 2.0 113 2.0 0.131 5.6 LOS A 0.5 13.7 0.39 0.55 0.39 35.1 Approach 526 2.0 526 2.0 0.321 5.5 LOS A 1.7 42.6 0.41 0.50 0.41 35.0 West:SR 531 5 L2 All MCs 98 2.0 98 2.0 0.201 11.7 LOS B 1.0 25.1 0.51 0.64 0.51 33.1 2 T1 All MCs 98 2.0 98 2.0 0.201 5.9 LOS A 1.0 25.1 0.51 0.64 0.51 33.8 12 R2 All MCs 289 2.0 289 2.0 0.249 5.7 LOS A 1.3 34.0 0.51 0.58 0.51 34.8 Approach 485 2.0 485 2.0 0.249 7.0 LOS A 1.3 34.0 0.51 0.60 0.51 34.2 All Vehicles 1702 3.0 1702 3.0 0.321 6.5 LOS A 1.7 44.6 0.44 0.54 0.44 34.4 Site Level of Service(LOS)Method: Delay&Degree of Saturation(SIDRA).Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog(Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method:Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio(degree of saturation)per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements(v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model:SIDRA HCM. Delay Model:SIDRA Standard(Control Delay:Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model:SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula:SIDRA Standard(Akgelik M3D). HV(%)values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 1 Copyright©2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation:THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence:NETWORK/1 PC I Processed:Monday,November 25,2024 1:01:46 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\67th_531 RAB.sip9 B-53 HCM 7th TWSC Lindsay Sub Area 4: SR 531 (172nd St NE) & 80th Dr NE Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay,slveh 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations t T r Traffic Vol,vehlh 60 480 355 10 5 30 Future Vol,veh/h 60 480 355 10 5 30 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length 225 - 0 160 Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 0 0 1 1 0 0 Mvmt Flow 65 516 382 11 5 32 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 392 0 0 1032 387 Stage 1 - - - 387 - Stage 2 - 645 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1177 260 665 Stage 1 - 691 - Stage 2 - 526 - Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1177 - 246 665 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 246 - Stage 1 653 - Stage 2 526 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay,s/v 0.92 0 12.01 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity(veh/h) 1177 - 246 665 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.055 0.022 0.048 HCM Control Delay(s/veh) 8.2 20 10.7 HCM Lane LOS A C B HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.1 0.2 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report B-54 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Lindsay Sub Area 1: SR 9 & 204th St NE Future(2029)Without-Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r 1 t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 180 395 150 195 265 175 95 370 190 75 345 130 Future Volume(veh/h) 180 395 150 195 265 175 95 370 190 75 345 130 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 189 416 158 205 279 184 100 389 200 79 363 137 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap,veh/h 223 444 371 240 468 390 126 445 229 102 692 582 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.06 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 1562 1781 1870 1560 1767 1150 591 1767 1856 1562 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 189 416 158 205 279 184 100 0 589 79 363 137 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 1562 1781 1870 1560 1767 0 1742 1767 1856 1562 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.3 23.7 9.3 12.2 14.3 10.9 6.1 0.0 34.1 4.8 16.6 6.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.3 23.7 9.3 12.2 14.3 10.9 6.1 0.0 34.1 4.8 16.6 6.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 223 444 371 240 468 390 126 0 674 102 692 582 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.94 0.43 0.86 0.60 0.47 0.79 0.00 0.87 0.78 0.52 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 424 445 372 418 468 390 252 0 943 252 1005 846 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 46.5 40.7 35.2 46.0 35.9 34.7 49.7 0.0 30.9 50.6 26.6 23.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 8.5 27.6 0.9 8.5 2.3 1.1 10.5 0.0 7.8 11.9 0.9 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.5 14.2 3.6 6.0 6.8 4.2 3.0 0.0 15.4 2.5 7.4 2.5 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.0 68.3 36.1 54.5 38.2 35.7 60.2 0.0 38.8 62.5 27.5 23.7 LnGrp LOS E E D D D D E D E C C Approach Vol,veh/h 763 668 689 579 Approach Delay,s/veh 58.3 42.5 41.9 31.4 Approach LOS E D D C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 10.8 48.2 19.1 30.7 12.3 46.6 17.7 32.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 6.1 4.5 *4.9 4.5 6.1 4.1 4.9 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 15.5 58.9 25.5 *26 15.5 58.9 25.9 25.1 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.8 36.1 14.2 25.7 8.1 18.6 13.3 16.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 6.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 4.4 0.4 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay,s/veh 44.4 HCM 7th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. *HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report B-55 MOVEMENT SUMMARY 8 Site: 2 [2. SR 531/67th Avenue NE (Site Folder: Baseline 2029)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version:9.1.3.210 Future(2029)Without-Project PM Peak Hour Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Arrival Deg Aver. Level of 95%Back Of Prop. FlowsID Class Flows - .. No.of Speed [Total HV] [Total HV] [Veh. Dist Rate Cycles South:67th Ave NE 3 L2 All MCs 53 1.0 53 1.0 0.574 13.6 LOS B 3.2 80.6 0.74 0.88 0.91 33.0 8 T1 All MCs 237 1.0 237 1.0 0.574 8.3 LOS A 3.2 80.6 0.74 0.88 0.91 33.7 18 R2 All MCs 132 1.0 132 1.0 0.574 8.4 LOS A 3.2 80.6 0.74 0.88 0.91 33.3 Approach 421 1.0 421 1.0 0.574 9.0 LOS A 3.2 80.6 0.74 0.88 0.91 33.5 East:SR 531 (172nd St NE) 1 L2 All MCs 95 6.0 95 6.0 0.308 13.3 LOS B 1.8 48.2 0.69 0.69 0.69 32.5 6 T1 All MCs 421 6.0 421 6.0 0.308 7.5 LOS A 2.0 53.1 0.69 0.65 0.69 33.7 16 R2 All MCs 68 6.0 68 6.0 0.308 7.0 LOS A 2.0 53.1 0.69 0.63 0.69 33.8 Approach 584 6.0 584 6.0 0.308 8.4 LOS A 2.0 53.1 0.69 0.65 0.69 33.5 North:67th Ave NE 7 L2 All MCs 111 3.0 111 3.0 0.588 12.1 LOS B 3.2 82.4 0.61 0.75 0.71 33.3 4 T1 All MCs 247 3.0 247 3.0 0.588 6.8 LOS A 3.2 82.4 0.61 0.75 0.71 34.0 14 R2 All MCs 184 3.0 184 3.0 0.588 6.9 LOS A 3.2 82.4 0.61 0.75 0.71 33.7 Approach 542 3.0 542 3.0 0.588 7.9 LOS A 3.2 82.4 0.61 0.75 0.71 33.8 West:SR 531 (172nd St NE) 5 L2 All MCs 311 2.0 311 2.0 0.455 12.4 LOS B 3.1 79.5 0.70 0.69 0.70 32.2 2 T1 All MCs 637 2.0 637 2.0 0.455 6.6 LOS A 3.4 85.9 0.68 0.62 0.68 33.8 12 R2 All MCs 63 2.0 63 2.0 0.455 6.3 LOS A 3.4 85.9 0.68 0.60 0.68 33.9 Approach 1011 2.0 1011 2.0 0.455 8.4 LOS A 3.4 85.9 0.69 0.64 0.69 33.3 All Vehicles 2558 3.0 2558 3.0 0.588 8.4 LOS A 3.4 85.9 0.68 0.71 0.73 33.5 Site Level of Service(LOS)Method: Delay&Degree of Saturation(SIDRA).Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog(Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method:Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio(degree of saturation)per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements(v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model:SIDRA HCM. Delay Model:SIDRA Standard (Control Delay:Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model:SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula:SIDRA Standard(Akcelik M3D). HV(%)values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 i Copyright©2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd i sidrasolutions.com Organisation:THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence:NETWORK/1 PC I Processed:Monday,November 25,2024 1:17:24 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\67th_531 RAB.sip9 B-56 MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 3 [3. SR 9/SR 531 (Site Folder: Baseline 2029)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version:9.1.3.210 Future (2029)Without-Project PM Peak Hour Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Mov Turn Mov Demand Arrival Deg. Aver. Of Prop. ID Class Flows Flows Satn Delay Service Queue Que Stop No.of Speed [Total HV] [Total HV] [Veh. Dist Rate Cycles South:SR 9 of TM 3 L2 All MCs 232 5.0 232 5.0 0.273 12.3 LOS B 1.4 36.2 0.56 0.71 0.56 31.7 8 T1 All MCs 438 5.0 438 5.0 0.431 6.2 LOS A 2.7 69.9 0.62 0.58 0.62 34.4 18 R2 All MCs 26 5.0 26 5.0 0.431 6.3 LOS A 2.7 69.9 0.62 0.58 0.62 34.0 Approach 696 5.0 696 5.0 0.431 8.2 LOS A 2.7 69.9 0.60 0.62 0.60 33.4 Est: 172nd St NE _MIEF MINE 1u U All MCs 1 1.0 1 1.0 0.376 15.1 LOS B 1.8 45.8 0.64 0.70 0.66 33.7 1 L2 All MCs 36 1.0 36 1.0 0.376 12.6 LOS B 1.8 45.8 0.64 0.70 0.66 33.7 6 T1 All MCs 160 1.0 160 1.0 0.376 6.8 LOS A 1.8 45.8 0.64 0.70 0.66 34.3 16 R2 All MCs 119 1.0 119 1.0 0.376 6.6 LOS A 1.8 45.8 0.64 0.70 0.66 34.1 Approach 315 1.0 315 1.0 0.376 7.4 LOS A 1.8 45.8 0.64 0.70 0.66 34.2 North:SR 9 7 L2 All MCs 129 2.0 129 2.0 0.478 11.9 LOS B 3.0 76.7 0.60 0.61 0.60 33.4 4 T1 All MCs 423 2.0 423 2.0 0.478 6.1 LOS A 3.0 76.7 0.60 0.61 0.60 34.0 14 R2 All MCs 144 2.0 144 2.0 0.192 6.7 LOS A 0.9 21.8 0.52 0.62 0.52 34.7 Approach 696 2.0 696 2.0 0.478 7.3 LOS A 3.0 76.7 0.59 0.61 0.59 34.0 West:SR 531 5 L2 All MCs 119 2.0 119 2.0 0.364 12.9 LOS B 2.2 56.4 0.69 0.69 0.69 32.8 2 T1 All MCs 196 2.0 196 2.0 0.364 7.1 LOS A 2.2 56.4 0.69 0.69 0.69 33.4 12 R2 All MCs 330 2.0 330 2.0 0.332 6.7 LOS A 2.1 53.4 0.68 0.65 0.68 34.4 Approach 644 2.0 644 2.0 0.364 8.0 LOS A 2.2 56.4 0.68 0.67 0.68 33.8 All Vehicles 2352 2.8 2352 2.8 0.478 7.8 LOS A 3.0 76.7 0.62 0.64 0.63 33.8 Site Level of Service(LOS)Method: Delay&Degree of Saturation(SIDRA).Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog(Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method:Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio(degree of saturation)per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements(v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model:SIDRA HCM. Delay Model:SIDRA Standard(Control Delay:Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model:SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula:SIDRA Standard(Akgelik M3D). HV(%)values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 1 Copyright©2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation:THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence:NETWORK/1 PC I Processed:Monday,November 25,2024 1:17:25 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\67th_531 RAB.sip9 B-57 HCM 7th TWSC Lindsay Sub Area 4: SR 531 (172nd St NE) & 80th Dr NE Future(2029)Without-Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay,slveh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations t T r Traffic Vol,vehlh 65 650 500 10 5 35 Future Vol,veh/h 65 650 500 10 5 35 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length 225 - 0 160 Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 0 0 1 1 0 0 Mvmt Flow 70 699 538 11 5 38 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 548 0 0 1382 543 Stage 1 - - - 543 - Stage 2 - 839 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1031 160 544 Stage 1 - 586 - Stage 2 - 428 - Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1031 - 149 544 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 149 - Stage 1 547 - Stage 2 428 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay,s/v 0.79 0 14.35 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity(veh/h) 1031 - 149 544 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.068 0.036 0.069 HCM Control Delay(s/veh) 8.7 30 12.1 HCM Lane LOS A D B HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.1 0.2 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report B-58 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Lindsay Sub Area 1: SR 9 & 204th St NE Future(2029)With-Project PM Peak Hour 4\ t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r 1 t r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 180 395 158 203 265 175 100 378 195 75 359 130 Future Volume(veh/h) 180 395 158 203 265 175 100 378 195 75 359 130 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 189 416 166 214 279 184 105 398 205 79 378 137 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap,veh/h 223 434 362 248 467 389 132 451 233 101 697 587 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.06 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 1870 1561 1781 1870 1560 1767 1150 592 1767 1856 1562 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 189 416 166 214 279 184 105 0 603 79 378 137 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1870 1561 1781 1870 1560 1767 0 1742 1767 1856 1562 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.6 24.6 10.2 13.1 14.7 11.2 6.5 0.0 35.9 4.9 17.8 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.6 24.6 10.2 13.1 14.7 11.2 6.5 0.0 35.9 4.9 17.8 6.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 223 434 362 248 467 389 132 0 684 101 697 587 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.96 0.46 0.86 0.60 0.47 0.80 0.00 0.88 0.78 0.54 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 413 434 362 407 467 389 245 0 918 245 978 823 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 47.9 42.4 36.9 47.1 37.0 35.7 50.9 0.0 31.5 52.0 27.3 23.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 8.7 32.9 1.1 10.2 2.3 1.1 10.5 0.0 8.8 12.0 0.9 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.7 15.2 4.0 6.5 7.0 4.4 3.3 0.0 16.4 2.5 8.0 2.5 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.6 75.3 38.0 57.2 39.3 36.8 61.3 0.0 40.3 64.0 28.3 24.2 LnGrp LOS E E D E D D E D E C C Approach Vol,veh/h 771 677 708 594 Approach Delay,s/veh 62.7 44.3 43.5 32.1 Approach LOS E D D C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 10.9 50.0 20.0 30.8 12.8 48.1 18.1 32.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.5 6.1 4.5 *4.9 4.5 6.1 4.1 4.9 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 15.5 58.9 25.5 *26 15.5 58.9 25.9 25.1 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.9 37.9 15.1 26.6 8.5 19.8 13.6 16.7 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.1 5.9 0.4 0.0 0.1 4.6 0.4 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay,s/veh 46.6 HCM 7th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. *HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report B-59 MOVEMENT SUMMARY 8 Site: 2 [2. 172nd Street NE/67th Avenue NE (Site Folder: WP 2029)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version:9.1.3.210 Future(2029)With-Project PM Peak Hour Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Arrival Deg Aver. Level of 95%Back Of Prop. FlowsID Class Flows - .. No.of Speed [Total HV] [Total HV] [Veh. Dist Rate Cycles South:67th Ave NE 3 L2 All MCs 53 1.0 53 1.0 0.586 13.7 LOS B 3.3 83.4 0.75 0.89 0.93 33.0 8 T1 All MCs 237 1.0 237 1.0 0.586 8.5 LOS A 3.3 83.4 0.75 0.89 0.93 33.6 18 R2 All MCs 136 1.0 136 1.0 0.586 8.6 LOS A 3.3 83.4 0.75 0.89 0.93 33.3 Approach 425 1.0 425 1.0 0.586 9.2 LOS A 3.3 83.4 0.75 0.89 0.93 33.4 East:SR 531 (172nd St NE) 1 L2 All MCs 97 6.0 97 6.0 0.313 13.4 LOS B 1.9 49.3 0.70 0.69 0.70 32.5 6 T1 All MCs 428 6.0 428 6.0 0.313 7.5 LOS A 2.1 54.3 0.69 0.65 0.69 33.7 16 R2 All MCs 69 6.0 69 6.0 0.313 7.1 LOS A 2.1 54.3 0.69 0.63 0.69 33.8 Approach 595 6.0 595 6.0 0.313 8.4 LOS A 2.1 54.3 0.69 0.66 0.69 33.5 North:67th Ave NE 7 L2 All MCs 112 3.0 112 3.0 0.592 12.2 LOS B 3.3 83.8 0.62 0.75 0.72 33.3 4 T1 All MCs 247 3.0 247 3.0 0.592 6.9 LOS A 3.3 83.8 0.62 0.75 0.72 34.0 14 R2 All MCs 184 3.0 184 3.0 0.592 7.0 LOS A 3.3 83.8 0.62 0.75 0.72 33.6 Approach 543 3.0 543 3.0 0.592 8.0 LOS A 3.3 83.8 0.62 0.75 0.72 33.7 West:SR 531 (172nd St NE) 5 L2 All MCs 311 2.0 311 2.0 0.462 12.5 LOS B 3.2 81.5 0.70 0.69 0.70 32.2 2 T1 All MCs 649 2.0 649 2.0 0.462 6.6 LOS A 3.5 87.9 0.69 0.63 0.69 33.8 12 R2 All MCs 63 2.0 63 2.0 0.462 6.4 LOS A 3.5 87.9 0.69 0.61 0.69 33.8 Approach 1023 2.0 1023 2.0 0.462 8.4 LOS A 3.5 87.9 0.69 0.65 0.69 33.3 All Vehicles 2586 3.0 2586 3.0 0.592 8.4 LOS A 3.5 87.9 0.69 0.71 0.74 33.5 Site Level of Service(LOS)Method: Delay&Degree of Saturation(SIDRA).Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog(Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method:Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio(degree of saturation)per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements(v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model:SIDRA HCM. Delay Model:SIDRA Standard (Control Delay:Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model:SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula:SIDRA Standard(Akcelik M3D). HV(%)values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 i Copyright©2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd i sidrasolutions.com Organisation:THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence:NETWORK/1 PC I Processed:Friday,December 6,2024 4:15:22 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\67th_531 RAB.sip9 B-60 MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 3 [3. SR 9/SR 531 (Site Folder: WP 2029)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version:9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Mov Turn Mov Demand Arrival Deg. Aver. Of Prop. ID Class Flows Flows Satn Delay Service Queue Que Stop No.of Speed [Total HV] [Total HV] [Veh. Dist Rate Cycles South:SR 9 3 L2 All MCs 270 5.0 270 5.0 0.335 8.3 LOS A 1.4 36.4 0.57 0.46 0.57 29.5 8 T1 All MCs 438 5.0 438 5.0 0.535 11.4 LOS B 3.8 97.8 0.67 0.64 0.97 30.9 18 R2 All MCs 26 5.0 26 5.0 0.535 11.4 LOS B 3.8 97.8 0.67 0.64 0.97 30.7 Approach 734 5.0 734 5.0 0.535 10.3 LOS B 3.8 97.8 0.63 0.57 0.82 30.4 Est: 172nd St NEFINE 1u U All MCs 1 1.0 1 1.0 0.494 13.2 LOS B 2.6 66.3 0.72 0.79 1.05 29.5 1 L2 All MCs 36 1.0 36 1.0 0.494 13.2 LOS B 2.6 66.3 0.72 0.79 1.05 29.5 6 T1 All MCs 165 1.0 165 1.0 0.494 13.2 LOS B 2.6 66.3 0.72 0.79 1.05 30.0 16 R2 All MCs 119 1.0 119 1.0 0.494 13.2 LOS B 2.6 66.3 0.72 0.79 1.05 29.8 Approach 321 1.0 321 1.0 0.494 13.2 LOS B 2.6 66.3 0.72 0.79 1.05 29.9 North:SR 9 7 L2 All MCs 129 2.0 129 2.0 0.608 12.8 LOS B 5.4 138.2 0.72 0.73 1.16 29.4 4 T1 All MCs 423 2.0 423 2.0 0.608 12.8 LOS B 5.4 138.2 0.72 0.73 1.16 29.9 14 R2 All MCs 186 2.0 186 2.0 0.222 6.6 LOS A 0.9 22.4 0.53 0.42 0.53 32.7 Approach 737 2.0 737 2.0 0.608 11.3 LOS B 5.4 138.2 0.67 0.66 1.00 30.5 West:SR 531 5 L2 All MCs 143 2.0 143 2.0 0.455 10.9 LOS B 2.6 64.9 0.67 0.65 0.88 29.8 2 T1 All MCs 199 2.0 199 2.0 0.455 10.9 LOS B 2.6 64.9 0.67 0.65 0.88 30.3 12 R2 All MCs 352 2.0 352 2.0 0.428 9.7 LOS A 2.2 57.1 0.64 0.59 0.80 31.3 Approach 694 2.0 694 2.0 0.455 10.3 LOS B 2.6 64.9 0.66 0.62 0.84 30.7 All Vehicles 2486 2.8 2486 2.8 0.608 10.9 LOS B 5.4 138.2 0.66 0.64 0.91 30.4 Site Level of Service(LOS)Method: Delay&v/c(HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method:Same as Sign Control. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio(degree of saturation)per movement. LOS F will result if v/c> 1 irrespective of movement delay value(does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements(v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6. Delay Model:HCM Delay Formula(Stopline Delay:Geometric Delay is not included). Queue Model:SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula:Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model. HV(%)values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 1 Copyright©2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation:THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence:NETWORK/1 PC I Processed:Friday,December 6,2024 3:33:55 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\67th_531 RAB.sip9 B-61 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 4 [4. SR 531/80th Dr NE (Site Folder: WP 2029)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version:9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Mov Turn Mov Demand Arrival Deg. Aver. Of Prop. ID Class Flows Flows Satn Delay Service Queue Que Stop No.of Speed [Total HV] [Total HV] [Veh. Dist Rate Cycles South: Project Driveway 3 L2 All MCs 2 0.0 2 0.0 0.064 14.0 LOS B 0.4 9.0 0.72 0.73 0.72 32.9 8 T1 All MCs 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.064 9.1 LOS A 0.4 9.0 0.72 0.73 0.72 33.5 18 R2 All MCs 37 0.0 37 0.0 0.064 9.0 LOS A 0.4 9.0 0.72 0.73 0.72 33.2 Approach 40 0.0 40 0.0 0.064 9.3 LOS A 0.4 9.0 0.72 0.73 0.72 33.2 East:SR 531 (172nd St N 1 L2 All MCs 64 1.0 64 1.0 0.550 9.9 LOS A 4.5 113.9 0.37 0.46 0.37 34.2 6 T1 All MCs 568 1.0 568 1.0 0.550 5.0 LOS A 4.5 113.9 0.37 0.46 0.37 34.9 16 R2 All MCs 11 1.0 11 1.0 0.550 4.9 LOS A 4.5 113.9 0.37 0.46 0.37 34.5 Approach 643 1.0 643 1.0 0.550 5.5 LOS A 4.5 113.9 0.37 0.46 0.37 34.8 North:80th Dr NE 7 L2 All MCs 5 0.0 5 0.0 0.060 12.6 LOS B 0.3 7.6 0.62 0.68 0.62 33.4 4 T1 All MCs 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.060 7.7 LOS A 0.3 7.6 0.62 0.68 0.62 34.1 14 R2 All MCs 38 0.0 38 0.0 0.060 7.6 LOS A 0.3 7.6 0.62 0.68 0.62 33.8 Approach 45 0.0 45 0.0 0.060 8.2 LOS A 0.3 7.6 0.62 0.68 0.62 33.7 West:SR 531 (172nd St NE) 5 L2 All MCs 71 0.0 71 0.0 0.678 10.1 LOS B 7.0 174.8 0.45 0.46 0.45 34.0 2 T1 All MCs 728 0.0 728 0.0 0.678 5.2 LOS A 7.0 174.8 0.45 0.46 0.45 34.7 12 R2 All MCs 4 0.0 4 0.0 0.678 5.1 LOS A 7.0 174.8 0.45 0.46 0.45 34.4 Approach 803 0.0 803 0.0 0.678 5.6 LOS A 7.0 174.8 0.45 0.46 0.45 34.6 All Vehicles 1532 0.4 1532 0.4 0.678 5.8 LOS A 7.0 174.8 0.42 0.47 0.42 34.6 Site Level of Service(LOS)Method: Delay&Degree of Saturation(SIDRA).Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog(Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method:Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio(degree of saturation)per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements(v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model:SIDRA HCM. Delay Model:SIDRA Standard(Control Delay:Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model:SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula:SIDRA Standard(Akgelik M3D). HV(%)values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 i Copyright©2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd i sidrasolutions.com Organisation:THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence:NETWORK/1 PC I Processed:Friday,December 6,2024 3:27:55 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\67th_531 RAB.sip9 B-62 SITE LAYOUT Site: 4 [4. SR 531180th Dr NE (Site Folder: WP 2029)] New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data.They are not design drawings. w z 0 0 m JN T SR 531 (172nd St NE) 70 70®4 70 ~� 70 SR 531 (172nd St NE) W Y A 3 0 L Q �o G d SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 Copyright©2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd sidrasolutions.com Organisation:THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence:NETWORK/1 PC I Created:Friday,December 6,2024 3:27:40 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\67th_531 RAB.sip9 B-63 HCM 7th TWSC Lindsay Sub Area 5: West Access (79th Ave NE) & SR 531 (172nd St NE) Future(2029)With-Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay,slveh 0.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� t Traffic Vol,vehlh 734 4 23 537 11 5 Future Vol,veh/h 734 4 23 537 11 5 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None None Storage Length 50 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 798 4 25 584 12 5 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 802 0 1434 800 Stage 1 - - - - 800 - Stage 2 - 634 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 821 148 385 Stage 1 - 442 - Stage 2 - 529 - Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 821 143 385 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 281 - Stage 1 442 - Stage 2 513 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay,s/v 0 0.39 17.42 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(veh/h) 307 - 821 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.057 0.03 - HCM Control Delay(s/veh) 17.4 9.5 - HCM Lane LOS C A - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report B-64 HCM 7th TWSC Lindsay Sub Area 6: East Access & SR 531 (172nd St NE) Future(2029)With-Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay,slveh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� t r Traffic Vol,vehlh 699 15 0 597 0 9 Future Vol,veh/h 699 15 0 597 0 9 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None Storage Length - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 760 16 0 649 0 10 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 768 Stage 1 - - - Stage 2 - Critical Hdwy 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 402 Stage 1 0 0 - Stage 2 0 0 - Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 402 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 - Stage 2 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay,s/v 0 0 14.19 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity(veh/h) 402 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 HCM Control Delay(s/veh) 14.2 HCM Lane LOS B HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.1 - Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report B-65 Appendix D: Detailed Trip Generation B-66 1.24222 Lindsay Sub-Area (MJS Parcels) MJS Investors Parcels Only Gross Trips Land Use Setting Size Units Model Equation Rate Inbound% Inbound Outbound Subtotal Single Family Homes(LU 210) 177 du Daily General Urban/Suburban Equation(log) Ln(T)=0.92 Ln(X)+2.68 - 50% 853 853 1,706 PM Peak Hour General Urban/Suburban Rate 0.94 63% 105 61 166 Notes: 1.Trip rates based on Institute of Transportation Engineers'(ITE) Trip Generation Manual(11th Edition)equation and average trip rates as shown above. B-67 WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT LINDSAY ANNEXATION JUNE 2024 Soundview �7 Consultants Environmental Assessment Planning+Land Use Solutions B-68 WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT LINDSAY ANNEXATION JUNE 21,2024 PROJECT LOCATION 8014/8228/8210/8326172ND STREET NORTHEAST ARLINGTON,WASHINTON 98223 PREPARED FOR MJS INVESTORS 11201 SOUTHEAST 8TH STREET,SUITE 116 BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004 PREPARED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC. 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE GIG HARBOR,WASHINGTON 98335 (253) 514-8952 Soundview Consultants Environmental Assessment Planning+Land Use Solutions B-69 Executive Summary Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) is assisting MJS Investors (Applicant) with a Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report for the residential development of a 32.28-acre site located at 8014, 8228, 8210,and 8326 172nd Street Northeast within the City of Arlington,Washington. The subject property consists of five parcels situated in the Northeast 1/4, of Section 26, Township 31 North, Range 5 East, (Snohomish County Tax Parcel Numbers 31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, 31052600102300). SVC investigated the subject property for the presence of potentially-regulated wetlands,waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat,and/or priority species in December of 2022 and April of 2024. Using current methodology,the site assessments identified four potentially-regulated wetlands onsite (Wetlands A— D) and one stream (Stream Z) on the subject property. Additionally, one offsite wetland (Wetland 1) was identified offsite to the west of the subject property. Wetlands A and D are classified as a Category IV wetlands per Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) 20.93.800 and are subject to a standard 40-foot buffer regardless of habitat score per AMC 20.93.830 Table 20.93-4 with the required use of minimization measures outlined in AMC Table 20.93-5. Wetlands B, C, and 1 are Category III wetlands per AMC 20.93.800 with moderate habitat scores of(6 or 7) and are subject to a standard 110-foot buffer per AMC 20.93.830 Table 20.93-4 with the required use of minimization measures outlined in AMC Table 20.93-5. Stream Z is a seasonal, non-fish bearing stream and is therefore considered a Type Ns water per AMC 20.93.700 and is subject to a standard 50-foot buffer per AMC 20.93.730 Table 20.93-3. In addition, a 15-foot structure setback is required at the edge of wetland and stream buffers per AMC 20.93.340. No other potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species were identified within 300 feet of the subject property. The Applicant is assessing the potential for residential development on the subject property. All necessary code analytics and mitigation strategy will be outlined in a Conceptual Mitigation Plan under a separate cover. The table below summarizes the identified critical areas on the subject property and their regulatory status. Size Regulated Regulated Regulated Critical Area Name Ons to Category/Type' Under AMC Under RCW Under Clean Chapter 20.93 90.48 Water Act Wetland A 22,500 SF IV Yes Yes Likely Wetland B 1.2 AC III Yes Yes Likely Wetland C 30,080 SF III Yes Yes Likely Wetland D 110 SF IV Yes Yes Not Likely Wetland 1 NA III Yes Yes Likely Stream Z —160 linear Type Ns Yes Yes Likely feet 1. Washington State Department of Ecology(WSDOE)wetland rating system(Hruby and Yahnke 2023)per AMC 20.93.800 and AMC 20.93.730 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation i Soundview Consultants LLC Wedand&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-70 Table of Contents Chapter1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 2. Proposed Project Location..........................................................................................................2 2.1 Location...................................................................................................................................................2 Chapter3. Methods..........................................................................................................................................3 Chapter4. Background....................................................................................................................................4 4.1 Landscape Setting...................................................................................................................................4 4.2 Soils ..........................................................................................................................................................4 4.3 Critical Area Inventories .......................................................................................................................5 4.4 Priority Habitats and Species................................................................................................................5 4.5 Precipitation............................................................................................................................................5 Chapter5. Results.............................................................................................................................................7 5.1 Upland Characterization........................................................................................................................7 5.2 Wetlands..................................................................................................................................................7 5.3 Streams...................................................................................................................................................14 5.4 Non-Regulated Ditches.......................................................................................................................15 5.5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas ................................................................................16 Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations.........................................................................................................19 6.1 Local Critical Areas Requirements.....................................................................................................19 6.2 State and Federal Considerations.......................................................................................................21 Chapter7. Closure..........................................................................................................................................23 Chapter8. References ....................................................................................................................................24 Figures Figure1. Vicinity Map.................................................................................................................2 Figure 2. Aerial Image of the Subject Area..................................................................................4 Tables Table 1. Precipitation Summary'..................................................................................................5 Table2. Wetland Summary ..........................................................................................................7 Table3. Wetland A Summary.......................................................................................................9 Table4. Wetland B Summary.....................................................................................................10 Table5. Wetland C Summary.....................................................................................................12 Table6. Wetland D Summary. ...................................................................................................13 Table 7. Edgecomb Creek (Stream Z) Summary.........................................................................15 Table8. Wetland Buffer Summary.............................................................................................19 Table 9. Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands..................................................................20 Appendices Appendix A-Existing Conditions Map Appendix B -Subject Area Background Information Appendix C Data Forms 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation ii Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-71 Appendix D—Wetland Rating Forms Appendix E—Wetland Rating Maps Appendix F—Site Photographs Appendix G— Qualifications 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation iii Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-72 Chapter 1. Introduction Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) is assisting MJS Investors (Applicant) with a Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report for the potential residential development of a 32.28-acre site located at 8014, 8228, 8210, and 8326 172nd Street Northeast within the City of Arlington, Washington. The subject property consists of five parcels situated in the Northeast 'A, of Section 26, Township 31 North, Range 5 East, (Snohomish County Tax Parcel Numbers 31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, and 31052600102300). The purpose of this wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment is to identify the presence of potentially regulated wetlands,waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species that may be found on or near the subject property. This report provides conclusions and recommendations regarding: • Site description and areas of assessment; • Background research,identification,and assessment of potentially-regulated wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat and/or species in the vicinity of the proposed project; • Standard buffer recommendations, building setbacks, and development limitations; • Existing site map detailing identified critical areas; and • Supplemental information necessary for local, state, and federal regulatory review. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 1 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-73 Chapter 2. Proposed Project Location 2.1 Location The subject property is located at 8014, 8228, 8210, and 8326 172nd Street Northeast within the City of Arlington,Washington(Figure 1). The subject area consists of five parcels situated in the Northeast 1/4, of Section 26, Township 31 North, Range 5 East, (Snohomish County Tax Parcel Numbers 31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, and 31052600102300). To access the subject property from I-5 North, take Exit 206 for WA-531E/172nd Street Northeast/Edgecomb Road toward Lakewood/Smokey Point. Continue for approximately 3.5 miles, where the subject property will be on the right after the intersection of 172"Street Northeast and 79' Avenue Northeast. Figure 1. Vicinity Map a ex h.,I 186th St NE Subject cA�\aor g = Property Ea Location tr g 1181h Pl,y 2 •Ao � � u �Y CIUb Ot Q C � W u -,�i- 177nu Sr NE � McPherson Ra 164th St NE W Z 2 O Q W "01h St NE 4 E W z z u 9 1' 6/1212024,12:05:04 PM 1:36,112 0 11 000 2,000 4,000It Statewide Parcels_Query result 0 330 1660 1,320 m CM of AdegWo,Cay 0 ArUVW,WA.Bureau a Lana Management E- HERE.Garcon,INCREMENT P,NGA,USGS S-M. Cm. . 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 2 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-74 Chapter 3. Methods SVC investigated, assessed, and delineated any potentially-regulated wetlands,waterbodies, and other fish and wildlife habitat on and within 300 feet of the subject property in December of 2022 and April of 2024. All determinations were made using observable vegetation, hydrology, and soils in conjunction with data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) soil survey,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI),Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) and SWIFD mapping tools,Department of Natural Resources (DNR)water typing system, Snohomish County's public geographic information systems (GIS), local precipitation data, and various orthophotographic resources. Wetland boundaries were determined in accordance with Arlington Municipal Code (AMC)20.93.810, and as outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) Wletlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) as modified according to the guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wletland Delineation Manual. Wlestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2010) and Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA, 2018). Qualified wetland scientists marked boundaries of the onsite wetlands with orange surveyor's flagging labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation along the wetland boundary. Pink surveyor's flagging was labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation at formal sampling locations to mark the points where detailed data was collected on the subject property(DP- 1 to DP-32). Additional tests pits were excavated at regular intervals inside and outside of the wetland boundaries to further confirm the delineations. SVC classified all wetlands using both the hydrogeomorphic (Brinson, 1993) and Cowardin (Cowardin, 1979; Federal Geographic Data Committee, 2013) classification systems. Following classification and assessment, all wetlands were rated and categorized using the Wlashington State Wletlands Rating System for Wlestern Wlashington-2014 Updated Version 2.0 (Hruby and Yahnke 2023) and the guidelines and definitions established under AMC 20.93.800. Ordinary high water (OHW) mark determinations were made using Washington State Department of Ecology's (WSDOE's)methodology,as detailed in Determining the Ordinary High WaterMark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Wlashington State(Anderson et al.,2016),and the definitions established in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.030(2)(b) and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-22-030(11). To mark the centerline or banks of potentially-regulated streams and shorelines, blue surveyor's flagging was alpha-numerically labeled and tied to vegetation. Offsite waters were observed and OHW boundaries estimated based on topography and aerial imagery. Streams and surface water features were classified using the DNR water typing system as outlined in WAC 222-16-030 and the guidelines established in AMC 20.93.700. The fish and wildlife habitat assessment was conducted during the same site visits by qualified fish and wildlife biologists. The experienced biologists made visual observations using stationary and walking survey methods for both aquatic and upland habitats noting any special habitat features or signs of fish and wildlife activity (e.g. nesting, foraging, and migration/movement). Special attention was given to assessing the presence of wildlife habitat areas outlined under AMC 20.93.400. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 3 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-75 Chapter 4. Background 4.1 Landscape Setting The subject property is located within a rural residential setting within the City of Arlington and is partially developed with four single-family residences, associated infrastructure,gravel driveways, and garages. Much of the site consists of open fields, lawn, and small pockets of deciduous trees and shrubs,with a larger forested area located on the southeast area of the subject property. The subject property abuts 172nd Street Northeast to the north, a single-family residence and undeveloped land to the east, undeveloped forested land and chicken farm facilities to the south, and single-family residences on large lots to the west. Topography on the site generally slopes from southeast to northwest with elevations ranging from approximately 408 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 360 feet amsl (Appendix B1). The subject property is within the Snohomish River Watershed (Water Resources Inventory Area 7). Figure 2. Aerial Image of the Subject Area fti► Subject r Property -� Location sit Ab . �� .. ! i �RVt Vy i VA 60 0 •• .�"� -ter. .. - It.WS Z40 4.2 Soils The NRCS soil survey identifies one soil series on the site:Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes. A NRCS soil survey map is provided in Appendix B2. A description of the soil profile is below. Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes (72) 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 4 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-76 According to the NRCS survey,Tokul gravelly medial loam,0 to 8 percent slopes is a moderately well drained soil formed in glacial till and volcanic ash. In a typical profile, the surface layer is approximately 4 inches thick and is a dark brown gravelly loam. From 4 to 22 inches the subsoil is a brown, strong brown and dark yellowish-brown gravelly loam. From 22 to 31 inches the soil is light olive brown gravelly fine sandy loam. A hard pan is present at a depth of approximately 31 inches. Water capacity is moderate and permeability is moderate above the hard pan and very slow through it.Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes is listed as a non-hydric soil (MRCS,N.d.),but as much as 5 percent of areas mapped as Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes may contain hydric inclusions of McKenna and Norma loams. 4.3 Critical Area Inventories The DNR Stream Typing map (Appendix B3), WDFW and NWIFC-SWIFD map (Appendix B4), and the Snohomish County Streams and Wetlands Inventory map (Appendix B5) identify a stream running parallel to the subject property from the southeast to the northwest before briefly coming onto the southwestern most portion of the property. The onsite portion of the stream is identified as Type N (non-fish bearing) by DNR Stream Typing and as a Type F (fish bearing) stream by WDFW and NWIFC-SWIFD. The stream is indicated to continue offsite to the northwest and eventually transitions to Type F per DNR Stream Typing and WDFW and NWIFC-SWIFD. The USFWS NWI map (Appendix 136) does not identify any wetlands or streams onsite or within 300 feet of the subject property. The WDFW PHS map (Appendix B7) identifies a linear wetland or stream feature located approximately 210 feet offsite to the east of the subject property. The Snohomish County Stream and Wetland Inventory map identifies an offsite wetland located on parcel 31052600101700 approximately 45 feet offsite to the west of the subject property. No other wetlands or streams are mapped onsite or within 300 feet of the subject property. 4.4 Priority Habitats and Species The WDFW PHS map identifies the listed occurrence and migration of Dolly Varden/bull trout and the occurrence of coho salmon in Stream Z. The WDFW and NWIFC SWIFD map lists the documented spawning of coho salmon, the presumed presence of Dolly Varden/bull trout; and gradient accessible reaches for chinook salmon,pink salmon, and winter steelhead trout in Stream Z. No other wetlands, streams, or priority habitats or species are documented on or within 300 feet of the subject property. 4.5 Precipitation Precipitation data was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) weather station at Everett Paine Field Airport located in Snohomish County in order to acquire precipitation values during and preceding the field investigations. A summary of data collected is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Precipitation Summary'. Day Day 1 Week 2 Weeks Last 30 days Year-to-Datez Percent of Date Normal Of Before Prior Prior (Observed/Normal) (Observed/Normal) 06 month/ ear 12/7/2022 0.04 0.00 0.16 1.65 2.19/5.04 7.20/9.42 43/76 4/2/2024 0.44 0.00 0.53 .85 1.43/3.50 19.07/23.41 40/81 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 5 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-77 4/3/2024 0.18 0.44 0.70 1.03 1.57/3.49 19.25/23.51 45/82 4/4/2024 Trace 0.18 0.62 1.03 1.57/3.48 19.25/23.61 45/82 Notes: 1. Precipitation level provided in inches.Data obtained from the NOAA(http://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=sew)for Everett Paine Field Airport. 2. Year-to-date precipitation is the total for the water year from October 1st to the 2022 and 2024 onsite dates. Precipitation levels during the December 2022 site visit were below the statistical normal range (70 to 130 percent of normal) for the prior 30 days (43 percent of normal) and were within the historical normal range for the water year (76 percent of normal). Precipitation levels during the April 2024 site visits were within the statistical normal range for the 2024 water year(81 to 82 percent of normal) and were below normal(40 to 45 percent of normal) for the prior 30 days. This precipitation data suggests that hydrologic conditions may have been drier than usual at the time of the site investigations; however hydrological conditions were still likely representative of normal conditions, as 0.70-inches of precipitation was recorded during the week leading up to the site investigation and 0.44-inches of precipitation was recorded on the first day of the wetland delineation (April 2"d). Such conditions were considered in making professional wetland determinations. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 6 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-78 Chapter 5. Results The site investigations in December of 2022 and April of 2024 identified four potentially-regulated wetlands (Wetlands A - D) and one stream (Stream Z) on the subject property. Additionally, one potentially regulated offsite wetland (Wetland 1) was identified offsite to the west within 300 feet of the subject property. No other potentially-regulated wetlands,waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, or priority species were identified on or within 300 feet of the subject property. 5.1 Upland Characterization Vegetation on the majority of the site is dominated by grasses and forbs including non-native invasive reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea),creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens),perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), common velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus), and common dandelion (Taraxacum ofcinale). Forested cover is present on the southeastern portion of the site and includes western red cedar (Thuja plicata), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla),black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera),and red alder (Alnus rubra) with an understory of non-native invasive Himalayan blackberry (Bubus armeniacus), salmonberry (Aubus spectabalis),western sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and trailing blackberry (Aubus ursinus). 5.2 Wetlands Four wetlands (Wetland A- D) were identified and delineated on the subject property. One wetland (Wetland 1) was also identified offsite to the west within 300 feet of the subject property. The delineated wetlands contained indicators of wetland hydrology, hydric soils (presumed for offsite wetlands), and a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation according to current wetland delineation methodology. Maps depicting the location and size of the wetlands are presented in Appendix A. Data forms are provided in Appendix C, wetland rating forms are provided in Appendix D, and wetland rating maps are provided in Appendix E. Table 2 below summarizes the wetlands identified during the site investigation. Table 2. Wetland Summary Predominant Wetland Classification/Rating Wetland Wetland Size Onsite Cowardinl HGM2 City of Arlington3 (SF) A PEMB Slope IV 22,500 B PFO/SSBCH Depressional III 52,272 C PEMBC Depressional III 30,080 D PSS/EMBC Depressional IV 110 1 PEMAC Depressional III NA-offsite Notes: 1. Cowardin et al. (1979), Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013), or NWI Class based on vegetation: PFO = Palustrine Forested,PSS=Palustrine Scrub Shrub,PEM=Palustrine Emergent;Modifiers for Water Regime:A=Temporarily Flooded,B =Seasonally Saturated,C=Seasonally Flooded,H=Permanently Flooded. 2. Brinson,M.M.(1993). 3. Current WSDOE rating system(Hruby and Yahnke 2023)AMC 20.93.800. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 7 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-79 Wetland A Wetland A is approximately 22,500 square feet(0.52 acre)in size and is located on the southern portion of the subject property. Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by a seasonally-high water table,direct precipitation and surface runoff from adjacent uplands. Wetland vegetation is dominated by velvet grass, common rush (Juncus ffusus), birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), and non-native invasive reed canarygrass. The buffer surrounding Wetland A consists of fields that are degraded by previous grading and non-native invasive reed canary grass. Hydric soil indicators All (Depleted below dark surface) and F3 (Depleted Matrix) were observed. Wetland boundaries were determined by a transition of topography and wetland hydrology. Wetland A is a Palustrine Emergent and Seasonally Saturated wetland (PEMB). Table 3 provides a summary of Wetland A. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 8 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-80 Table 3. Wetland A Summary. WETLAND A Local Jurisdiction City of Arlington A. „i¢ City of Arlington Rating IV Wetland Size (Onsite) — 22,500 SF Cowardin Classification PEMB HGM Classification Slope Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-7,DP-10,DP-12 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP-5,DP-6,DP-8, DP-9,DP-11, Wetland Functions Summary • Low site potential to trap sediments and pollutants and remove nitrogen due moderate slopes and lack of uncut vegetation. Water Quality 0 Low landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due to the lack of (Scores 5 out of 9 surrounding land uses that produce pollutants. points) 0 High societal value for water quality functions due to degraded waters within the sub-basin. • Low site potential to reduce flooding and erosion due lack of dense uncut plants capable of reducing surface flow velocity. Hydrologic * Low landscape potential to support hydrologic functions due to the lack of excess (Scores 4 out of 9 surface runoff within 150 feet upslope. points) • Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to flooding problems within the sub-basin • Low site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat as the wetland consists of one plant community,one hydroperiod,moderate species richness,no interspersion, Habitat and no special habitat features. (Scores 6 out of 9 • High landscape potential to support habitat use due to accessible and undisturbed points) habitat within 1 kilometer. • Moderate societal value for habitat functions due one to nearby WDFW Priority Habitat. Wetland B Wetland B is approximately 52,272 square feet (1.2 acres) in size and is located in the southeast portion of the property within the forested area. The wetland is estimated to extend offsite to the south and west. Hydrology for Wetland B is provided by a seasonally-high water table, direct precipitation and surface runoff from adjacent uplands. Wetland vegetation is dominated by western red cedar and red alder with an understory of salmonberry(Bubus spectabilis), skunk cabbage (Lysticium americanum), youth 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 9 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-81 on age (Tolmiea men�iesii), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), creeping buttercup, water horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). Hydric soil indicators All (Depleted below dark surface) and F3 (Depleted Matrix) were observed. Wetland boundaries were determined by a transition to wedand hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland B is a Palustrine Forested, Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Saturated, Seasonally Flooded, and Permanently Flooded wetland (PFO/SSBCH). Table 4 provides a summary of Wetland B. Table 4. Wetland B Summary. q WETLAND B Local Jurisdiction City of Arlington City of Arlington Rating III , �. Wetland Size (Onsite) 1.2 acres ,t Cowardin Classification PFO/SSBCH HGM Classification Depressional Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-18 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP-17 Wetland Functions Summary 0 Moderate site potential to trap sediments and pollutants and remove nitrogen due to an unconstricted,permanently flowing outlet,greater than 95%cover of persistent, ungrazed vegetation and seasonal ponding of greater than 50%of the wetland area. Water Quality . Low landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due to the wetland (Scores 6 out of 9 points) receiving stormwater inputs and the lack of surrounding land uses that produce pollutants. • High societal value for water quality functions due to degraded waters within the sub-basin. • Moderate site potential to reduce flooding and erosion due to the limited storage depth during wet periods and the moderate size compared to the upstream basin. Hydrologic(Scores 5 out of 9 . Low landscape potential to provide flood protection due to the minimal pollutant discharges in the contributing basin. points) • Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to flooding problems within the sub-basin. • Moderate site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat as the wetland consists of two plant communities,three hydroperiods,high species richness, Habitat moderate interspersion,and three special habitat features. (Scores 7 out of 9 • High landscape potential to support habitat use due to accessible and undisturbed points) habitat within 1 kilometer. • Moderate societal value for habitat functions due to one nearby WDFW Priority Habitat. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 10 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-82 Wetland C Wetland C is approximately 30,080 square feet(0.69 acre) in size and is located on the southwest edge of the site. Hydrology for Wetland C is provided by a seasonally-high water table,direct precipitation, surface runoff from adjacent uplands, and flow from a ditch that runs south to north through the wetland. Wetland vegetation is dominated by common rush,and non-native invasive reed canarygrass. The buffer surrounding Wetland C consists of fields that are degraded by non-native invasive reed canarygrass and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Hydric soil indicators All (Depleted below dark surface) and F3 (Depleted Matrix) were observed. Wetland C is a Palustrine Emergent, Seasonally Saturated, and Seasonally Flooded wetland (PEMBC). Table 5 provides a summary of Wetland C. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 11 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-83 Table 5. Wetland C Summary. WETLAND C Local Jurisdiction City of Arlington may, s City of Arlington Rating III Wetland Size (Onsite) —30,080 SF Cowardin Classification PEMBC HGM Classification Depressional Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-20 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP-21,DP-24 Wetland Functions Summary • Low site potential to trap sediments and pollutants and remove nitrogen due to the lack of persistent,ungrazed vegetation and moderate seasonal ponding. Water Quality 0 Moderate landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due septic systems (Scores 6 out of 9 within 250 feet. points) • High societal value for water quality functions due to degraded waters within the sub-basin. • Low site potential to reduce flooding and erosion due to the limited storage depth during wet periods and the basin is over 100 times the size of the wetland. Hydrologic(Scores 4 out of 9 * Low landscape potential to provide flood protection due to the less intensive land uses within the contributing basin. points) • Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to flooding problems within the sub-basin. • Low site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat as the wetland consists of one plant community,two hydroperiods,moderate species richness,no Habitat interspersion, and no special habitat features. (Scores 6 out of 9 • High landscape potential to support habitat use due to accessible and undisturbed points) habitat and within 1 kilometer. • Moderate societal value for habitat functions due to one nearby WDFW Priority Habitat. Wetland D Wetland D is approximately 110 square feet in size and is located in the central eastern area of the property. Hydrology for Wetland D is provided by a seasonally-high water table,direct precipitation, and surface runoff from adjacent uplands. Wetland vegetation is dominated by salmonberry, non- native invasive Himalayan blackberry, and non-native invasive reed canarygrass. The onsite buffer surrounding Wetland D consists of red alder with an understory of osoberry(Oemleria cerasi(ormis),false 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 12 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-84 lily-of-the-valley (Maianthemum dilatatum), and non-native invasive reed canarygrass and is partially degraded due to surrounding seasonally mowed fields and constructed paths. Hydric soil indicator All (Depleted Below Dark Surface) was observed. The wetland boundary was determined by a transition to wetland hydrology and hydric soils. Wetland D is a Scrub-Shrub, Emergent, Seasonally Saturated, and Seasonally Flooded wetland (PSS/EMBC). Table 6 provides a summary of Wetland D. Table 6. Wetland D Summary. WETLAND D a ` Local Jurisdiction City of Arlington City of Arlington Rating IV Wetland Size (Onsite) 110 SF Cowardin Classification PSS/EMBC HGM Classification Depressional Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-30 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP-31 Wetland Functions Summary 0 Moderate site potential to trap sediments and pollutants and remove nitrogen due to a permanently flowing outlet,greater than 95%cover of persistent,ungrazed Water Quality vegetation,and a moderate area of seasonal ponding. (Scores 6 out of 9 • Low landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due to the lack of points) surrounding land uses that produce pollutants. • High societal value for water quality functions due to degraded waters within the sub-basin. • Low site potential to reduce flooding and erosion due to the limited storage depth during wet periods and the small size of the wetland compared to the contributing Hydrologic basin. (Scores 4 out of 9 • Low landscape potential to provide flood protection due to the lack of intensive points) land uses within the contributing basin. • Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to flooding problems within the sub-basin. • Low site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat as the wetland consists of two plant communities,two hydroperiods,moderate species richness,no Habitat interspersion, and no special habitat features. (Scores 5 out of 9 • High landscape potential to support habitat use due to the accessible and points) undisturbed habitat and lack of high intensity land uses within 1 kilometer. • Low societal value for habitat functions due to lack of nearby WDFW Priority Habitats 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 13 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-85 Wetland 1 Wetland 1 is located approximately 80 feet offsite to the west of the subject property and is associated with Stream Z. Hydrology for Wetland 1 is provided primarily by a seasonally high groundwater table, direct precipitation,surface sheet flow from surrounding uplands,and overbank flooding from Stream Z. Due to its offsite location,no formal data was collected in Wetland 1 and hydric soils and wetland hydrology are presumed. The wetland boundary was estimated based on visual observations during the site investigations, aerial imagery, and LiDAR imagery. Wetland 1 is a Palustrine Emergent, Occasionally Flooded,and Seasonally Flooded wetland(PENIAC). As it is located offsite,no summary table is provided. 5.3 Streams Edgecomb Creek (Stream Z) Edgecomb Creek(flagged as Stream Z) originates offsite to the southwest of the subject property and the onsite potion is located on the northwestern edge of the property before continuing offsite to the northwest via a culvert beneath 79' Avenue Northeast. Stream Z flows from south to northwest. Stream Z appears to be artificially channelized through the subject property, and the onsite portion was flowing throughout the onsite reach during the April2024 site investigations. The channel width varies from approximately 3 to 7 feet throughout the site with an average width of approximately 5 feet. Stream Z originates approximately 160 feet southwest of the subject property. The creek exits the subject property via a 2-foot culvert and continues to flow northwest from the subject property then southwest before meandering to the southeast. Edgecomb creek eventually outlets into Middle Fork Quilceda Creek approximately 2.25 miles to the southwest of the subject property. Middle Fork Quilceda Creek then outlets into the mainstem of Quilceda Creek, which outlets directly to Puget Sound. The onsite stream buffer area is degraded by seasonally mowed fields. The actual consistently defined stream channel of Stream Z appears to begin at the downstream end of a culvert system on parcel 31052600102000. During the reconnaissance investigation in December of 2022,SVC staff had access to parcel 31052600102000, as the Applicant was assessing feasibility on parcel 31052600102000. During the reconnaissance investigation SVC staff observed no defined channel to the south of the southern culvert,while a defined channel was observed immediately north of the culvert system on parcel 31052600102000. DNR Stream Typing and WDFW and NWIFC-SWIFD identify Stream Z originating near the northern culvert described above on parcel 31052600102000. DNR Stream Typing classifies the portions of Edgecomb Creek near or on the subject property as a Type N (non-fish-bearing stream). WDFW and NWIFC-SWIFD identifies the creek as gradient accessible for pink, chinook, and steelhead; the presumed presence of bull trout; and the documented spawning of coho salmon. However,there is a possible undocumented fish passage barrier beneath a large gravel staging area for machinery and access on Snohomish County parcel 31052600100800,as DNR Stream Typing displays a break from a Type F (fish bearing) stream to a Type N stream on parcel 31052600100800. No fish were observed within the stream at the time of the site investigation. Due to the heavily degraded conditions of the stream onsite and offsite to the west and south, with the stream channel being choked full of non-native invasive reed canarygrass, shallow flows, and potential downstream fish passage barrier on parcel 31052600100800,the onsite portion Stream Z is considered a Type N (non- fish-bearing) stream per AMC 20.93.700. A summary of Stream Z is provided in Table 7 below. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 14 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-86 Table 7. Edgecomb Creek (Stream Z) Summary. STREAM INFORMATION SUMMARY Feature Name Stream Z-Edgecomb Creek WRIA 7—Snohomish Local Jurisdiction City of Arlington DNR Stream Type Type N Local Stream Rating Type N Gradient accessible reaches for steelhead, Documented Fish pink,and chinook. Use per WDFW and Presumed presence of NWIFC-SWIFD bull trout. Documented s awn. of coho. Location of Feature Stream Z crosses through the northwestern portion of the subject property. Stream Z originates offsite, approximately 160 feet southwest of the subject property. The creek's origin point is a culvert which is fed by a drainage ditch system.The creek exits the subject Connectivity(where water flows from/to) property via a 2-foot culvert and continues to flow northwest from the subject property then southwest before meandering and joining with Middle Fork Quilceda Creek approximately 2.25 miles south of the subject property. The onsite stream channel is degraded,consisting Riparian/Buffer Condition of a shallow channel that is heavily vegetated with reed canary grass. The onsite buffer is degraded by seasonally mowed fields. 5.4 Non-Regulated Ditches A series of manmade, artificially constructed drainage ditches were observed on the southeastern area of the subject property. The ditch systems located within or adjacent to Wetlands A, B, and C flow from north to south and exit the subject property at the southwest corner of the subject property. The ditches continue offsite to the southwest and drain into Stream Z northwest of their exit point. These ditches are approximately 4 to 6 feet wide and feature linear,vertical-cut channels indicative of manmade conditions. The linear nature of the channels,steep vertical banks,and berms built up along the sides of the some of the ditches, indicate that these were likely constructed to manage surface runoff. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 15 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-87 A second series of manmade, artificially constructed drainage ditches were observed on the northern area of the subject property. The ditches flow from south to north. The ditches on the northern half of the site are conveyed offsite to the north into a roadside stormwater ditch. The identified ditches are approximately 2 to 4 feet wide and feature linear, vertical-cut channels indicative of manmade conditions, and lack a defined bed or bank. The linear nature of the channels, steep vertical banks, and berms built up along the sides of the some of the ditches,indicate that these were constructed to manage surface runoff. Per AMC 20.93.100, "streams do not include irrigation Glitches, canals, stormwater runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used to convey any stream naturally occurring prior to construction",and"wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches,grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities,farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway". As such, the drainage ditches onsite are not anticipated to be considered streams or wetlands and should not be subject critical area boundaries and buffers. 5.5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Per AMC 20.93.400, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas consist of the following: A. Lands containing priority habitats and species, including plant andl or animal species listed on federal or state threatened or endangered species lists; According to the USFWS IPaC mapping database, North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus),yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccy.Zus americanus), Northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) have the potential to occur within 300 feet of the subject property. Additionally,WDFW PHS identifies the occurrence of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and bull trout within Edgecomb Creek. North American wolverines (Gulo gulo luscus) commonly occur in boreal forests and tundra ecosystems and in Washington they occupy alpine and subalpine forests within the North Cascades National Park and the wilderness areas of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest where heavy snowpack persists well into the spring months (WDFW, n.d.). Population estimates vary between 20 to 35 individuals residing in Washington state. Wolverines will travel hundreds of miles when hunting and will consume a wide variety of foods including insects,berries,marmots,ground squirrels,snowshoe hares and other small mammals but they are predominantly scavengers of carrion of large animals. No boreal forests or tundra ecosystems, marine waters, or riparian habitats are present within the vicinity of the subject property; as such North American wolverine are not present onsite or within 300 feet of the subject property. Marbled murrelet that occur in the state of Washington are year-round residents on coastal waters and primarily feed in waters within 500 feet of the shore out to 1.2 miles from shore at depths of less than one hundred feet. Potential suitable habitat typically consists of tree stands 5 or more acres in size composed of 60% or more conifer cover with minimum 15-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) with nesting platform trees. Nesting platform trees include "platform branches" that are a relatively flat surface at least four inches wide, at least 33 feet high in a coniferous tree,with cover from the live crown of the same tree or an adjacent tree 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 16 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-88 (WSDOT, 2014). The nearest sightings of marbled murrelet occurred in 2023 approximately 8 miles to the east of the subject property in the vicinity of Twin Lakes (eBird, n.d.). Habitat requirements for this species are potentially present on the southeast forested area of the site; however,due to the surrounding fragmented landscape,adjacent roadways,residential homes, and commercial chicken farm, the habitat conditions onsite and surrounding the subject property are not likely conducive for marbled murrelet nesting and marbled murrelet are likely not present on or within 300 feet of the subject property. Yellow-billed cuckoo habitat consists of low to mid-level riparian forests dominated by cottonwoods and willows. Suitable habitat is approximately 100 to 198 acres and wider than 200 meters;marginal habitat is approximately 20 to 100 acres and 100 to 200 meters wide;and unsuitable habitat is smaller than approximately 37 acres and less than 100 meters wide (Wiles & Kalasz, 2017). Twenty sightings of the yellow-billed cuckoo have been confirmed in Washington between the 1950s and 2017; none of these sightings were of breeding birds. Sixteen of these 20 confirmed sightings were east of the Cascades; and the sighted birds were likely vagrants or migrants (Wiles&Kalasz,2017). The subject property is partially developed and vegetated but is not within a riparian area and is surrounded by residential housing and development, with no documented occurrences of yellow-billed cuckoo in the vicinity. The most recent sighting was recorded approximately 31 miles to the southeast in the vicinity of Sultan in 1979 (eBird, n.d). As the adjacent forested areas are typically smaller than the required habitat blocks and are comprised predominantly of red alder and evergreen trees,no suitable potential habitat is present on or near the site, and yellow-billed cuckoo is not likely present on or within 300 feet of the site. The Northwestern pond turtle is a medium-size aquatic turtle. In Washington, they are only known to inhabit ponds and lakes,but also rely on adjacent upland habitats with extensive sun exposure such as prairies in the Puget Sound,oak-pine savanna,open forested in the Columbia Gorge, and pasture in order to lay eggs, disperse to new waters, overwinter, and aestivate. Northwestern pond turtles are omnivorous,relying on insects, aquatic vertebrates, and plants as food sources. Historical declines in their numbers may be attributed to hunting or collection as food, alteration or loss of habitat, and introduced predators including bullfrogs and largemouth bass. A small wetland with ponding exists approximately 75 feet offsite to the west;however,the conditions surrounding the ponded area are degraded by mowed lawns and field. As such, Northwestern pond turtle is likely not present on or within 300 feet of the subject property. Bull trout have the most specific habitat requirements of salmonids. They require cold water temperatures, clean stream substrates for spawning and rearing, complex habitats including streams with riffles and deep pools,undercut banks and large logs,and they also rely on river, lake, and ocean habitats that connect to headwater streams for annual spawning and feeding migrations (Shellberg,2002). In Washington,bull trout are typically found in major tributaries from the Cascades that flow into the Puget Sound as well as major tributaries for the Olympic Mountains that flow into the Hood Canal, Straight of Juan de Fuca, and the Pacific Ocean (USFWS, 2015). WDFW and NWIFC-SWIFD indicate the presumed presence of bull trout/Dolly Varden and WDFW PHS indicates the occurrence and migration of bull trout within Stream Z onsite and adjacent to the subject property to the west. However,the portion of the Stream Z onsite is indicated as a Type Ns stream with likely downstream fish barriers, therefore bull trout are not likely present on or within 300 feet of the subject property. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 17 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-89 B. Ponds and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat; No ponds have been identified on or within 300 feet of the subject property. C. Segments of natural waters and periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands that are used by salmonids for off-channel habitat; Wetlands and streams are discussed in Section 5.2 and 5.3. Regulatory considerations are discussed in Chapter 6. D. Lakes,ponds, and streams planted with game fish (defined at RCWI 77.09.020), including those planted under the auspices of a federal, state, local, or tribal programs, or which supportpriority fish species as identified by the department offish and wildlife; No lakes, ponds, or streams planted with game fish are present on or within 300 feet of the subject property. E. State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas; No state natural area preserves of natural resource conservation areas are identified on or within 300 feet of the subject property. E Habitats or species of local importance; No habitats or species of local importance were identified on or within 300 feet of the subject property. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 18 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-90 Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations The site investigations in the spring of 2024 identified four potentially-regulated wetlands (Wetlands A - D) and one stream (Stream Z) on the subject property. The investigation also identified one potentially regulated offsite wetland (Wetland 1). No other potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, or priority species were identified on or within 300 feet of the subject property. 6.1 Local Critical Areas Requirements 6.1.1 Wetland Buffers AMC 20.93.8O0(a) has adopted the current wetland rating system for western Washington (Hruby, 2014). Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that functions may be replaced, or in some cases improved. Category III wetlands include wetlands with moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points) that have generally been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated in the landscape than Category II wetlands. Per AMC 20.93.830,wetland buffers are based on wetland category and the level of habitat functions. Wetlands A and D are classified as Category IV wetlands per Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) 20.93.800 and are subject to a standard 40-foot buffer regardless of habitat score per AMC 20.93.830 Table 20.93-4 with the required use of minimization measures outlined in AMC Table 20.93-5. Wetlands B,C,and 1 are classified as Category III wetlands per AMC 20.93.800 with moderate habitat scores of(6 or 7) and are subject to a standard 110-foot buffer per AMC 20.93.830 Table 20.93-4 with the required use of minimization measures outlined in AMC Table 20.93-5. Table 8 presents the standard wetland buffer widths for the identified wetlands. Table 8. Wetland Buffer Summary Wetland Category' Habitat Score Standard Buffer Width A IV 6 40 Feet B III 7 110 Feet C III 6 110 Feet D IV 5 40 Feet 1 III 6 110 Feet 1. Washington State Department of Ecology(WSDOE)wetland rating system(Hruby and Yahnke 2023)per AMC 20.93.800 and AMC 20.93.730 2. Standard buffer width per AMC 20.93.830 The buffer widths above assume the implementation of minimization measures outlined in Table 9 below. A buffer increase is required if the minimization measures are not met per AMC Table 20.93- 6. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 19 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-91 Table 9. Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands Disturbance Examples of Activities and Uses Required Measures to Minimize Impacts that Cause Disturbances Lights -Parking lots -Direct lights away from critical areas and buffers -Warehouses -Day use only regulations preventing the need for •Manufacturing lights -Residential -Timer on lights -Parks Noise •Manufacturing -Locate activity that generates noise away from -Residential wetlands -Seasonal limitations on hours of operation Toxic runoff* -Parking lots -Route all new,untreated runoff away from -Roads wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered •Manufacturing -Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides -Residential areas within 150 ft of critical area or buffer -Application of agricultural pesticides -Apply integrated pest management -Landscaping Stormwater runoff -Parking lots -Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for -Roads roads and existing adjacent development •Manufacturing -Prevent channelized flow from lawns that -Residential areas directly enters the buffer -Commercial -Landscaping Change in water •Impermeable surfaces •Infiltrate or treat,detain,and disperse into buffer regime -Lawns new runoff from impervious surfaces and new -Tilling lawns -Forest and forest duff removal -Retain minimum forest and forest duff Pets and human -Residential areas -Use privacy fencing;plant dense vegetation to disturbance -Parks delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion;place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract Dust -Construction sites -Use best management practices to control dust Disruption of -Roads -Maintain connection to offsite areas that are corridors or -Residential undisturbed connections -Commercial *Restore corridors or connections to offsite -Manufacturing habitats by replanting -Landscaping •Stormwater *These examples are not necessarily adequate for minimizing toxic runoff if threatened or endangered species are present at the site. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 20 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-92 6.1.2 Stream Buffers Edgecomb Creek(Stream Z)is considered to be a Type N (non-fish bearing)water according to DNR Stream Typing with a likely downstream fish barrier on parcel 31052600100800. Due to the shallow flows observed within Stream Z during the spring 2024 site investigations, and as the stream channel onsite and adjacent to the site is heavily altered and has extensive vegetation growing within the channel,Stream Z is considered to be a Type Ns (non-fish bearing seasonal)water per AMC 20.93.700 and is subject to a standard 50-foot buffer per AMC 20.93.730 Table 20.93-3. 6.2 State and Federal Considerations On January 18,2023,USACE and EPA published a revised definition of"Waters of the United States" (USACE and EPA,2023a). The revised rule became effective on March 20, 2023. On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision affecting the definition of Waters of the United States, or "WOTUS", in Sackett Et Ux. V Environmental Protection Agency Et Al. On August 29, 2023, the US EPA and USACE issued a final rule to amend the final"Revised Definition of`Waters of the United States"' rule. The amendment conforms the definition of"Waters of the United States" to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Sackett Et Ux.V Environmental Protection Agency Et Al case. The revised and amended definition of"Waters of the United States"is as follows: (a) Waters of the United States means: (1) iVaters which are: (i) Currently used, or mere used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (ii) The territorial seas;or (iii)Interstate waters; (2) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified underparagraph (a)(5) of this section; (3)Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1)or(2)of this section:that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; (4) Wletlands adjacent to the following waters: (i) Wlaters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or (ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters; (5) Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or(a)(3) of this section; (b) The following are not "waters of the United States"even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of this section: (9) Wlaste treatment ystems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean WlaterAct; (2)Prior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency,for 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 21 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-93 the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA; (3) Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water; (4)Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased; (S)Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock Wate in irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing (6) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons; (7) Vate f lled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, orgravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States;and (8) Swales and erosional features (e.g.,gullies, small washes) characterised by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow. The 2023 revised and amended definition of Waters of the United States defines"adjacent"as"having a continuous surface connection." Edgecomb Creek connects into Middle Fork Quilceda Creek which connects into the main stem of Quilceda Creek which outlets directly to Puget Sound a WOTUS. As such,Edgecomb Creek(Stream Z) is regulated as a WOTUS under Category (a)(3) above. Wetlands A - D and offsite Wetland 1 all share hydrological connections to the onsite ditches that outlet into Edgecomb Creek offsite to the west; thus Wetlands A- D and Wetland 1 are likely federally regulated wetlands under the CWA, and as such are likely regulated as WOTUS under category (a)(4). All identified wetlands (Wetlands A — D and 1), and Edgecomb Creek (Stream Z) are regulated as surface waters of the state by the WSDOE under the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.48. If a future project required direct wetland impacts, authorization from USACE would be required, and coordination with WSDOE would also be necessary. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 22 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-94 Chapter 7. Closure The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to the Lindsay Annexation project. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. Our work was also performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Because of such changes,our observations and conclusions applicable to this project may need to be revised wholly or in part. The critical area determinations by Soundview Consultants LLC are based on conditions present at the time of the site inspection and considered preliminary until the presence or absence and location of critical areas are validated by the jurisdictional agencies. Validation of the critical area determinations by the regulating agencies provides a certification,usually written, that the critical area boundaries or lack thereof verified are the boundaries that will be regulated by the agencies until a specific date or until the regulations are modified. Only the regulating agencies can provide this certification. Since critical areas are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities, changes in critical area determinations and/or boundaries may be expected; therefore, critical area determinations cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time. Local agencies typically recognize the validity of critical area determinations for a period of 5 years after completion of a wetland delineation and fish and wildlife habitat assessment report. Development activities on a site 5 years after the completion of this report may require revision of the critical area determinations and/or delineations. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Because of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 23 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-95 Chapter 8. References Arlington Municipal Code (AMC). 2024. Chapter 20.93 — Critical Area Ordinance. Website: https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8106/Chapter-2093-Critical-Area- Ordinance. Current through February 12', 2024. Brinson,M.M. 1993. A hydro geomorphic classification for wetlands, Technical Report WIRP-DE4. U.S.Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,MS. City of Arlington. 2023. City of Arlington Zoning Map. Website: chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/DocumentCent er/View/7357/Zoning-Map-24x36-PDF. Comp Plan Amendment June 6, 2023. Conservation Northwest. NA Wolverine. Website: https://conservationnw.org/our- work/wildlife/wolverine/. Accessed December 2023. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Debose A., and Klungland,M.W. 1983. Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Washington State Department of Natural Resources, and Washington State University,Agriculture Research Center. Washington,D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wletlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg,Mississippi. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition.Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington,DC. Hitchcock, C.L. &A. Cronquist, Ed. by D. Giblin, B. Ledger, P. Zika, and R. Olmstead. 2018. Flora of the Pacific Northwest, 2nd Edition. U.W. Press and Burke Museum. Seattle,Washington. Hruby,T&Yahnke,A. 2023. Wlashington State Wetland Rating System for Western Wlashington:2014 Update (Version 2). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 23-06-009. Munsell® Color, 2000. MunsellO Soil Color Charts. New Windsor,New York. Natural Resources Conservation Services (MRCS). NA Soil Data Access Hydric Soils List(Soil Data Access Live). Website: https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nreseprdl 3l 6620.html NRCS. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States,Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA,NRCS,in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 24 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-96 Sheldon,D.,T. Hruby,P.Johnson,K. Harper,A. McMillan,T. Granger, S. Stanley,and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication#05-06-006. Olympia,Washington. March, 2005. Shellberg,Jeffery. 2002. Bull trout in western Washington.January. Seattle,Washington. Supreme Court of the United States. Sackett Et Ux. V Environmental Protection Agency Et Al. May 25, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-05/Sackett%20Opinion.pdf. USACE.2010.Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast Region (Ver 2.0), ed.J.S. Wakeley,Lichvar, R.W. and Noble, C.V. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg,MSS: U.S.Army Engineer Research and Development Center. USACE and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2023a. "Revised Definition of Waters of the United States." 88 FR 3004. January 18, 2023. USACE and EPA. 2023b. Revised Definition of"Waters of the United States"; Conforming. Final Rule. Federal Register.Volume 88,Number 173 (33 CFR Part 328, 40 CFR Part 120). September 8, 2023. USACE. 2020. National Wetland Plant List,version 3.5. http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Recovery plan for the coterminous United States population of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Portland, Oregon. xii + 179 pages. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. N.d. Wolverine. Website: https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/species/gulo-gulo-luscus. Date accessed: September 10, 2019. WDFW. N.d. Northwestern Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata). https://wdfw.wa.gov/species- habitats/species/actinemys-marmorata#resources Washington State Department of Transportation. 2014. "Appendix H: Site Evaluation and Effect Determination Criteria—Marbled Murrelet." Wiles, G.J. and K.S. Kalasz, 2017. Washington State Status Report for the yellow-billed cuckoo. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. May 2017. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 25 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-97 Appendix A Existing Conditions Map 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-98 EXISTING CONDITIONS ... I DP-28 — � — — —•� - - Wetlad Z I � Type Ns I DP-29 50' Buffer Z-10A k DP-15 I I L Z-1A I DP-27 DP-32 I (� Wetlad D DP-14 — — --� DP 2 Category IV I f )1( I •SI( (-110 SF Onsite) Culvert I :I X P-26 DP-4�( DP - F 40' Reduced Buffer I *DP-3 X s ••— _•••DP-31— Data Point •'`•" n-1 :DP-25 DP-22 DP-30 Stream Flag I ••"• '•,l�P-13 .I E Wetlad 1 I DP-24 JI( O Wetland Flag Category III DP-23 Wetlad A 110' Reduced Buffer I Id�i G17 DP-6 7 X Category IV ......... Ditch — — _ _ dIV dIV dIV �(� I (�22,500 SF Onsite) dV dll/ 40' Reduced Buffer OHW dIV 4 P-21 DP-7 Wetlad C Category III DP-20 dIV WdIV DP 8 II Wetland (-30,080 SF Onsite) C-31 V dIV r 'g Offsite Wetland 110' Reduced Buffer I I�P_19 DP-9 DP17 I c-1 �( tc� .,fib I• i Reduced Wetland Buffer PRELIMINARY DP-10 dl INFORMATION ONLY I: DP-11 d VAW WdV W NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I: X dI dIV dIG dIG Wetlad B Stream Buffer W aW aW aW SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC ASSUMES I; V Wdl 4WdIV,WdIV,W All/ vi I Category III NO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR DP-12 d a°i ;Ib dlb dIV I (-1.2 Acres Onsite) — — 15'Building Setback CONSTRUCTION,IMPROVEMENTS,OR DP-5 x W W W aW 4 ESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SET ••••••••••••••••••:1 "w dIV dIV dIV 110' Reduced Buffer ••'• s-a1 � aW aW aW aW — Site Boundary 0 130 260 520 Feet _ _ I i i I i i I NOTE:REDUCED BUFFERS ASSUME MINIMIZATION MEASURES ARE FOLLOWED LINDSAY ANNEXATION DATE:4/11/2024 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NE JOB: 2419.0002 Soundview Consultants LLc ARLINGTON,WA 98223 BY:DDS Environmental Assessment• Planning • Land Use Solutions 2907 Harborview Dr.,Suite D,Gig Harbor,WA 98335 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: SCALE: 1 " -260' Phone:(253)514-8952 Fax:(253)514-8954 31052500200600,31052600100100, w .soundviewconsultants.com 31052600100200,31052600102200,&31052600102300 FIGURE NO.1 B-99 Appendix B Subject Area Background Information This appendix includes a USGS Topographic Map (B1); NRCS soil survey map (B2); DNR Stream Typing map (B3); WDFW and NWIFC-SWIFD (B4); Snohomish County Streams and Wetlands Inventory map(B5);USFWS NWI map (B6);WDFW PHS map (B7). 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-100 Appendix B1 — USGS Topographic Map - z Subject Property Location Candor Dr NF z L � (n Ith St NE 4,122/2024. 10:10:44 AM 1:7,500 0 235 470 940 R Subject Area 1 70 140 280 Tn City of Atlmglon WA, Bweau of Land Management Esri Canada Esri HERE Garmm,INCREMENT P lnle al).USGS ME TD14ASA EPA USDA Sound—Consultants 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-101 Appendix B2 — NRCS Soil Survey Map '� �' -� �,;• _ _ >K ac. ' ,Jr„ Subject Property ►' - _ �', ► Location kv ilk 4 ` '�► �• � � � �~ - � �" r. ,fir. >> fe lowlet 10 7 4/29/2024, 10:03:30 AM 72-Tokul gravelly medial loam,0 to 8 percent slopes 1:7,500 0 235 470 9402 Subject Area 73-Tokul gravelly medial loam,8 to 15 percent slopes 8 Y P p o 70 tao 280 m USA Soils Map Units Souice.USDA NRCS.Eari,Maxa 77-Tokul-Winston gravelly loams,25 to 65 percent slopes Renes"r rd.aa.ar 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-102 Appendix B3 — DNR Stream Typing Map �t -�fi .►_ +'ass' 1 , Subject Property t jt• Location ` bir ' •• �' 5 ow At SAC �- r�1 • �r 4/2212024,9:58:35 AM 1:7,500 235 410 940 is 0 Subject Area Type N, Np, Ns DNR- Stream Typing -Watercourses (DNR) 70 iao zso m Type F Sound, ew,u„dnts 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-103 Appendix B4 — WDFW and NWIFC-SWIFD �w ram' y . • y %► ,, 'y 1 j Subject Property " '� ; t'r• i Location r �. Ja Vol •• ,► i r • • ' Al ■ low •• �:. i. do lk A. AO 0 4/22/2024, 10 07 29 AM 1:7.500 Subject Area Pink Salmon(Odd Year)Streams Cohn Streams 235 1, n Bull Trout Gradient Accessible — Documented Spawning 70 140 280 m Presumed Presence Winter Steelhead Streams Fall Chinook Streams Gradient Accessible Gradient Accessible 111110111111INIMMe.,,.,a„r 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-104 Appendix B5 — Snohomish County Stream and Wetland Inventory Map • s. • �. .✓I •. �.-. ss. • j 1� • �t r . � ir Subject Property i 'rL>♦► t � Location T W 60,100.1- 04 w• Y ► Ow K f N 7 � OFF �`' ..�•- i►z` -.�ii:44'' ,,,, ICE ' . So A. mar _ AL jL 4/22/2024, 10:02:39 AM 1:7.500 235 470 940 R Snohomish_Streams 0 Subject Area 0 �. ----Ij !0 140 280 m Snohomish Wetlands 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-105 Appendix B6 — USFWS NWI Map oe Subject Property Location 'a N� 0�-..j, ir � L�•� mow' . �` . 1 ►R ; IA,'•a -'.r ,• ' '- [ .ram- • ' ��__ • �•• • '�1'; L ale AW r 1� t 6/19/2024, 12:11:02 PN1 1:8,000 0 250 500 1,000 n National Wetland Inventory (NWI)-Wetlands 0 Freshwater Pond 0 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0 75 150 300 m Staten✓ide Parcels_Query result Esn.HERE.Garrnin..PC,Maxat - Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Swndview Consultants 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-106 Appendix B7 - WDFW PHS Map • � ;ex.: A-- Subject Property -' Location t fit 0 o � !=`�.-.. ..�,illr' t.,�� r� �ICI" ' ,..t '�. . ♦�+�' t. - IL a • oft I , • r� Ole '! - ILkI- -- ' Apr 64 , , t S < Vk Ilk list% t: low -s go r ae ' ' A Ir 4 �`� ♦��a►�- � �I � ..�ICI. 1� �'� a� �` 4/22/2024, 10:03:51 AM 1:7,500 0 235 ago 940 R PHS Public Lines PHS Public Polygons PHS Public Polygon Outlines AS MAPPED o �o Sao 280 m wpcw.Max AS MAPPED Subject Area SouWvww Consultants 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-107 PHS Species/Habitats Overview: Occurence Name Federal Status State Status Sensitive Location Coho N/A WA No Dolly Varderd Bull Trout NIA WA No Coho Candidate WA No Freshwater ForestedlShrub N/A WA No Wetland Dolly Varden/Bull Trout Scientific Name Salvelinus malma(S.confluentus Priority Area Occurrence/Migration Accuracy NA Notes LLID-1221442481498,Fish Name:Bull Trout,Run Time:Unknown or not Applicable,Life History:Unknown Source Record 33123 Source Dataset SWIFD Federal Status WA State Status WA PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED More Info hW7/hvdfw.wa.gov/WlMdivff soclsoc.htm Geometry Type Lines Scientific Name Oncorhynchus kisutch Priority Area Occurrence Site Name Middle Fork Quilceda Creek Accuracy NA Notes WD:1221617481051,Stock Name:Snohomish Coho,Run: Unspecified,Status:Healthy Source Record 3080 Source Dataset SASI Source Name Not Given Source Entity WDFW Fish Program Federal Status Candidate State Status WA PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED More Info hftp:/twdfw.wa.gov/WInVdiversty/soc/soc.htm Geometry Type Lines 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-108 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name WA Accuracy NA Notes Wetland System.Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland-NWI Code: PFOC Source Dataset NWIWetlands Source Name Not Given Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Status WA State Status WA PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecywa. og v/Droarams/sea/wetlands/baslindex.html Geometry Type Polygons 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-109 Appendix C Data Forms 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-110 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzales/Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Depression Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.150394 Long: -122.11857935 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No Z Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met;only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met.Data collected approximately 5 feet west of a man made ditch likely excavated to draw surface runoff away from residential area to the north. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 15 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) 15 =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Rubus armeniacus 25 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5, FAC species x 3= 25 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1. Phalaris arundinacea 80 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Poa pratensis 15 No FAC 3, Ranunculus repens 5 No FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-111 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 8- 10 10YR 3/2 96 5YR 4/6 4 C M SiLo Silt loam 10 - 14+ 10YR 3/2 85 5YR 4/6 5 C M SiLo Silt loam 10YR 3/4 8 5YR 4/6 2 C M SiLo Silt loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 17" Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 14„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met. Saturation must be at or above 12" in order to meet for indicator A3. B-112 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzales/Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Hillslope Local relief(concave,convex, none): Linear Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.150550 Long: -122.11858108 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No I] Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met,only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met.Data collected beside a man made ditch likely intended to draw surface runoff away from residential area;may account for the upland and wetland vegetation observed within the same plot. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 30 Yes FACU That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 4 (A) 2. Alnus rubra 10 Yes FAC Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) 40 =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 80% (A/B) 1. Rubus armeniacus 15 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 15 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1. Ranunculus repens 45 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Lamium qaleobdolon 20 Yes FAC 3, Poa pratensis 15 NO FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 4, Scirpus microcarpus 15 NO OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 95 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-113 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 2 -9 10YR 3/3 95 5YR 4/6 5 C M SiLo Silt loam 9- 11 10YR 3/2 40 5YR 4/6 5 C M SiLo Silt loam. Mixed matrix. 10YR 3/3 50 5YR 4/6 5 C M SiLo Silt loam. Mixed matrix. 11 - 14+ 2.5Y 3/1 90 5YR 4/6 4 C PUM Si Silt 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 16" Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 13„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met. Saturation must be at or above 12" in order to meet for indicator A3. B-114 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors State: WA Sampling Point: DP-3 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzales/Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Swale Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.150311 Long: -122.11929330 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes❑x No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes❑x No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soils. Data collected 65 feet north of Wetland D. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Sallx scoulerlana 80 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 80 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1. Phalaris arundinacea 50 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 8. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 50 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 50 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-115 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-9 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 9-15 5YR 4/4 94 7.5YR 5/8 6 C M SiLo Silt loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑x High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑x Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 8" Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 4„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑x No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-116 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors State: WA Sampling Point: DP-4 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzales/Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Swale Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.150473 Long: -122.11934723 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes❑x No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes❑x No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met,only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met.Data collected approximately 130 feet north of Wetland D. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Sallx scoulerlana 80 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 80 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1. Phalaris arundinacea 45 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Ranunculus repens 5 No FAC 3. Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 8. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 50 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 50 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-117 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 6-8 10YR 3/2 98 5YR 4/6 2 C M SiLo Silt loam 8- 14 10YR 4/4 97 5YR 4/6 3 C M SiSaLo Silty Sandy Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 16" Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 13" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met. Saturation must be at or above 12"to meet for indicator A3. B-118 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors State: WA Sampling Point: DP-5 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzales/Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Slope Local relief(concave,convex, none): Linear Slope(%): 3% Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.150473 Long: -122.11934723 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No Z Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met,missing wetland hydrology.Data collected approximately 22 feet north of the southernmost ditch and approximately 75 feet west of Wetland A. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Poa pratensis 40 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Distichlis sp. 30 Yes FAC 3, Alnus rubra 5 NO FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 4, Populus balsamifera 5 NO FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Veronica americana 5 No OBL ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 85 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-119 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-5 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0- 3 2.5Y 4/3 100 - - - - SiCILo Silty clay loam 3- 7 2.5Y 5/2 60 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M SiCILo Silty clay loam. Mixed matrix. 5Y 5/1 25 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M SiCILo Silty clay loam. Mixed matrix. 7 - 15 2.5Y 4/2 92 7.5YR 4/6 8 C M SiCILo Silty clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) x❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through indicator F3. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): None Saturation Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): None Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrology criteria met. No evidence of hydrology to 16 inches. B-120 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors State: WA Sampling Point: DP-6 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzales/Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Slope Local relief(concave,convex, none): Linear Slope(%): 3% Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.149495 Long: -122.11949325 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No Z Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met,only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met.Data collected approximately 30 feet north of Wetland A. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Distichlis sp. 50 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Holcus lanatus 20 Yes FAC 3, Lotus corniculatus 13 NO FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 4, Taraxacum officinale 7 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Alnus rubra 5 NO FAC ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Populus balsamifera 5 NO FAC ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-121 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-6 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 3/4 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 4 - 12 10YR 3/3 70 SiLo Silt loam 10YR 5/2 10 7.5YR 4/6 3 C M SiLo Silt loam 10YR 3/2 17 8 C M SiLo Silt loam 12 - 15 2.5Y 4/3 80 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M SiLo Silt loam w/charcoal and gravel 10YR 5/2 15 SiLo Silt loam w/charcoal and gravel 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): None Saturation Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): None Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrology criteria met. No evidence of hydrology to 15 inches. B-122 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors State: WA Sampling Point: DP-7 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzales/Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Slope Local relief(concave,convex, none): Linear Slope(%): 2% Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.149308 Long: -122.11943868 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within northern portion of Wetland A. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Holcus lanatus 40 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Distichlis sp. 25 Yes FAC 3, Lotus corniculatus 15 NO FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 4, Alnus rubra 5 NO FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Populus balsamifera 5 NO FAC ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 90 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-123 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-7 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0- 3 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 3 - 15 2.5Y 5/2 85 7.5 YR 5/6 15 C M SiLo Silt loam with gravel 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) x❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through indicator F3. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑x High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑x Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 12" Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 1011 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑x No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-124 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors State: WA Sampling Point: DP-8 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzales/Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Slope Local relief(concave,convex, none): Linear Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.149076 Long: -122.11962163 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No Z Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met,only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met.Data collected approximately 30 feet west of Wetland A. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Rubus armeniacus 10 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 10 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1. Holcus lanatus 70 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Phalaris arundinacea 15 No FACW 3, Lotus corniculatus 5 No FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 4, Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 8. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 95 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-125 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-8 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0- 3 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 3 - 10 10YR 3/2 90 7.5 YR 4/6 3 C M SiLo Silt loam 2.5Y 5/2 5 7.5 YR 4/6 3 C M SiCILo Silty clay loam 10-16 10YR 3/2 90 7.5 YR 4/6 5 C M SiLo Silt loam 2.5Y 5/2 3 7.5 YR 4/6 2 C M SiCILo Silty clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No 0 Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): None Saturation Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): 16„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No 0 includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met. Saturation must be at or above 12" in order to meet for indicator A3. B-126 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors State: WA Sampling Point: DP-9 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzales/Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Slope Local relief(concave,convex, none): Linear Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.148882 Long: -122.11951702 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No Z Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met,missing wetland hydrology.Data collected approximately 15 feet north and west of Wetland A. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Spiraea douglasii 5 Yes FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus armeniacus 3 Yes FAC Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 8 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1. Holcus lanatus 70 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Lotus corniculatus 8 No FAC 3, Hypochaeris radicata 7 No FACU Prevalence Index =B/A= 4, Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Distichlis spicata 5 NO FACW ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Schoenoplectus acutus 5 No OBL ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-127 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-9 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0- 3 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 3 - 5 7.5R 3/4 97 7.5 YR 4/6 3 C M/PL SiLo Silt loam 5-8 10YR 3/1 30 SiLo Silt loam 7.5 YR 3/4 10 SiLo Silt loam 10YR 4/2 10 Decomposing w 50 N/A N/A SiLo Silt loam 8- 14 10YR 4/2 85 7.5 YR 4/6 15 C M/PL SiLo Silt loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) x❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through indicator F3. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): 16" Saturation Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): 13„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met. Saturation must be at or above 12"to meet for indicator A3. B-128 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors State: WA Sampling Point: DP-10 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzales/Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Slope Local relief(concave,convex, none): Linear Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.148660 Long: -122.11962865 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ within a Wetland? Yes Z No❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within Wetland A. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Phalaris arundinacea 60 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Poa pratensis 40 Yes FAC 3. Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-129 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-10 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 2.5Y 3/1 100 - - - - SiCILo Silty clay loam 2 - 5 2.5Y 3/1 97 7.5YR 4/6 3 C M SiCILo Silty clay loam 5- 13 5Y 4/1 80 7.5YR 5/6 10 C M SiCILo Silty clay loam. Mixed matrix. 2.5Y 3/1 10 - - - - SiCILo Silty clay loam. Mixed matrix. 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑x Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) x❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through indicator F3 and Al 1. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑x Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): 14" Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 12„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑x No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicator A3. B-130 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors/ Rob Risinger State: WA Sampling Point: DP-11 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzales/Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Slope Local relief(concave,convex, none): Linear Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.148460 Long: -122.11970352 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No I] Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met,missing wetland hydrology.Data collected approximately 30 feet west of Wetland A. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Poa pratensis 80 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Phalaris arundinacea 10 No FACW 3, Ranunculus repens 10 No FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 8. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-131 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-11 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 2 - 10 10YR 3/2 82 7.5 YR 4/6 3 C M SiLo Silt loam. Mixed matrix. 2.5Y 5/1 10 7.5 YR 5/8 5 C M SiLo Silt loam. Mixed matrix. 10 - 14+ 10YR 4/2 65 7.5 YR 5/8 10 C M SiLo Silt loam. Mixed matrix. 10YR 3/2 20 7.5 YR 5/8 5 C M SiLo Silt loam. Mixed matrix. 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑x Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) x❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through indicator Al and F3. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): None Saturation Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): None Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met. No hydrology observed to 16 inches. B-132 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors State: WA Sampling Point: DP-12 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzales/Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Slope Local relief(concave,convex, none): Linear Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.148209 Long: -122.11957655 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ within a Wetland? Yes Z No❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within Wetland A. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 67% (A/B) 1. Populus balsamifera 5 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 5 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1. Holcus lanatus 30 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Hypochaeris radicata 20 Yes FACU 3, Juncus effusus 15 NO FACW Prevalence Index =B/A= 4, Lotus corniculatus 15 NO FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Taraxacum officinale 10 No FACU ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 90 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-133 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-12 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 2 - 7 5Y 3/1 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 7- 14 2.5Y 4/1 90 7.5YR 5/8 10 C M SiLo Silt loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑x Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) x❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through indicator Al and F3. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑x High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑x Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 12" Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 9„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-134 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors/ Rob Risinger State: WA Sampling Point: DP-13 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzalez/Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Depressional Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.149873 Long: -122.11997727 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met,missing hydric soils.Data collected at equidistant location between Wetland C and Wetland D, approximately 183 feet northeast and southwest from both. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Rubus armeniacus 5 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 5 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1. Phalaris arundinacea 80 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 80 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-135 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-13 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 3/1 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 4 - 11 10YR 3/1 25 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 10YR 3/2 70 7.5 YR 4/6 2 C M SiLo Silt loam 11 - 14 2.5Y 5/3 97 7.5 YR 4/6 3 C M SiLo Silt loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑x Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑x Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): 15" Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 12„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑x No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A3 and B4. B-136 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/3/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors/ Rob Risinger State: WA Sampling Point: DP-15 Investigator(s): William Bethel/ Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Slope Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 3% Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.150712 Long: -122.12437506 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met;missing hydric soils.DP-15 is located to the south of Stream Z on the northwest area of the site. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Rubus armeniacus 20 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5, FAC species x 3= 20 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1. Poa pratensis 60 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Juncus effusus 20 Yes FACW 3, Phalaris arundinacea 10 No FACW Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 8. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 90 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-137 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-15 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0- 7 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - SaLo Sandy Loam 7- 14 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - SaLo Sandy Loam with Gravel 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑x High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑x Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 4„ Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 0„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑x No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-138 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/3/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors/ Rob Risinger State: WA Sampling Point: DP-16 Investigator(s): William Bethel/ Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Slope Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 3% Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.150795 Long: -122.12428982 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soil. DP-16 is located to the north of Stream Z. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Poa pratensis 85 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Lolium arundinaceum 10 No FAC 3, Juncus effusus 5 No FACW Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-139 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-16 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0- 3 10YR 3/1 100 - - - - Lo Loam 3- 7 2.5Y 4/3 98 10YR 5/1 2 D M SaLo Sandy Loam with Gravel 7- 11 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Lo Loam 11 - 14+ 10YR 2/2 96 1 OR 3/4 4 C M Lo Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑x High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑x Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 4„ Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 0„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑x No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-140 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/3/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors/ Rob Risinger State: WA Sampling Point: DP-17 Investigator(s): Kramer Canup/William Bethel Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Slope Local relief(concave,convex, none): Linear Slope(%): 1 Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.149001 Long: -122.11903056 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soil. DP-17 is located to the north of Wetland B. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 40 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) 40 =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Rubus spectabllls 80 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 80 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1. Athyrium cyclosorum 5 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 8. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 5 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 95 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-141 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-17 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0- 3 7.5YR 3/1 100 - - - - SiLo Sllty Loam 3- 13 10YR 3/3 100 - - - - Lo Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑x High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑x Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 12" Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 9„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-142 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors State: WA Sampling Point: DP-18 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzales/Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Depression Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.148120 Long: -122.11924842 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ within a Wetland? Yes Z No❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within Wetland B. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Thuia plicata 25 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 9 (A) 2. Alnus rubra 15 Yes FAC Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 9 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) 40 =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Rubus spectabllls 40 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 40 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1. Lysichiton americanus 20 Yes OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Tolmiea menziesii 20 Yes FAC 3, Oenanthe sarmentosa 15 Yes OBL Prevalence Index =B/A= 4, Ranunculus repens 15 Yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Equisetum fluviatile 15 Yes OBL ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Carex obnupta 15 Yes OBL ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-143 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-18 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - CILo Clay loam 8 - 14+ 10YR 4/2 93 7.5YR 4/4 7 C M CIGr Clay with gravel 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑x Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) x❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through indicators Al and F3. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑x High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑x Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 01, Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 0„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑x No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-144 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors State: WA Sampling Point: DP-19 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzales/Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Field Local relief(concave,convex, none): Convex Slope(%): 2% Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.148814 Long: -122.12037317 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met,missing hydric soil. Data collected between Wetland C and Wetland A. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Phalaris arundinacea 70 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Poa pratensis 15 No FAC 3, Ranunculus repens 5 No FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 8. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 90 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-145 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-19 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 4 - 11 10YR 3/1 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 11 - 16 10YR 3/1 60 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 10YR 4/2 28 7.5 YR 5/6 2 C M SiLo Silt loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑x High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑x Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 1011 Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 9„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Hydrology criteria met through primary indicators A2 and A3. B-146 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors State: WA Sampling Point: DP-20 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzales/Kramer Canup Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Depression Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.148120 Long: -122.11924842 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ within a Wetland? Yes Z No❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within Wetland C. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Juncus effusus 55 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Veronica americana 15 No OBL 3, Ranunculus repens 10 No FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 4, Lotus corniculatus 10 NO FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Holcus lanatus 5 NO FAC ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-147 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-20 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 3/1 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam with gravel 4- 14+ 10YR 5/1 70 7.5YR 5/6 30 C M SiSaLo Silty sandy loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑x Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) x❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through indicators Al and F3. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑x High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑x Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 4„ Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 0„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑x No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-148 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors State: WA Sampling Point: DP-21 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzalez/William Bethel Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Hillslope Local relief(concave,convex, none): Convex Slope(%): 2% Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.149252 Long: -122.12048543 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met,missing hydric soil.Data collected between approximately 23 feet east of Wetland C. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Phalaris arundinacea 70 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Poa pratensis 20 Yes FAC 3, Ranunculus repens 5 NO FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 4, Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 8. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-149 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-21 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0- 16 10YR 3/1 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑x High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑x Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 91, Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 7" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-150 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors State: WA Sampling Point: DP-22 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzalez/William Bethel Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Depression Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 2% Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.150102 Long: -122.11885615 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met,missing hydric soil. DP-22 is located on the eastern are of the property. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 67% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Ranunculus repens 40 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Poa pratensis 30 Yes FAC 3, Taraxacum officinale 20 Yes FACU Prevalence Index =B/A= 4, Juncus effusus 5 No FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 95 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-151 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-22 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - SaCILo Sandy clay loam 8- 16+ 10YR 4/6 100 - - - - Lo Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑x High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑x Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 8„ Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 5" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑x No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-152 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors/ Rob Risinger State: WA Sampling Point: DP-23 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzalez/William Bethel Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Flat Local relief(concave,convex, none): Linear Slope(%): 0% Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.149671 Long: -122.11822878 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No Z Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met;only hydrophytic vegetation met.DP-23 is located in the eastern central portion of the property. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Poa pratensis 80 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Ranunculus repens 10 No FAC 3, Juncus effusus 5 No FACW Prevalence Index =B/A= 4, Phalaris arundinacea 5 No FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-153 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-23 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-9 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - SaCILo Sandy clay loam 9- 16+ 10YR 4/6 70 Ash 30 N/A N/A Lo Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 15" Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 13„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met. Saturation and water table must be at or above 12" in order to meet for indicators A2 and A3. B-154 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors/ Rob Risinger State: WA Sampling Point: DP-24 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzalez/William Bethel Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Flat Local relief(concave,convex, none): Linear Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.149719 Long: -122.12062200 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soil. DP-24 is located to the north of Wetland C. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Poa pratensis 80 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Trifolium repens 10 No FAC 3, Lotus corniculatus 5 No FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 4, Phalaris arundinacea 5 No FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-155 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-24 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - SaLo Sandy loam w/gravel 8- 16 10YR 3/2 96 7.5YR 4/6 3 C M GrSaLo Sandy Loam w/gravel 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑x High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑x Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 7" Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 4„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑x No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-156 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors/ Rob Risinger State: WA Sampling Point: DP-25 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzalez/William Bethel Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Flat Local relief(concave,convex, none): Linear Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.149877 Long: -122.12101087 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No Z Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met,only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met.DP-25 is located northwest of Wetland C,adjacent to an onsite ditch. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5, FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Poa pratensis 80 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Ranunculus repens 15 No FAC 3, Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-157 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-25 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0- 18 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - Lo Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): None Saturation Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): 13" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met. Saturation must be at or above 12"to meet for indicator A3 as well as be accompanied by a water table. B-158 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors/ Rob Risinger State: WA Sampling Point: DP-26 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzalez/William Bethel Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Flat Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.150356 Long: -122.12091190 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No I] Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met;only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met.DP-26 is located in the northern portion of the property, east of an onsite ditch. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Poa pratensis 60 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Phalaris arundinacea 35 Yes FACW 3, Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 8. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-159 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-26 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-9 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - Lo Loam 9- 16+ 10 YR 4/3 60 - - - - SiLo Silty Loam w/gravel. Mixed matrix. 2.5Y 4/2 40 - - - - SaLo Sandy loam w/gravel. Mixed matrix. 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): None Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 14„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met. Saturation must be at or above 12" in order to meet for indicator A3 as well as be accompanied by a water table. B-160 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors/ Rob Risinger State: WA Sampling Point: DP-27 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzalez/William Bethel Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Top of slope Local relief(concave,convex, none): Convex Slope(%): 2% Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.150692 Long: -122.12104042 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No I] Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met;only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met.DP-27 is located to the east of a man made ditch beside a residential driveway. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Phalaris arundinacea 74 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Ranunculus repens 15 No FAC 3, Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU Prevalence Index =B/A= 4, Cardamine oligosperma 5 No FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Urtica dioica 1 No FAC ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 8. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-161 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-27 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0- 7 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - Lo Loam 7- 16 10 YR 3/2 30 - - - - Lo Loam. Mixed matrix. 10YR 4/3 70 - - - - Lo Loam. Mixed matrix. 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): None Saturation Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): None Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met. B-162 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors/ Rob Risinger State: WA Sampling Point: DP-28 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzalez/William Bethel Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Flat Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.151389 Long: -122.12249813 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No l] Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met;only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met.DP-28 is located on the northwest area of the subject property. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Juncus effusus 80 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Poa pratensis 15 No FAC 3, Schedonorus arundinaceus 5 No FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 8. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-163 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-28 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - Lo Loam 8- 16 10 YR 3/2 97 2.5YR 3/4 3 C PL Lo Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. Layer two must have at least 5% rdox concentrations in order to meet for indicator F6. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): None Saturation Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): None Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met. B-164 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors/ Rob Risinger State: WA Sampling Point: DP-29 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzalez/William Bethel Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Slope Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 5% Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.151105 Long: -122.12355035 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No l] Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met;only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met.DP-29 is located in the northwestern portion of the property within the mowed field. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Poa pratensis 85 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Distichlis spicata 8 No FACW 3, Trifolium repens 5 No FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 4, Clrslum vulgare 2 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 8. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-165 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-29 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0- 11 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - SiLo Silt Loam 11 - 16 10 YR 3/2 70 - - - - SiLo Silt Loam 10YR 3/3 28 7.5YR 4/6 2 C M SiLo Silt Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): None Saturation Present? Yes❑ No x❑ Depth(inches): None Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑ No❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met. B-166 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors/ Rob Risinger State: WA Sampling Point: DP-30 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzalez/William Bethel Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Slope Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.150103 Long: -122.11929476 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ within a Wetland? Yes Z No❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. DP-30 is located within Wetland D. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 50 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 4 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) 50 =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Rubus spectabllls 25 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus armeniacus 20 Yes FAC Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. Oemleria cerasiformis 5 No FACU OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 50 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1. Phalaris arundinacea 40 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Athyrium cyclosorum 1 No FAC 3. Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 41 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 59 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-167 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-30 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 3/1 100 - - - - SaLo Sandy Loam 4- 10 10 YR 3/1 100 - - - - LoSa Loamy Sand 10 - 14+ 10YR 4/2 93 7.5YR 5/6 7 C M LoSa Loamy Sand 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑x Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) x❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑x No❑ Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through indicators Al and F3. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑x Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, ❑x High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) ❑x Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): +1 Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 01, Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 0„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑x No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators Al, A2, and A3. B-168 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors/ Rob Risinger State: WA Sampling Point: DP-31 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzalez/William Bethel Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Upland Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.150100 Long: -122.11933280 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: Not three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soil. DP-31 is located upland to the east of Wetland D. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 65 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 4 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) 65 =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 80% (A/B) 1. Oemleria cerasiformis 40 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus armeniacus 35 Yes FAC Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. Rubus spectabilis 15 No FAC OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 90 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1. Maianthemum dilatatum 15 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Phalaris arundinacea 10 Yes FACW 3. Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 25 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 75 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-169 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-31 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0- 7 10YR 3/1 100 - - - - SiLo Silty Loam 7- 16+ 10 YR 4/2 97 7.5YR 4/3 3 C M SiCILo Silty Clay Loam, Faint Redox 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. Redox in layer two not prominent must be at least 5% to meet depleted matrix requirements. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, I] High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) I] Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 7" Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 4„ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes❑x No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Redox is not prominent. Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-170 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation City/County: Arlington/Snohomish Sampling Date:4/2/24 Applicant/Owner: MJS Investors/ Rob Risinger State: WA Sampling Point: DP-32 Investigator(s): Elisabeth Gonzalez/William Bethel Section,Township, Range: 26, 31 N, 5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Flat Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 1 oho Subregion(LRR): A2 Lat: 48.150628 Long: -122.11958033 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Z No❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes N No❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes❑x No❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No❑x within a Wetland? Yes❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met;missing hydric soils.DP-32 is located in the northeastern portion of the property within the mowed field. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2= 5. FAC species x 3= 0 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) UPL species x 5= 1, Poa pratensis 77 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Ranunculus repens 10 No FAC 3, Juncus effusus 10 No FACW Prevalence Index =B/A= 4, Taraxacum officinale 3 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is>50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 8. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. ❑ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft) =Total Cover be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes❑x No❑ %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-171 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-32 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0- 7 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - SiLo Silty Loam 7- 15 10 YR 3/2 30 - - - - SiLo Silty Loam. Mixed matrix. 10 YR 4/2 70 - - - - SiLo Silty Loam. Mixed matrix. 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Depth(inches):" Hydric Soil Present? Yes❑ No 0 Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2, l'R'l High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 413) l'R'l Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(1310) ❑ Water Marks(131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes❑ No® Depth(inches): None Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No❑ Depth(inches): 1011 Saturation Present? Yes® No❑ Depth(inches): 6" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-172 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Appendix D Wetland Rating Forms 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-173 Wetland name or number 1 RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): 1 Date of site visit: 4/3/2024 Rated by Kramer Canup Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 06/2022 HGM Class used for rating Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Y N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ESRI ArcGIS OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each Category II —Total score = 20 - 22 function based or III —Total score = 16 - 19 on three X Category y ratings Category IV—Total score = 9 - 15 (order of ratings is not FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat important) Water Quality 9 = H,H,H Circle the appropriate ratings 8 = H,H,M Site Potential M L L 7 = H,H,L Landscape Potential M M H 7 = H,M,M Value H M M TOTAL 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M Score Based on 7 5 6 18 5 = H,L,L Ratings 5 = M,M,L 4= M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above N/A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form—Version 2,July 2023 B-174 Wetland name or number 1 Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet(can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs.width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense,rigid trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants S 4.1 (can be added to figure above) Boundary of 150 ft buffer(can be added to another figure) S 2.1,S 5.1 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) S 3.1,S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-175 Wetland name or number 1 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7,the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? ❑X NO - go to 2 ❑ YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? ❑NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) DYES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ❑X NO - go to 3 ❑YES - The wetland class is Flats Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at anytime of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ❑At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). ❑X NO - go to 4 DYES -The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ❑The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ❑The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. ❑X NO - go to 5 ❑YES- The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually<3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The unit is in a valley, or stream channel,where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ❑The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-176 Wetland name or number 1 ❑X NO - go to 6 ❑YES- The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ❑NO - go to 7 ❑X YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ❑NO - go to 8 ❑YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit HGM class to being rated use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream Depressional within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other Treat as class of freshwater wetland ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-177 Wetland name or number 1 DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key)with no surface water leaving it(no outlet). points=3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. 1 points=2 Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points= 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points= 1 D 1.2.The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic(use NRCS definitions).Yes=4 No=0 0 D 1.3.Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants(Emergent,Scrub-shrub,and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants>95%of area points=5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants>% of area points=3 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants>1/10 of area points= 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants<1/10 of area points=0 D 1.4.Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months.See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is>%2 total area of wetland points=4 4 Area seasonally ponded is>%total area of wetland points=2 Area seasonally ponded is<%total area of wetland points=0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 6 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16= H X 6-11 = M 0-5= L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 2.2. Is> 10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes= 1 No=0 1 D 2.3.Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes= 1 No=0 1 D 2.4.Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? 0 Source Yes= 1 No=0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4= H X 1 or 2 = M 0= L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly(i.e.,within 1 mi)to a stream, river, lake,or marine water that is on the 0 303(d) list? Yes= 1 No=0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes= 1 No=0 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 2 if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes=2 No=0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is: X 2-4= H 1= M 0= L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form—Version 2,July 2023 B-178 Wetland name or number 1 DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions- Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1.Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it(no outlet) points=4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream/ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points=2 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points= 1 Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points=0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points=7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to<3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points=5 3 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to<2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points=3 The wetland is a "headwater'wetland points=3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points= 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points=0 D 4.3.Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed:Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points=5 0 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points=3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points=0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points=5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16=H 6-11= M X 0-5=L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 5.2. Is >10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes= 1 No=0 1 D 5.3. Is more than 25%of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses(residential at 0 >1 residence/ac, urban,commercial,agriculture, etc.)? Yes= 1 No=0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3=H X 1 or 2=M 0=L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0.Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1.The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources(e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points=2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points= 1 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points= 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points=0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points=0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? 0 Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is:_2-4=H X 1=M _0=L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form—Version 2,July 2023 B-179 Wetland name or number 1 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1.Structure of plant community:Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of Y,ac or more than 10%of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac.Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points=4 x Emergent 3 structures: points=2 Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have>30%cover) 2 structures: points= 1 0 Forested (areas where trees have>30%cover) 1 structure: points=0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy,shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20%within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes(hydroperiods)present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10%of the wetland if the unit is<2.5 ac,or%ac if the unit is at least 2.5 ac to count(see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points=3 x Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points=2 x Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points= 1 2 Saturated only 1 type present: points=0 Permanently flowing stream or river in,or adjacent to,the wetland x Intermittently or seasonally flowing stream in,or adjacent to,the wetland 2 points Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz. Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil,reed canarygrass,purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 1 If you counted: > 19 species points=2 5- 19 species points= 1 <5 species points=0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes(described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas(can include open water or mudflats)is high, moderate, low,or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. C) (::O:) 0 None=0 points Low= 1 point Moderate=2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH =3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form—Version 2,July 2023 B-180 Wetland name or number H 1.5.Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large,downed,woody debris within the wetland (>4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags(dbh >4 in)within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft(2 m) and/or overhanging plants extend at least 3.3 ft(1 m) over open water or a stream (or ditch) in,or contiguous with the wetland,for at least 33 ft(10 m) 0 Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30 degree slope)OR signs of recent beaver activity are present(cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least%ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25%of the wetland area in every stratum of plants(see H 1.1 for list of strata and H 1.5 in the manual for the list of aggressive plant species) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18=H _7-14= M X 0-6=L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1.Accessible habitat(include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: 22.12 %relatively undisturbed habitat+ moderate and low intensity land uses) 16.71 /21= 30.475 % If total accessible habitat is: >1/3(33.3%)of 1 km Polygon points=3 2 20-33%of 1 km Polygon points=2 10-19%of 1 km Polygon points= 1 < 10%of 1 km Polygon points=0 H 2.2.Total habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate:40.44 %relatively undisturbed habitat+[(%moderate and low intensity land uses) 33.ss /2] = 5,3,999999999<% Total habitat >50%of Polygon points=3 3 Total habitat 0-50%and in 1-3 patches points=2 Total habitat 10-50%and >3 patches points= 1 Total habitat < 10%of 1 km Polygon points=0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If >50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points=(-2) 0 S 50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points=0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 15 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: X 4-6=H 1-3=M _<1=L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies?Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points=2 — It has 3 or more Priority Habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species(any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 1 — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan,or in a watershed plan x Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats(listed on next page)within 100 m points= 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points=0 Rating of Value If score is:_2=H X 1=M _0=L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-181 Wetland name or number 1 WDFW Priority Habitats See complete descriptions of Priority Habitats listed by WDFW,and the counties in which they can be found,in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2008(current year,as revised).Priority Habitat and Species List.133 This list was updated for consistency with guidance from WDFW. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the Priority Habitat.All vegetated wetlands are by definition a Priority Habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed by this rating system. Count how many of the following Priority Habitats are within 330 ft(100 m) of the wetland unit: — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac(0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife.This habitat automatically counts if mapped on the online map within 100m of the wetland.IIf not mapped,a determination can be made in the field. — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity,recess,void,or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils,rock,ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft(7.6 m)high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Fresh Deepwater:Lands permanently flooded with freshwater,including environments where surface water is permanent and often deep,so that water,rather than air,is the principal medium within which the dominant organisms live.Substrate does not support emergent vegetation. Do not select if Instream habitat is also present,or if the entire deepwater feature is included in the wetland unit being rated(such as a pond with a vegetated fringe). — Herbaceous Balds:Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. X Instream:The combination of physical,biological,and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.Do not select if Fresh Deepwater habitat is also present. — Nearshore:Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats.These include Coastal Nearshore,Open Coast Nearshore,and Puget Sound Nearshore. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest-Stands of at least 2 tree species,forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac(20 trees/ha)>32 in.(81 cm)diameter at breast height(dbh)or>200 years of age.Mature forests-Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in.(53 cm)dbh;crown cover may be less than 100%;decay,decadence,numbers of snags,and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth;80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: ... http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-182 Wetland name or number 1 Oregon White Oak:Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important.For single oaks or oak stands<0.4 ha in urban areas,WDFW's Management Recommendations for Oregon White Oak134 provides more detail for determining if they are Priority Habitats X Riparian:The area adjacent to freshwater aquatic systems with flowing or standing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Snags and Logs:Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife.Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of>20 in. (51 cm)in western Washington and are>6.5 ft(2 m)in height.Priority logs are> 12 in.(30 cm)in diameter at the largest end,and>20 ft (6 m)long. Talus:Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5-6.5 ft(0.15-2.0 m),composed of basalt,andesite, and/or sedimentary rock,including riprap slides and mine tailings.May be associated with cliffs. Westside Prairies:Herbaceous,non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie. NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 134 https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00030/wdfw00030.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update 16 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-183 Wetland name or number 1 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? 0 The dominant water regime is tidal, 0 Vegetated,and 0 With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt ❑Yes-Go to SC 1.1 ❑x No=Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve,State Park or Educational, Environmental,or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? ❑Yes=Category I ❑No-Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? QThe wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing), and has less than 10%cover of non-native plant species. If non-native species are Spartina,see chapter 4.8 in the manual. Q At least%of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. Q The wetland has at least two of the following features:tidal channels,depressions with open water,or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ❑Yes=Category I ❑No=Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Does the wetland overlap with any known or historical rare plant or rare&high-quality ecosystem polygons on the WNHP Data Explorer?13s ❑Yes=Category 1 ❑x No-Go to SC 2.2 SC 2.2. Does the wetland have a rare plant species, rare ecosystem (e.g., plant community), or high-quality common ecosystem that may qualify the site as a WHCV?Contact WNHP for resources to help determine the presence of these elements ❑ Yes=Submit data to WA Natural Heritage Program for determination,"'Go to SC 2.3 El No=Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Did WNHP review the site within 30 days and determine that it has a rare plant or ecosystem that meets their criteria? ❑Yes=Category I ❑x No= Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs?Use the key below. If you answer YES,you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons,either peats or mucks,that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? ❑Yes-Go to SC 3.3 ❑x No-Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils,either peats or mucks,that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock,or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash,or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? ❑Yes-Go to SC 3.3 ❑X No= Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70%cover of mosses at ground level,AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? ❑Yes=Category I bog ❑No- Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory,you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present,the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (>30%cover)with Sitka spruce,subalpine fir,western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine,quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce,or western white pine,AND any of the species(or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30%of the cover under the canopy? []Yes=Category I bog ❑No=Is not a bog 135 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPdata 136https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp-nh-sighting-form.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-184 Wetland name or number SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats?If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. —Old-growth forests(west of Cascade crest):Stands of at least two tree species,forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac(20 trees/ha)that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height(dbh)of 32 in (81 cm)or more. —Mature forests(west of the Cascade Crest):Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter(dbh)exceeding 21 in (53 cm). El Yes= Category I ❑x No=Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? —The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks,gravel banks,shingle,or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (>0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) —The lagoon retains some of its surface water at low tide during spring tides ❑Yes-Go to SC 5.1 ❑x No=Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing),and has less than 20%cover of aggressive,opportunistic plant species(see list of species in H 1.5 in the manual). —At least 3%of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac(4350 ftz) ❑Yes=Category I ❑No=Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line(also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 and Ocean Shores Blvd SW, including lands west of E.Oceans Shores Blvd SW. ❑Yes-Go to SC 6.1 x❑No=Not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? ❑Yes=Category I ❑No-Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? ❑Yes=Category II ❑No-Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? ❑Yes=Category III ❑No=Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types,enter"Not Applicable"on Summary Form NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-185 Wetland name or number 1 This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 19 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-186 Wetland name or number A RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): A Date of site visit: 4/3/2024 Rated by Kramer Canup Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 06/2022 HGM Class used for rating Slope Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Y N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ESRi ArcGIS OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY IV (based on functions or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each Category II —Total score = 20 - 22 function based on three Category III —Total score = 16 - 19 ratings X Category IV—Total score = 9 - 15 (order of ratings is not FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat important) Water Quality 9 = H,H,H Circle the appropriate ratings 8 = H,H,M Site Potential L L L 7 = H,H,L Landscape Potential L L H 7 = H,M,M Value H M M TOTAL 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M Score Based on 5 4 6 15 5 = H,L,L Ratings 5 = M,M,L 4= M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above N/A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 B-187 Wetland name or number A Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet(can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs.width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees,shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants S 4.1 (can be added to figure above) Boundary of 150 ft buffer(can be added to another figure) S 2.1,S 5.1 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) S 3.1,S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 B-188 Wetland name or number A HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7,the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? ONO - go to 2 ❑ YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? ❑NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) DYES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ONO - go to 3 ❑YES - The wetland class is Flats Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at anytime of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ❑At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). ❑X NO - go to 4 DYES -The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑X The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ❑X The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ❑X The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. ❑NO - go to 5 ❑X YES- The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually<3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The unit is in a valley, or stream channel,where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ❑The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 B-189 Wetland name or number A ❑NO - go to 6 ❑YES- The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ❑NO - go to 7 ❑YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ❑NO - go to 8 ❑YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit HGM class to being rated use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream Depressional within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other Treat as class of freshwater wetland ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 B-190 Wetland name or number A SLOPE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1%slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal distance) Slope is 1%or less points=3 2 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 in below the surface(or duff layer) is true clay or true organic(use NRCS definitions): Yes=3 No=0 0 S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you have trouble seeing the soil surface(>75%cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 in. Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants>90%of the wetland area points=6 0 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants>%of area points=3 Dense,woody, plants>%of area points=2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants>%of area points= 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points=0 Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12=H _6-11=M X 0-5=L Record the rating on the first page S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? S 2.1. Is> 10%of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? 0 Yes= 1 No= 0 S 2.2.Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1? 0 Other sources Yes= 1 No=0 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1-2=M X 0=L Record the rating on the first page S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly(i.e.,within 1 mi)to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes= 1 No=0 0 S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue?At least one aquatic resource in the basin is 1 on the 303(d)list. Yes= 1 No=0 S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality?Answer YES 2 if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes=2 No=0 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is: X 2-4= H 1=M _0=L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11 Rating Form—Effective January 1,2015 B-191 Wetland name or number A SLOPE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 4.1.Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland.Stems of plants should be thick enough(usually>1/8 in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows. Q Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover>90%of the area of the wetland points=1 All other conditions points=0 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1=M X 0=L Record the rating on the first page S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? S 5.1. Is more than 25%of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess O surface runoff? Yes= 1 No=0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:_1=M X 0=L Record the rating on the first page S 6.0.Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems: The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources(e.g., houses or salmon redds) points=2 1 Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points= 1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points=0 S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? O Yes=2 No=O Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is:_2-4=H X 1=M _0=L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12 Rating Form—Effective January 1,2015 B-192 Wetland name or number A These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1.Structure of plant community:Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of Y,ac or more than 10%of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac.Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points=4 x Emergent 3 structures: points=2 Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have>30%cover) 2 structures: points= 1 0 Forested (areas where trees have>30%cover) 1 structure: points=0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy,shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20%within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes(hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10%of the wetland or%ac to count(see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points=3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points=2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points= 1 0 x Saturated only 1 type present: points=0 Permanently flowing stream or river in,or adjacent to,the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in,or adjacent to,the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz. Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil,reed canarygrass,purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 1 If you counted: > 19 species points=2 5- 19 species points= 1 <5 species points=0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes(described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas(can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low,or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. C) (::O:) 0 None=0 points Low= 1 point Moderate=2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH =3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form—Effective January 1,2015 B-193 Wetland name or number A H 1.5.Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large,downed,woody debris within the wetland (>4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags(dbh >4 in)within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft(2 m)and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft(1 m) over a stream (or ditch)in,or contiguous with the wetland,for at least 33 ft(10 m) 0 Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30 degree slope)OR signs of recent beaver activity are present(cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least%ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25%of the wetland area in every stratum of plants(see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18=H _7-14= M X 0-6=L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1.Accessible habitat(include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: 22.12 %undisturbed habitat+ [(%moderate and low intensity land uses)=/2] = 30.475 % If total accessible habitat is: >1/3(33.3%)of 1 km Polygon points=3 2 20-33%of 1 km Polygon points=2 10-19%of 1 km Polygon points= 1 < 10%of 1 km Polygon points=0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate:40.44 %undisturbed habitat+ [(%moderate and low intensity land uses) 33sa 2] = 5,.3,999999999=% Undisturbed habitat>50%of Polygon points=3 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50%and in 1-3 patches points=2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50%and >3 patches points= 1 Undisturbed habitat<10%of 1 km Polygon points=0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If >50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points=(-2) 0 S 50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points=0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 15 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: X 4-6=H 1-3=M _<1=L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies?Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points=2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species(any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 1 — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan x Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats(listed on next page)within 100 m points= 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points=0 Rating of Value If score is:_2=H X 1=M _0=L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 B-194 Wetland name or number A WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW(see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats,and the counties in which they can be found,in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2008. Priority Habitat and Species List.Olympia,Washington. 177 pp.httl2:/lwdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfwO0165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.goviconservation/12hs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft(100 m)of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac(0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest-Stands of at least 2 tree species,forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac(20 trees/ha) >32 in(81 cm) dbh or>200 years of age.Mature forests-Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in(53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%;decay,decadence,numbers of snags,and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth;80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.158-see web link above). — Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous,non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 -see web link above). — Instream: The combination of physical,biological,and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. — Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore,Open Coast Nearshore,and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report- see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity,recess,void,or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils,rock, ice,or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft(7.6 m)high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus:Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5-6.5 ft(0.15-2.0 m),composed of basalt,andesite, and/or sedimentary rock,including riprap slides and mine tailings.May be associated with cliffs. X Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife.Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 20 in(51 cm)in western Washington and are>6.5 ft(2 m)in height. Priority logs are> 12 in(30 cm) in diameter at the largest end,and> 20 ft (6 m)long. Note:All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 B-195 Wetland name or number A CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? 0 The dominant water regime is tidal, O Vegetated,and O With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt ❑Yes—Go to SC 1.1 x❑No=Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve,State Park or Educational, Environmental,or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? ❑Yes=Category I ❑No-Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? OThe wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing, and has less than 10%cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina,see page 25) OAt least Y,of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. OThe wetland has at least two of the following features:tidal channels,depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ❑Yes=Category I ❑No=Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? ❑Yes—Go to SC 2.2 ❑x No—Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? ❑Yes=Category I ❑p No=Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://wwwl.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf ❑Yes—Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 ❑x No =Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? ❑Yes=Category I ❑x No=Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs?Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons,either peats or mucks,that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? ❑Yes—Go to SC 3.3 ❑x No—Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils,either peats or mucks,that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock,or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? ❑Yes—Go to SC 3.3 ❑x No= Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70%cover of mosses at ground level,AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? ❑Yes=Is a Category I bog ❑No— Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory,you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present,the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (>30%cover)with Sitka spruce,subalpine fir,western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine,quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce,or western white pine,AND any of the species(or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30%of the cover under the canopy? ❑Yes=Is a Category I bog ❑No=Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form—Effective January 1,2015 B-196 Wetland name or number A SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats?If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. —Old-growth forests(west of Cascade crest):Stands of at least two tree species,forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac(20 trees/ha)that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height(dbh)of 32 in (81 cm)or more. —Mature forests(west of the Cascade Crest):Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter(dbh)exceeding 21 in (53 cm). El Yes= Category I ONo=Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? —The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks,gravel banks,shingle,or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (>0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) ❑Yes-Go to SC 5.1 ZNo=Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking,ditching,filling, cultivation,grazing),and has less than 20%cover of aggressive,opportunistic plant species(see list of species on p. 100). —At least%of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac(4350 ftz) ❑Yes=Category I ❑No=Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line(also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 ❑Yes-Go to SC 6.1 pNo=not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? ❑Yes=Category I ❑No-Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? ❑Yes=Category II ❑No-Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? ❑Yes=Category III ❑No=Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types,enter"Not Applicable"on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 B-197 Wetland name or number A This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 B-198 Wetland name or number B RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): B Date of site visit: 4/3/2024 Rated by Kramer Canup Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 06/2022 HGM Class used for rating Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Y N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ESRI ArcGIS OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each Category II —Total score = 20 - 22 function based or III —Total score = 16 - 19 on three X Category y ratings Category IV—Total score = 9 - 15 (order of ratings is not FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat important) Water Quality 9 = H,H,H Circle the appropriate ratings 8 = H,H,M Site Potential M M M 7 = H,H,L Landscape Potential L L H 7 = H,M,M Value H M M TOTAL 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M Score Based on 6 5 7 18 5 = H,L,L Ratings 5 = M,M,L 4= M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above N/A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form—Version 2,July 2023 B-199 Wetland name or number B Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet(can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs.width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense,rigid trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants S 4.1 (can be added to figure above) Boundary of 150 ft buffer(can be added to another figure) S 2.1,S 5.1 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) S 3.1,S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-200 Wetland name or number B HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7,the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? ONO - go to 2 ❑ YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? ❑NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) DYES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ONO - go to 3 ❑YES - The wetland class is Flats Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at anytime of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ❑At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). ❑X NO - go to 4 DYES -The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ❑The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ❑The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. ❑X NO - go to 5 ❑YES- The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually<3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The unit is in a valley, or stream channel,where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ❑The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-201 Wetland name or number B ❑X NO - go to 6 ❑YES- The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ❑NO - go to 7 ❑X YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ❑NO - go to 8 ❑YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit HGM class to being rated use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream Depressional within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other Treat as class of freshwater wetland ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-202 Wetland name or number B DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key)with no surface water leaving it(no outlet). points=3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. 1 points=2 Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points= 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points= 1 D 1.2.The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic(use NRCS definitions).Yes=4 No=0 0 D 1.3.Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants(Emergent,Scrub-shrub,and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants>95%of area points=5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants>% of area points=3 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants>1/10 of area points= 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants<1/10 of area points=0 D 1.4.Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months.See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is>%2 total area of wetland points=4 4 Area seasonally ponded is>%total area of wetland points=2 Area seasonally ponded is<%total area of wetland points=0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 10 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16= H X 6-11 = M 0-5= L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 2.2. Is> 10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 2.3.Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 2.4.Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? 0 Source Yes= 1 No=0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above ro Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4= H 1 or 2 = M X 0= L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly(i.e.,within 1 mi)to a stream, river, lake,or marine water that is on the 0 303(d) list? Yes= 1 No=0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes= 1 No=0 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 2 if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes=2 No=0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is: X 2-4= H 1= M 0= L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form—Version 2,July 2023 B-203 Wetland name or number B DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions- Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1.Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it(no outlet) points=4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream/ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points=2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points= 1 Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points=0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points=7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to<3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points=5 3 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to<2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points=3 The wetland is a "headwater'wetland points=3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points= 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points=0 D 4.3.Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed:Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points=5 3 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points=3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points=0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points=5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 7 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16=H x 6-11= M 0-5=L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 5.2. Is >10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25%of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses(residential at 0 >1 residence/ac, urban,commercial,agriculture, etc.)? Yes= 1 No=0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3=H 1 or 2=M X 0=L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0.Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1.The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources(e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points=2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points= 1 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points= 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points=0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points=0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? 0 Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is:_2-4=H X 1=M _0=L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form—Version 2,July 2023 B-204 Wetland name or number B These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1.Structure of plant community:Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of Y,ac or more than 10%of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac.Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points=4 Emergent 3 structures: points=2 x Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have>30%cover) 2 structures: points= 1 2 x Forested (areas where trees have>30%cover) 1 structure: points=0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: x The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy,shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20%within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes(hydroperiods)present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10%of the wetland if the unit is<2.5 ac,or%ac if the unit is at least 2.5 ac to count(see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). x Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points=3 x Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points=2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points= 1 2 x Saturated only 1 type present: points=0 Permanently flowing stream or river in,or adjacent to,the wetland Intermittently or seasonally flowing stream in,or adjacent to,the wetland 2 points Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz. Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil,reed canarygrass,purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 2 If you counted: > 19 species points=2 5- 19 species points= 1 <5 species points=0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes(described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas(can include open water or mudflats)is high, moderate, low,or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. C) (::O:) 2 None=0 points Low= 1 point Moderate=2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH =3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form—Version 2,July 2023 B-205 Wetland name or number B H 1.5.Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. X Large,downed,woody debris within the wetland (>4 in diameter and 6 ft long). X Standing snags(dbh >4 in)within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft(2 m) and/or overhanging plants extend at least 3.3 ft(1 m) over open water or a stream (or ditch) in,or contiguous with the wetland,for at least 33 ft(10 m) 3 Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30 degree slope)OR signs of recent beaver activity are present(cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least%ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) x Invasive plants cover less than 25%of the wetland area in every stratum of plants(see H 1.1 for list of strata and H 1.5 in the manual for the list of aggressive plant species) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 11 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18=H X 7-14= M _0-6=L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1.Accessible habitat(include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: 22.12 %relatively undisturbed habitat+ moderate and low intensity land uses) 16.71 /21= 30.475 % If total accessible habitat is: >1/3(33.3%)of 1 km Polygon points=3 2 20-33%of 1 km Polygon points=2 10-19%of 1 km Polygon points= 1 < 10%of 1 km Polygon points=0 H 2.2.Total habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate:40.44 %relatively undisturbed habitat+[(%moderate and low intensity land uses) 33.ss /2] = 5,3,999999999<% Total habitat >50%of Polygon points=3 3 Total habitat 0-50%and in 1-3 patches points=2 Total habitat 10-50%and >3 patches points= 1 Total habitat < 10%of 1 km Polygon points=0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If >50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points=(-2) 0 S 50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points=0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 15 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: X 4-6=H 1-3=M _<1=L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies?Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points=2 — It has 3 or more Priority Habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species(any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan,or in a watershed plan x Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats(listed on next page)within 100 m points= 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points=0 Rating of Value If score is:_2=H X 1=M _0=L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-206 Wetland name or number B WDFW Priority Habitats See complete descriptions of Priority Habitats listed by WDFW,and the counties in which they can be found,in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2008(current year,as revised).Priority Habitat and Species List.133 This list was updated for consistency with guidance from WDFW. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the Priority Habitat.All vegetated wetlands are by definition a Priority Habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed by this rating system. Count how many of the following Priority Habitats are within 330 ft(100 m) of the wetland unit: — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac(0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife.This habitat automatically counts if mapped on the online map within 100m of the wetland.IIf not mapped,a determination can be made in the field. — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity,recess,void,or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils,rock,ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft(7.6 m)high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Fresh Deepwater:Lands permanently flooded with freshwater,including environments where surface water is permanent and often deep,so that water,rather than air,is the principal medium within which the dominant organisms live.Substrate does not support emergent vegetation. Do not select if Instream habitat is also present,or if the entire deepwater feature is included in the wetland unit being rated(such as a pond with a vegetated fringe). — Herbaceous Balds:Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Instream:The combination of physical,biological,and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.Do not select if Fresh Deepwater habitat is also present. — Nearshore:Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats.These include Coastal Nearshore,Open Coast Nearshore,and Puget Sound Nearshore. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest-Stands of at least 2 tree species,forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac(20 trees/ha)>32 in.(81 cm)diameter at breast height(dbh)or>200 years of age.Mature forests-Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in.(53 cm)dbh;crown cover may be less than 100%;decay,decadence,numbers of snags,and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth;80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: ... http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-207 Wetland name or number B — Oregon White Oak:Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important.For single oaks or oak stands<0.4 ha in urban areas,WDFW's Management Recommendations for Oregon White Oak134 provides more detail for determining if they are Priority Habitats — Riparian:The area adjacent to freshwater aquatic systems with flowing or standing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. X Snags and Logs:Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife.Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of>20 in. (51 cm)in western Washington and are>6.5 ft(2 m)in height.Priority logs are> 12 in.(30 cm)in diameter at the largest end,and>20 ft (6 m)long. Talus:Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5-6.5 ft(0.15-2.0 m),composed of basalt,andesite, and/or sedimentary rock,including riprap slides and mine tailings.May be associated with cliffs. Westside Prairies:Herbaceous,non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie. NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 134 https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00030/wdfw00030.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update 16 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-208 Wetland name or number B CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? 0 The dominant water regime is tidal, 0 Vegetated,and 0 With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt ❑Yes-Go to SC 1.1 ❑x No=Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve,State Park or Educational, Environmental,or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? ❑Yes=Category I ❑No-Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? QThe wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing), and has less than 10%cover of non-native plant species. If non-native species are Spartina,see chapter 4.8 in the manual. Q At least%of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. Q The wetland has at least two of the following features:tidal channels,depressions with open water,or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ❑Yes=Category I ❑No=Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Does the wetland overlap with any known or historical rare plant or rare&high-quality ecosystem polygons on the WNHP Data Explorer?13s ❑Yes=Category 1 ❑x No-Go to SC 2.2 SC 2.2. Does the wetland have a rare plant species, rare ecosystem (e.g., plant community), or high-quality common ecosystem that may qualify the site as a WHCV?Contact WNHP for resources to help determine the presence of these elements ❑ Yes=Submit data to WA Natural Heritage Program for determination,"'Go to SC 2.3 El No=Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Did WNHP review the site within 30 days and determine that it has a rare plant or ecosystem that meets their criteria? ❑Yes=Category I ❑x No= Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs?Use the key below. If you answer YES,you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons,either peats or mucks,that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? ❑Yes-Go to SC 3.3 ❑x No-Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils,either peats or mucks,that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock,or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash,or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? ❑Yes-Go to SC 3.3 ❑X No= Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70%cover of mosses at ground level,AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? ❑Yes=Category I bog ❑No- Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory,you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present,the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (>30%cover)with Sitka spruce,subalpine fir,western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine,quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce,or western white pine,AND any of the species(or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30%of the cover under the canopy? []Yes=Category I bog ❑No=Is not a bog 135 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPdata 136https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp-nh-sighting-form.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-209 Wetland name or number B SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats?If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. —Old-growth forests(west of Cascade crest):Stands of at least two tree species,forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac(20 trees/ha)that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height(dbh)of 32 in (81 cm)or more. —Mature forests(west of the Cascade Crest):Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter(dbh)exceeding 21 in (53 cm). El Yes= Category I ❑x No=Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? —The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks,gravel banks,shingle,or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (>0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) —The lagoon retains some of its surface water at low tide during spring tides ❑Yes-Go to SC 5.1 ❑x No=Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing),and has less than 20%cover of aggressive,opportunistic plant species(see list of species in H 1.5 in the manual). —At least 3%of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac(4350 ftz) ❑Yes=Category I ❑No=Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line(also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 and Ocean Shores Blvd SW, including lands west of E.Oceans Shores Blvd SW. ❑Yes-Go to SC 6.1 x❑No=Not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? ❑Yes=Category I ❑No-Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? ❑Yes=Category II ❑No-Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? ❑Yes=Category III ❑No=Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types,enter"Not Applicable"on Summary Form NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-210 Wetland name or number B This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 19 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-211 Wetland name or number C RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): C Date of site visit: 4/3/24 Rated by Kramer Canup Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 6/2022 HGM Class used for rating Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Y N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ESRI ArcGIS OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each Category II —Total score = 20 - 22 function based or III —Total score = 16 - 19 on three X Category y ratings Category IV—Total score = 9 - 15 (order of ratings is not FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat important) Water Quality 9 = H,H,H Circle the appropriate ratings g = H,H,M Site Potential L L L 7 = H,H,L Landscape Potential M L H 7 = H,M,M Value H M M TOTAL 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M Score Based on 6 4 6 16 5 = H,L,L Ratings 5 = M,M,L 4= M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above N/A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form—Version 2,July 2023 B-212 Wetland name or number C Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet(can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs.width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense,rigid trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants S 4.1 (can be added to figure above) Boundary of 150 ft buffer(can be added to another figure) S 2.1,S 5.1 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) S 3.1,S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-213 Wetland name or number C HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7,the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? ONO - go to 2 ❑ YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? ❑NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) DYES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ONO - go to 3 ❑YES - The wetland class is Flats Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at anytime of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ❑At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). ❑X NO - go to 4 DYES -The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ❑The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ❑The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. ❑X NO - go to 5 ❑YES- The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually<3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The unit is in a valley, or stream channel,where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ❑The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-214 Wetland name or number C ❑X NO - go to 6 ❑YES- The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ❑NO - go to 7 ❑X YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ❑NO - go to 8 ❑YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit HGM class to being rated use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream Depressional within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other Treat as class of freshwater wetland ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-215 Wetland name or number C DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key)with no surface water leaving it(no outlet). points=3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. 2 points=2 Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points= 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points= 1 D 1.2.The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic(use NRCS definitions).Yes=4 No=0 0 D 1.3.Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants(Emergent,Scrub-shrub,and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants>95%of area points=5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants>% of area points=3 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants>1/10 of area points= 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants<1/10 of area points=0 D 1.4.Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months.See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is>%2 total area of wetland points=4 2 Area seasonally ponded is>%total area of wetland points=2 Area seasonally ponded is<%total area of wetland points=0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 5 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16= H 6-11 = M X 0-5= L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 2.2. Is> 10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 2.3.Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes= 1 No=0 1 D 2.4.Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? 0 Source Yes= 1 No=0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above ri Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4= H X 1 or 2 = M 0= L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly(i.e.,within 1 mi)to a stream, river, lake,or marine water that is on the 0 303(d) list? Yes= 1 No=0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes= 1 No=0 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 2 if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes=2 No=0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is: X 2-4= H 1= M 0= L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form—Version 2,July 2023 B-216 Wetland name or number C DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions- Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1.Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it(no outlet) points=4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream/ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points=2 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points= 1 Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points=0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points=7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to<3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points=5 3 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to<2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points=3 The wetland is a "headwater'wetland points=3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points= 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points=0 D 4.3.Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed:Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points=5 0 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points=3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points=0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points=5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 5 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16=H 6-11= M X 0-5=L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 5.2. Is >10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25%of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses(residential at 0 >1 residence/ac, urban,commercial,agriculture, etc.)? Yes= 1 No=0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3=H 1 or 2=M X 0=L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0.Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1.The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources(e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points=2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points= 1 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points= 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points=0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points=0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? 0 Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is:_2-4=H X 1=M _0=L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form—Version 2,July 2023 B-217 Wetland name or number C These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1.Structure of plant community:Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of Y,ac or more than 10%of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac.Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points=4 x Emergent 3 structures: points=2 Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have>30%cover) 2 structures: points= 1 0 Forested (areas where trees have>30%cover) 1 structure: points=0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy,shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20%within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes(hydroperiods)present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10%of the wetland if the unit is<2.5 ac,or%ac if the unit is at least 2.5 ac to count(see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points=3 x Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points=2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points= 1 1 x Saturated only 1 type present: points=0 Permanently flowing stream or river in,or adjacent to,the wetland Intermittently or seasonally flowing stream in,or adjacent to,the wetland 2 points Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz. Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil,reed canarygrass,purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 1 If you counted: > 19 species points=2 5- 19 species points= 1 <5 species points=0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes(described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas(can include open water or mudflats)is high, moderate, low,or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. C) (::O:) 0 None=0 points Low= 1 point Moderate=2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH =3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form—Version 2,July 2023 B-218 Wetland name or number C H 1.5.Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large,downed,woody debris within the wetland (>4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags(dbh >4 in)within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft(2 m) and/or overhanging plants extend at least 3.3 ft(1 m) over open water or a stream (or ditch) in,or contiguous with the wetland,for at least 33 ft(10 m) 0 Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30 degree slope)OR signs of recent beaver activity are present(cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least%ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25%of the wetland area in every stratum of plants(see H 1.1 for list of strata and H 1.5 in the manual for the list of aggressive plant species) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18=H _7-14= M X 0-6=L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1.Accessible habitat(include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: 22.12 %relatively undisturbed habitat+ moderate and low intensity land uses) 16.71 /21= 30.475 % If total accessible habitat is: >1/3(33.3%)of 1 km Polygon points=3 2 20-33%of 1 km Polygon points=2 10-19%of 1 km Polygon points= 1 < 10%of 1 km Polygon points=0 H 2.2.Total habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate:40.44 %relatively undisturbed habitat+[(%moderate and low intensity land uses) 33.ss /2] = 5,3,999999999<% Total habitat >50%of Polygon points=3 3 Total habitat 0-50%and in 1-3 patches points=2 Total habitat 10-50%and >3 patches points= 1 Total habitat < 10%of 1 km Polygon points=0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If >50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points=(-2) 0 S 50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points=0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 15 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: X 4-6=H 1-3=M _<1=L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies?Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points=2 — It has 3 or more Priority Habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species(any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 1 — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan,or in a watershed plan x Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats(listed on next page)within 100 m points= 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points=0 Rating of Value If score is:_2=H X 1=M _0=L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-219 Wetland name or number C WDFW Priority Habitats See complete descriptions of Priority Habitats listed by WDFW,and the counties in which they can be found,in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2008(current year,as revised).Priority Habitat and Species List.133 This list was updated for consistency with guidance from WDFW. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the Priority Habitat.All vegetated wetlands are by definition a Priority Habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed by this rating system. Count how many of the following Priority Habitats are within 330 ft(100 m) of the wetland unit: — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac(0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife.This habitat automatically counts if mapped on the online map within 100m of the wetland.IIf not mapped,a determination can be made in the field. — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity,recess,void,or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils,rock,ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft(7.6 m)high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Fresh Deepwater:Lands permanently flooded with freshwater,including environments where surface water is permanent and often deep,so that water,rather than air,is the principal medium within which the dominant organisms live.Substrate does not support emergent vegetation. Do not select if Instream habitat is also present,or if the entire deepwater feature is included in the wetland unit being rated(such as a pond with a vegetated fringe). — Herbaceous Balds:Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. X Instream:The combination of physical,biological,and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.Do not select if Fresh Deepwater habitat is also present. — Nearshore:Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats.These include Coastal Nearshore,Open Coast Nearshore,and Puget Sound Nearshore. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest-Stands of at least 2 tree species,forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac(20 trees/ha)>32 in.(81 cm)diameter at breast height(dbh)or>200 years of age.Mature forests-Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in.(53 cm)dbh;crown cover may be less than 100%;decay,decadence,numbers of snags,and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth;80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: ... http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-220 Wetland name or number C Oregon White Oak:Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important.For single oaks or oak stands<0.4 ha in urban areas,WDFW's Management Recommendations for Oregon White Oak134 provides more detail for determining if they are Priority Habitats X Riparian:The area adjacent to freshwater aquatic systems with flowing or standing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Snags and Logs:Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife.Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of>20 in. (51 cm)in western Washington and are>6.5 ft(2 m)in height.Priority logs are> 12 in.(30 cm)in diameter at the largest end,and>20 ft (6 m)long. Talus:Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5-6.5 ft(0.15-2.0 m),composed of basalt,andesite, and/or sedimentary rock,including riprap slides and mine tailings.May be associated with cliffs. Westside Prairies:Herbaceous,non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie. NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 134 https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00030/wdfw00030.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update 16 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-221 Wetland name or number C CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? 0 The dominant water regime is tidal, 0 Vegetated,and 0 With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt ❑Yes-Go to SC 1.1 ❑x No=Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve,State Park or Educational, Environmental,or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? ❑Yes=Category I ❑No-Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? QThe wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing), and has less than 10%cover of non-native plant species. If non-native species are Spartina,see chapter 4.8 in the manual. Q At least%of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. Q The wetland has at least two of the following features:tidal channels,depressions with open water,or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ❑Yes=Category I ❑No=Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Does the wetland overlap with any known or historical rare plant or rare&high-quality ecosystem polygons on the WNHP Data Explorer?13s ❑Yes=Category 1 ❑x No-Go to SC 2.2 SC 2.2. Does the wetland have a rare plant species, rare ecosystem (e.g., plant community), or high-quality common ecosystem that may qualify the site as a WHCV?Contact WNHP for resources to help determine the presence of these elements ❑ Yes=Submit data to WA Natural Heritage Program for determination,"'Go to SC 2.3 El No=Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Did WNHP review the site within 30 days and determine that it has a rare plant or ecosystem that meets their criteria? ❑Yes=Category I ❑x No= Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs?Use the key below. If you answer YES,you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons,either peats or mucks,that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? ❑Yes-Go to SC 3.3 ❑x No-Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils,either peats or mucks,that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock,or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash,or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? ❑Yes-Go to SC 3.3 ❑X No= Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70%cover of mosses at ground level,AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? ❑Yes=Category I bog ❑No- Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory,you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present,the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (>30%cover)with Sitka spruce,subalpine fir,western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine,quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce,or western white pine,AND any of the species(or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30%of the cover under the canopy? []Yes=Category I bog ❑No=Is not a bog 135 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPdata 136https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp-nh-sighting-form.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-222 Wetland name or number C SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats?If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. —Old-growth forests(west of Cascade crest):Stands of at least two tree species,forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac(20 trees/ha)that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height(dbh)of 32 in (81 cm)or more. —Mature forests(west of the Cascade Crest):Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter(dbh)exceeding 21 in (53 cm). El Yes= Category I ❑x No=Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? —The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks,gravel banks,shingle,or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (>0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) —The lagoon retains some of its surface water at low tide during spring tides ❑Yes-Go to SC 5.1 ❑x No=Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing),and has less than 20%cover of aggressive,opportunistic plant species(see list of species in H 1.5 in the manual). —At least 3%of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac(4350 ftz) ❑Yes=Category I ❑No=Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line(also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 and Ocean Shores Blvd SW, including lands west of E.Oceans Shores Blvd SW. ❑Yes-Go to SC 6.1 x❑No=Not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? ❑Yes=Category I ❑No-Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? ❑Yes=Category II ❑No-Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? ❑Yes=Category III ❑No=Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types,enter"Not Applicable"on Summary Form NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-223 Wetland name or number C This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 19 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-224 Wetland name or number D RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): D Date of site visit: 4/4/24 Rated by Kramer Canup Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 06/2022 HGM Class used for rating Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Y N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ESRI ArcGIS OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY IV (based on functions or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each Category II —Total score = 20 - 22 function based on three Category III —Total score = 16 - 19 ratings X Category IV—Total score = 9 - 15 (order of ratings is not FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat important) Water Quality 9 = H,H,H Circle the appropriate ratings g = H,H,M Site Potential M L L 7 = H,H,L Landscape Potential L L H 7 = H,M,M Value H M L TOTAL 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M Score Based on 6 4 5 15 5 = H,L,L Ratings 5 = M,M,L 4= M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above N/A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form—Version 2,July 2023 B-225 Wetland name or number D Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet(can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs.width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense,rigid trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants S 4.1 (can be added to figure above) Boundary of 150 ft buffer(can be added to another figure) S 2.1,S 5.1 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) S 3.1,S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-226 Wetland name or number D HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7,the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? ONO - go to 2 ❑ YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? ❑NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) DYES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ONO - go to 3 ❑YES - The wetland class is Flats Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at anytime of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ❑At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). ❑X NO - go to 4 DYES -The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ❑The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ❑The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. ❑X NO - go to 5 ❑YES- The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually<3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The unit is in a valley, or stream channel,where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ❑The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-227 Wetland name or number D ❑X NO - go to 6 ❑YES- The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ❑NO - go to 7 ❑X YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ❑NO - go to 8 ❑YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit HGM class to being rated use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream Depressional within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other Treat as class of freshwater wetland ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-228 Wetland name or number D DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key)with no surface water leaving it(no outlet). points=3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. 2 points=2 Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points= 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points= 1 D 1.2.The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic(use NRCS definitions).Yes=4 No=0 0 D 1.3.Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants(Emergent,Scrub-shrub,and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants>95%of area points=5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants>% of area points=3 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants>1/10 of area points= 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants<1/10 of area points=0 D 1.4.Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months.See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is>%2 total area of wetland points=4 4 Area seasonally ponded is>%total area of wetland points=2 Area seasonally ponded is<%total area of wetland points=0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above ill Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16= H X 6-11 = M 0-5= L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 2.2. Is> 10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 2.3.Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 2.4.Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? 0 Source Yes= 1 No=0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above ro Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4= H 1 or 2 = M X 0= L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly(i.e.,within 1 mi)to a stream, river, lake,or marine water that is on the 0 303(d) list? Yes= 1 No=0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes= 1 No=0 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 2 if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes=2 No=0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is: X 2-4= H 1= M 0= L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form—Version 2,July 2023 B-229 Wetland name or number D DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions- Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1.Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it(no outlet) points=4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream/ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points=2 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points= 1 Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points=0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points=7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to<3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points=5 0 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to<2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points=3 The wetland is a "headwater'wetland points=3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points= 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points=0 D 4.3.Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed:Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points=5 0 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points=3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points=0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points=5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16=H 6-11= M X 0-5=L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 5.2. Is >10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25%of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses(residential at 0 >1 residence/ac, urban,commercial,agriculture, etc.)? Yes= 1 No=0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3=H 1 or 2=M X 0=L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0.Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1.The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources(e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points=2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points= 1 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points= 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points=0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points=0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? 0 Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is:_2-4=H X 1=M _0=L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form—Version 2,July 2023 B-230 Wetland name or number D These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1.Structure of plant community:Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of Y,ac or more than 10%of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac.Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points=4 x Emergent 3 structures: points=2 x Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have>30%cover) 2 structures: points= 1 1 Forested (areas where trees have>30%cover) 1 structure: points=0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy,shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20%within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes(hydroperiods)present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10%of the wetland if the unit is<2.5 ac,or%ac if the unit is at least 2.5 ac to count(see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points=3 x Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points=2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points= 1 1 x Saturated only 1 type present: points=0 Permanently flowing stream or river in,or adjacent to,the wetland Intermittently or seasonally flowing stream in,or adjacent to,the wetland 2 points Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz. Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil,reed canarygrass,purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 1 If you counted: > 19 species points=2 5- 19 species points= 1 <5 species points=0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes(described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas(can include open water or mudflats)is high, moderate, low,or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. C) (::O:) 0 None=0 points Low= 1 point Moderate=2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH =3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form—Version 2,July 2023 B-231 Wetland name or number D H 1.5.Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large,downed,woody debris within the wetland (>4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags(dbh >4 in)within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft(2 m) and/or overhanging plants extend at least 3.3 ft(1 m) over open water or a stream (or ditch) in,or contiguous with the wetland,for at least 33 ft(10 m) 0 Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30 degree slope)OR signs of recent beaver activity are present(cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least%ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25%of the wetland area in every stratum of plants(see H 1.1 for list of strata and H 1.5 in the manual for the list of aggressive plant species) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18=H _7-14= M X 0-6=L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1.Accessible habitat(include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: 22.12 %relatively undisturbed habitat+ moderate and low intensity land uses) 16.71 /21= 30.475 % If total accessible habitat is: >1/3(33.3%)of 1 km Polygon points=3 2 20-33%of 1 km Polygon points=2 10-19%of 1 km Polygon points= 1 < 10%of 1 km Polygon points=0 H 2.2.Total habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate:40.44 %relatively undisturbed habitat+[(%moderate and low intensity land uses) 33.ss /2] = 5,3,999999999<% Total habitat >50%of Polygon points=3 3 Total habitat 0-50%and in 1-3 patches points=2 Total habitat 10-50%and >3 patches points= 1 Total habitat < 10%of 1 km Polygon points=0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If >50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points=(-2) 0 S 50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points=0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 15 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: X 4-6=H 1-3=M _<1=L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies?Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points=2 — It has 3 or more Priority Habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species(any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 0 — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan,or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats(listed on next page)within 100 m points= 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points=0 Rating of Value If score is:_2=H _1=M X 0=L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-232 Wetland name or number D WDFW Priority Habitats See complete descriptions of Priority Habitats listed by WDFW,and the counties in which they can be found,in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2008(current year,as revised).Priority Habitat and Species List.133 This list was updated for consistency with guidance from WDFW. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the Priority Habitat.All vegetated wetlands are by definition a Priority Habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed by this rating system. Count how many of the following Priority Habitats are within 330 ft(100 m) of the wetland unit: — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac(0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife.This habitat automatically counts if mapped on the online map within 100m of the wetland.IIf not mapped,a determination can be made in the field. — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity,recess,void,or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils,rock,ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft(7.6 m)high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Fresh Deepwater:Lands permanently flooded with freshwater,including environments where surface water is permanent and often deep,so that water,rather than air,is the principal medium within which the dominant organisms live.Substrate does not support emergent vegetation. Do not select if Instream habitat is also present,or if the entire deepwater feature is included in the wetland unit being rated(such as a pond with a vegetated fringe). — Herbaceous Balds:Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Instream:The combination of physical,biological,and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.Do not select if Fresh Deepwater habitat is also present. — Nearshore:Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats.These include Coastal Nearshore,Open Coast Nearshore,and Puget Sound Nearshore. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest-Stands of at least 2 tree species,forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac(20 trees/ha)>32 in.(81 cm)diameter at breast height(dbh)or>200 years of age.Mature forests-Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in.(53 cm)dbh;crown cover may be less than 100%;decay,decadence,numbers of snags,and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth;80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: ... http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-233 Wetland name or number D — Oregon White Oak:Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important.For single oaks or oak stands<0.4 ha in urban areas,WDFW's Management Recommendations for Oregon White Oak134 provides more detail for determining if they are Priority Habitats — Riparian:The area adjacent to freshwater aquatic systems with flowing or standing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Snags and Logs:Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife.Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of>20 in. (51 cm)in western Washington and are>6.5 ft(2 m)in height.Priority logs are> 12 in.(30 cm)in diameter at the largest end,and>20 ft (6 m)long. — Talus:Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5-6.5 ft(0.15-2.0 m),composed of basalt,andesite, and/or sedimentary rock,including riprap slides and mine tailings.May be associated with cliffs. — Westside Prairies:Herbaceous,non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie. NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 134 https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00030/wdfw00030.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update 16 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-234 Wetland name or number D CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? 0 The dominant water regime is tidal, 0 Vegetated,and 0 With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt ❑Yes-Go to SC 1.1 ❑x No=Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve,State Park or Educational, Environmental,or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? ❑Yes=Category I ❑No-Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? QThe wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing), and has less than 10%cover of non-native plant species. If non-native species are Spartina,see chapter 4.8 in the manual. Q At least%of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. Q The wetland has at least two of the following features:tidal channels,depressions with open water,or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ❑Yes=Category I ❑No=Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Does the wetland overlap with any known or historical rare plant or rare&high-quality ecosystem polygons on the WNHP Data Explorer?13s ❑Yes=Category 1 ❑x No-Go to SC 2.2 SC 2.2. Does the wetland have a rare plant species, rare ecosystem (e.g., plant community), or high-quality common ecosystem that may qualify the site as a WHCV?Contact WNHP for resources to help determine the presence of these elements ❑ Yes=Submit data to WA Natural Heritage Program for determination,"'Go to SC 2.3 El No=Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Did WNHP review the site within 30 days and determine that it has a rare plant or ecosystem that meets their criteria? ❑Yes=Category I ❑x No= Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs?Use the key below. If you answer YES,you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons,either peats or mucks,that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? ❑Yes-Go to SC 3.3 ❑x No-Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils,either peats or mucks,that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock,or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash,or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? ❑Yes-Go to SC 3.3 ❑X No= Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70%cover of mosses at ground level,AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? ❑Yes=Category I bog ❑No- Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory,you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present,the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (>30%cover)with Sitka spruce,subalpine fir,western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine,quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce,or western white pine,AND any of the species(or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30%of the cover under the canopy? []Yes=Category I bog ❑No=Is not a bog 135 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPdata 136https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp-nh-sighting-form.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-235 Wetland name or number D SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats?If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. —Old-growth forests(west of Cascade crest):Stands of at least two tree species,forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac(20 trees/ha)that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height(dbh)of 32 in (81 cm)or more. —Mature forests(west of the Cascade Crest):Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter(dbh)exceeding 21 in (53 cm). El Yes= Category I ❑x No=Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? —The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks,gravel banks,shingle,or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (>0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) —The lagoon retains some of its surface water at low tide during spring tides ❑Yes-Go to SC 5.1 ❑x No=Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing),and has less than 20%cover of aggressive,opportunistic plant species(see list of species in H 1.5 in the manual). —At least 3%of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac(4350 ftz) ❑Yes=Category I ❑No=Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line(also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 and Ocean Shores Blvd SW, including lands west of E.Oceans Shores Blvd SW. ❑Yes-Go to SC 6.1 x❑No=Not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? ❑Yes=Category I ❑No-Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? ❑Yes=Category II ❑No-Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? ❑Yes=Category III ❑No=Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types,enter"Not Applicable"on Summary Form NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-236 Wetland name or number D This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 19 Rating Form-Version 2,July 2023 B-237 Appendix E Wetland Rating Maps 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-238 COWARDIN MAP Wetland D 330' Boundary Emergent OS Forested Scrub-Shrub 1 " - 20' Wetland D s Wetland 1 Wetland C W nd A Wetland B Af - t N 14<iv LINDSAY ANNEXATION DATE:4/11/2024 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NE JOB:2419.0002 Soundview Consultants LLc ARLINGTON,WA 98223 BY:DDS Environmental Assessment•Planning• Land Use Solutions 2907 Harborview Dr.,Suite D,Gig Harbor,WA 98335 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: SCALE: 1 "=250' Phone:(253)514-8952 Fax:(253)514-8954 31052500200600,31052600100100, www.soundviewconsultants.com 31052600100200,31052600102200,&31052600102300 FIGURE NO. 1 :,f7] B-239 HYDROPERIOD MAP Wetland D Saturated O 150' Boundary Saturated Only Occassionally Flooded Seasonally Flooded ZS : S &� easonally Flooded 1 " = 20' Permanently Flooded 0 Outlet OHW Wetland D O Wetland Wetland W nd A Wetland B 40 0 120 240 480 Feet <1� LINDSAY ANNEXATION DArE:4/11/2024 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NE JOB:2419.0002 Soundview Consultants L.LC ARLINGTON,WA 98223 By:DDS Environmental Assessment• Planning • Land Use Solutions 2907 Harborview Dr.,Suite D,Gig Harbor,WA 98335 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: SCALE: 1 "=240' Phone:(253)514-8952 Fax:(253)514-8954 31052500200600,31052600100100, www.soundviewconsuhants.com 31052600100200,31052600102200,&31052600102300 FIGURE NO. 2 of 7 B-240 CONTRIBUTING BASIN MAP We d D ab Wetland tl d ° c Intensive Land Use Ib Ib Wa Contributing Basin alli etland A 10' Contour 41V 4/ \ and B �W �W HIV • •s p All IV V/,WvW,W�\W .• ° a � M 4 a ° • O fir. �•i ° ° 9 +J 0 4 Qo O v ' •�o v - 0 225 4 900 Feet 14<iv LINDSAY ANNEXATION DATE:4/11/2024 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NE JOB:2419.0002 Soundview Consultants LLc ARLINGTON,WA 98223 BY:DDS Environmental Assessment•Planning• Land Use Solutions 2907 Harborview Dr.,Suite D,Gig Harbor,WA 98335 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: SCALE: 1 =440' Phone:(253)514-8952 Fax:(253)514-8954 31052500200600,31052600100100, www.soundviewconsultants.com 31052600100200,31052600102200,&31052600102300 FIGURE NO.3 . 7 B-241 CONTRIBUTING BASIN DATA D.4.0 - D.5.3 Area of Contributing Basin (SF) 3,474,659 Area of Wetland 1 (SF) 3,026 Percent of Wetland 1 within Contributing Basin 0.087% Area of Intensive Human Land Uses (SF) 66,089 Percent of Intensive Human Land Use within Contributing Basin for Wetland 1 2% Area of Contributing Basin (SF) 2,956,041 Area of Wetland B (SF) 171,486 Percent of Wetland B within Contributing Basin 5.801% Area of Intensive Human Land Uses (SF) 66,089 Percent of Intensive Human Land Use within Contributing Basin for Wetland B 2% Area of Contributing Basin (SF) 3,269,379 Area of Wetland C (SF) 30,776 Percent of Wetland C within Contributing Basin 0.941% Area of Intensive Human Land Uses (SF) 66,089 Percent of Intensive Human Land Use within Contributing Basin for Wetland C 2% Area of Contributing Basin (SF) 220,646 Area of Wetland D (SF) 110 Percent of Wetland D within Contributing Basin 0.050% Area of Intensive Human Land Uses (SF) 0 Percent of Intensive Human Land Use within Contributing Basin for Wetland D 0% LINDSAY ANNEXATION DATE:4/11/2024 114 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NE JOB:2419.0002 Soundview Consultants LLC ARLINGTON,WA 98223 BY:DDS Environmental Assessment• Planning • Land Use Solutions 2907 Harborview Dr.,Suite D,Gig Harbor,WA 98335 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: SCALE: NONE Phone:(253)514-8952 Fax:(253)514-8954 31052500200600,31052600100100, �.soundviewconsultants.corn 31052600100200,31052600102200,&31052600102300 FIGURE NO.4 of 7 B-242 HABITAT MAP O1 KM Polygon Accessible Habitat Moderate & Low Intensity Relatively Undisturbed High Intensity 9 a IV 41V 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet I I I I I I I I I AL 14<iv LINDSAY ANNEXATION DATE:4/11/2024 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NE JOB:2419.0002 Soundview Consultants LLc ARLINGTON,WA 98223 BY:DDS Environmental Assessment•Planning• Land Use Solutions 2907 Harborview Dr.,Suite D,Gig Harbor,WA 98335 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: SCALE: 1 = 1,000' Phone:(253)514-8952 Fax:(253)514-8954 31052500200600,31052600100100, www.soundviewconsultants.com 31052600100200,31052600102200,&31052600102300 FIGURE NO. 5 of 7 B-243 HABITAT DATA H.2.0 H.2.1 All Wetlands Abutting Undisturbed Habitat 22.12% Abutting Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 16.71% Accessible Habitat 30.47% H.2.2 Undisturbed Habitat 40.44% Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 33.88% Undisturbed Habitat in 1 KM Polygon 57.38% H.2.3 High Intensity Land Use in 1 KM Polygon 25.680,o LINDSAY ANNEXATION DATE:4/11/2024 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NE JOB:2419.0002 Soundview Consultants LLc ARLINGTON,WA 98223 BY:DDS Environmental Assessment•Planning• Land Use Solutions 2907 Harborview Dr.,Suite D,Gig Harbor,WA 98335 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: SCALE: NONE Phone:(253)514-8952 Fax:(253)514-8954 31052500200600,31052600100100, www.soundviewconsultants.com 31052600100200,31052600102200,&31052600102300 FIGURE NO-6:47] B74-4 303(D) MAP Subwatershed / Water Quality Improvement Project 1� f Category 5 Assessed Waters , SITE / 0 0.75 1.5 3 Miles I I I I I I I I I Name JPollutants ITMDLID JWRIA Year Approved Snohomish River Tributaries Bacteria TMDL I Bacteria 1 341 7 2001 Snohomish River Estuary Multi parameter TMDL Ammonia-N,CBOD, Dissolved Oxygen 1 481 7 2002 14 iv LINDSAY ANNEXATION JOB:2 4 9.000224 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NE JOB:2419.0002 Soundview Consultants LLc ARLINGTON,WA 98223 BY:DDS Environmental Assessment•Planning• Land Use Solutions 2907 Harborview Dr.,Suite D,Gig Harbor,WA 98335 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: SCALE:1 " = 1.5 mi Phone:(253)514-8952 Fax:(253)514-8954 31052500200600,31052600100100, www.soundviewconsultants.com 31052600100200,31052600102200,&31052600102300 FIGURE NO-7 of 7 B-245 Appendix F Site Photographs General site conditions in the southeast portion of the site on General site conditions in the southeast portion of the site around 04/02/2024 (facin west). Wetland A on 04/02/2024 (facing east). f W g- t . Ditch conditions in the southeast portion of the site on 04/02/24 General site conditions in the north portion of the site on (facing south). 04/02/24 (facing east). �E d 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-246 General site conditions around Stream Z on 04/03/24 (facing General site conditions in north ditch of the site on 04/02/24 west). (facing south). r ; �F x'. General site conditions in Wetland B on 04/02/24 (facin south). General site conditions around Wetland C on 04/02/24 (facing >> . south). 3 i ✓ 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-247 Appendix G Qualifications All field inspections,jurisdictional wetland boundary delineations,habitat assessments,and supporting documentation, including this Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Re ortprepared for the LindsayAnnexation project site were prepared by, or under the direction of, Kramer Canup and Jon Pickett of SVC. In addition, the site investigations were performed by Kramer Canup,Elisabeth Gonzalez and William Bethel,report preparation was completed by William Bethel, and general project oversight and quality control was completed by Elisabeth Gonzalez and Kramer Canup. Kramer Canup is a Project Manager and Environmental Scientist with 10 years of professional experience. Kramer has a professional background in project management, ecological restoration, vegetation monitoring, invasive plant management, monitoring protocol development, grant writing, tropical ecology,wildlife monitoring and environmental education. He currently manages residential and commercial projects, performs wetland and ordinary high-water delineations and shoreline assessments; conducts environmental code analysis and prepares environmental assessment and mitigation reports, biological evaluations, and permit applications to support clients through the planning and permitting processes. His noteworthy experiences include supporting clients with navigating environmental regulations related to land use and development, managing wetland and riparian restoration projects, leading wetland and ordinary high water delineations throughout the Puget Sound region, and instructing study abroad courses in the Peruvian Amazon for the University of Washington. Education:Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Studies with a minor in Ecological Restoration from the University of Washington. Professional Trainings:Basic Wetland Delineator Training with the Wetland Training Institute 40-hour USACE wetland delineation training. Kramer has been formally trained through the Washington State Department of Ecology,Coastal Training Program,How to Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark,Using the Washington State Wetland Rating System(2014),and Using the Credit-Debit Method for Estimating Mitigation Needs. Elisabeth Gonzalez is an Environmental Project Manager and Scientist with 3 years of professional experience. Elizabeth has a background in project management, shoreline permitting, forest and marine ecology, and wetland delineations. Elisabeth brings experience in managing bulkhead repair and replacement projects, single-family residence planning and wetland delineations, and extensive permitting projects for marina renovations. Previously, she has managed multiple shoreline projects in assisting clients with permitting processes while implementing regulations within engineering designs. She completed her training in wetland delineations with the Wetland Training Institute in October of 2021 and has since been involved in wetland delineations all across western Washington. Elisabeth has also completed two internships with the US Forest Service and Maui Ocean Center, where she performed a variety of research-based field work and worked as a research assistant with Saving the Blue collecting data on shark species and environmental impacts on the ocean. Education:Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science with a concentration in Forest and Marine Ecology and Oceanography from the University of Colorado,Boulder. William Bethel is a Staff Scientist with 4 years of professional experience. William has a background in environmental science in Washington State. At Simon Fraser University, he worked 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-248 in a research lab, studying the distribution and prediction of forest soils. Previously William has managed wetland site assessments and mitigation projects for Hamer Environmental and Aqua Terr Systems Inc.,managed environmental compliance at the Phillips 66 refinery in Ferndale,WA, and organized environmental education programs for the Chief Seattle Council. His education and experience have provided him with extensive knowledge on forests ecology, remote sensing, GIS, soil science,hazardous waste management and wetland monitoring. Currently,William assists in wetland, stream and shoreline delineations and fish and wildlife habitat assessments; conducts environmental code analysis; and prepares environmental assessment and mitigation reports, biological evaluations, and permit applications. Education:Master of Science degree in Soil Science from Simon Fraser University,Burnaby British Columbia. Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science with a GIS minor from Western Washington University. Professional Trainings:40-hour USACE wetland delineation training with Richard Chinn. Using the Revised Washington State Wetland Rating System (2014) in Western Washington from the Washington State Department of Ecology. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-249 City of Arlington I Lindsay Subarea ExistingUtilities & Public Services Conditions Report September 2025 Prepared by: MAKERS architecture and urban design Land Technologies 1 Utilities The Lindsay Subarea has utilities—electricity, natural gas, refuse service, telephone, cable, water, sewer, and stormwater—available at varying capacities to accommodate increased land use intensity. The City has recently completed updated modeling of its sewer and water infrastructure. This work evaluated system capacity for all pipe segments and the City's 15 lift stations. However, the results of this modeling have not yet been made available to assess the infrastructure that could serve the Lindsay Subarea. While modeling is not required at this planning stage, it will be necessary before construction can begin on any portion of the Subarea. The modeling will estimate available capacity, evaluate alternative routes, and routing options like gravity versus lift station. It will also provide peak load flow analyses to support phased project development. 1 .1 Sewer Existing homes currently use on-site septic systems. Future sewer service will be provided by City of Arlington Public Works Sewer Division. The City has approximately 72 miles of gravity flow sewer mains and about 9 miles of force mains. Offsite sewer infrastructure. There is a sewer pipe stub out at the intersection of 80t" Ave NE and SR 531 (172nd St NE). From here it 'spiderwebs" its way through Gleneagle to the NW corner at Woodlands Way and 67t" Ave NE where it discharges into the SSMH 111. SSMH 111 is a juncture of this described flow and the manhole where the force main from LS-08 also discharges. All route options for the Lindsay Sub Area end up and MH-111 where it flows north to the Treatment Plant. Public Services Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-251 Exhibit 1. Existing offsite infrastructure and optional routes -� SSMH 111 V i L Pion Element ry School y gle L -08 i r r I PVC Gravity Flow I Lindsey I Subarea 3" DI Force Main I � I ■ LS-08 Lift Station I Source: City of Arlington, Land Technologies, 2025 Utilities&Public Services Existing Conditions Report Lindsay Subarea Plan September 2025 B-252 1 .2 Water Existing homes in Lindsay use on-site domestic wells. Future water service will be provided by the City of Arlington Public Works Water Division. The City's Water Department maintains a Water System Plan (WSP) reviewed and approved by the Department of Health to assure provision of safe and ample water supplies for public health and fire protection. The Arlington 2024 Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement states that the City is currently at maximum capacity and is planning numerous facility improvements, including increasing the production capacity of the water treatment plant. The City's LOS standard for water service, which is based on maximum demand projections, is 3,959 gallons per minute (gpm). Single family residential customers use an average of approximately 158 gallons per day per connection, and multi-family customers use an average of 773 gallons per day per connection. Demand. Residential consumption accounts for nearly 3/4 of the total consumption in the City of Arlington (commercial, industrial, institutional, and municipal uses compose the rest). The City's Water Plan assumes a consumption rate of 80 gallons per day per resident. On an annual basis, the average single-family residence will use about 196 gallons for outdoor and indoor use each day. Indoor use at each residence ranges seasonally from about 160 to 180 gallons each day. During summer months with their intensive outdoor uses, single family residences can use 300 gallons each day. The greatest residential uses, then, are summer activities such as lawn and garden watering, car washing, and water-based recreation, which can average 120 gallons per day. Offsite water infrastructure. The existing 12-inch ductile iron water main runs along the south side of SR 531 (172nd St NE) from east of the subarea (where it downsizes from a 16- inch pipe) to 79t" Ave NE. It is in the 520 pressure zone and flows from the water storage tank located east of SR 9,just east of 91 st Ave NE. There are three existing fire hydrants along the frontage. This infrastructure is currently adequate for fighting fires. The watermain serves Hilltop and Gleneagle, teeing into Hilltop at 85t" Ave NE and 80t" Ave NE and into Gleneagle on the west side of the 791" Ave NE utility corridor. There is no water main along SR 531 (172nd St NE) west of 791" Ave NE; pipes "spiderweb" through Gleneagle before returning to SR 531 (172nd St NE). Utilities&Public Services Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-253 Exhibit 2. Offsite water system 16" DI Water Main Lindsey Q Subarea 12" DI Water Main Water Tank Existing 16" DI Water Nlain -—Existing 12" DI Water Nfain - Existing Existing Hydrants Lindsey Hull Subarea Source: City of Arlington, Land Technologies. 2025 Pressures at the hydrants along 172nd St NE along the Lindsay Subarea have been listed between 55 psi in the hydrant at the east end of the Subarea and as high as 101 psi at the hydrant at the NW corner of the site. This is currently adequate capacity for fighting fires. The difference in pressure may be attributed to the 100-foot difference in hydrant elevations. Dry Utilities Electricity. Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) provides electricity. The PUD has 3-phase power along the north side of SR 531 (172nd St NE) and along 791" Ave NE. Individual homes have overhead power services from these mainlines to individual homes. Gas. Puget Sound Energy has mainline gas in SR 531 (172nd St NE) but unlikely serves any of these existing homes. Refuse and Recycling. Waste Management provides service to individual homes. Cable/telephone. Ziply provides telephone service and fiber optic cable for high-speed internet, with service lines along SR 531 (172nd St NE). Ziply has stated they have adequate service available for this area. Xfinity (Comcast) and Spectrum provide cable service to this area and have infrastructure in SR 531 (172nd St NE). Some existing homes along SR 531 (172nd St NE) have Comcast service currently. Utilities&Public Services Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-254 blic Service This section describes current conditions for parks, schools, police, and fire/emergency services. See Exhibit 3 for the location of parks, schools, police and fire facilities in the city and near Lindsay. Exhibit 3. Public Services in Arlington J A,F President,, IbstMidd' le Elenww,iiv School AL VSch����l iEleCreek ��uk;lows Elementary School Haller Middle School __r Kent Piame Ilrinrn•ihy hool © WEEvans _Ahgyrt Park ihal� Prad 19,nu .i r l4n.I 111Quake Eli m,ni.IV .. Arlington Memorial Municipal ParkAirport 1, -I � Forest r Trail Park r TAWOorly. t .� {• Wedgr•. t �Pa u ..� \� �°1°�C-111-C1 ^Y . 0 u1s 0.5 Miles ' Parks A Police Station I mule radius Trails ) Fire Station 46 Lindsay Subarea Schools 0Fire Station 48 0 Arlington Source: City of Arlington, MAKERS, 2025 Utilities&Public Services Existing Conditions Report Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-255 2.1 Parks There are currently no existing parks in Lindsay. North of the Subarea are neighborhood subdivisions, Gleneagle and Northern Hilltop, with public and HOA parks, a golf course, and open space lands, interwoven within the neighborhood. See below for the inventory of parks within one mile from the Subarea and Exhibit 4 for park locations. Exhibit 4. Parks and Trails within 1 mile of Lindsay Parks Location Acreage Ownership Description Arlington School playground, multipurpose hall, Pioneer Elementary 8213 15 acre' School and athletic field, adjacent to wooded and Open Space Eaglefield Dr District riparian habitat with natural trails and exhibits Forest Trail Park 18005 2 acre Arlington Park with picnic tables, Oxford Dr play area,and sport court Wedgewood& 17510 Wooded park land with picnic tables Woodway Park Gleneagle 2.5 acre Arlington and play area Blvd Whitehawk Tot Lot Dr hitehawk 0.09 acre HOA Minipark with playground Crossing at 172nd Ave 2.48 acre HOA Wooded minipark with two tennis Edgecomb Creek 1 NE courts Crossing at 73rd Dr NE 0.29 acre HOA Minipark with playground and Edgecomb Creek 2 basketball court Playworld Park 174th PINE 0.30 acre' HOA Minipark with playground and basketball court Eagle Heights Park 179th PI NE 0.35 acre' HOA Minipark with playground, basketball court, and picnic shelter Gleneagle Golf 7619 E 138.2 acre Private Opened in 1993 with driving range, a Course County Club shop,and a restaurant Source: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2044 ' Site area estimate excluding, if present,the building and parking footprint. Utilities&Public Services Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-256 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Completed in 2024, the Park and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP provides direction for the planning, acquisition, development, and renovation of parks, open space, recreation facilities and programs. The PRMP finds that existing parkland-172.9 acres owned by the city and 1,349.8 acres total, including land owned by WAS, school district, state, and other entities—is sufficient to support growth if all sites are developed to capacity. The City is also continuing to protect critical areas and is exploring the purchase of development rights to preserve habitat and trail corridors. The City's goal is for a park system that provides a park, trail, playground, community center, or other recreation facility within a 5-minute walk of any residential area measured by actual walking routes on trails, paths, sidewalks, or other routes (Arlington PRMP, pp 23-24). The PRMP identifies that "under the existing level-of-service (ELOS) for Arlington-owned park land and facilities in the city, the forecasted population increase will create a city- wide need for an additional 104.5 acres of land and 8,917 facility units (square feet, courts, fields, etc.) by the year 2050." However, recognizing a more nuanced approach, "under the proposed level-of-service (PLOS) for all park land and facilities in the city, the forecasted population increase will create a city-wide proposal for an additional 1 .0 acres of land and 29,165 facility units (square feet, courts, fields, etc.) by the year 2050" (Arlington PRMP, p. E-15). In 2022, as part of the PRMP update, the Parks and Recreation Department completed an outreach survey to receive feedback and understand community priorities for potential park facilities improvements. 431 residents responded and key findings include: • Multiuse trails and playgrounds were top outdoor priorities; activity centers and pools are preferred indoor facilities. • Teen and youth programs ranked highest with strong interest in after-school and educational programs, supported by facilities such as youth centers, gyms, and children's museums. • Environmental programs (e.g., park and trail maintenance) and outdoor recreation (e.g., hiking, camping) received moderate interest. • Community events like farmers' markets, craft bazaars, and festivals received moderate to high support. • Additional priorities included conserving and enhancing creek corridors, improving picnic shelters, and upgrading sports courts. Utilities&Public Services Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-257 Based on this feedback and an assessment of existing facilities, the PRMP recommends conceptual projects focused on expanding trail and park capacity. Exhibit 5. PRMP Planned Improvements i7TTiT. 1 L SR 531/172nd St NE Trail Extend Airport Trail east on 172nd St NE to SR-9; 1.7 miles SR-9 Trail Develop trail on SR-9 from Centennial Trail south to SR 531/172nd St NE Skate Dots at Forest Trail Park Install skate dot in park activity area .. ......... ......... ......... ............. Sport court at Wedgewood Park Install sports court in park activity area Source: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2044 'Note: The park proposals are conceptual and subject to further study and coordination with public and private partnerships to refine and develop. SR 531 (172"d St NEB Trail Improvement The SR 531 (172nd St NE) Trail (67th Ave to Highway 9) is a planned 12-foot-wide multi-use trail along the north side of SR 531 from 67th Ave to SR 9. The trail will be grade-separated and will include landscaping and street and pedestrian lighting. The trail will provide non- motorized access to the Cascade Industrial Center and the Centennial Trail at 67th Ave on the west end, and access to a future trail north of SR 9 that will access Old Town Arlington and other retail centers on the east end. Parks existing regulations The following requirements ensure that development meets the City's goal for every residential area to have a park, trail, playground, community center, or other recreation facility within a 5-minute walk (Arlington PRMP, pp 23-24). They also ensure Arlington continues to meet its existing or proposed level-of-service in terms of park land (Arlington PRMP, p. E-15). AMC 20.52.010 - Residential mini-parks required AMC 20.52.010 requires any residential development that creates 25 or more units to provide mini-parks or pay a fee in-lieu in addition to providing usable open space as required by AMC 20.52.030. Mini-park land must have an area of at least 65 square feet per person, as determined by average persons per unit type (e.g., studio, 2-bedroom, 3- bedroom), and each mini-park must be between 2,000 and 30,000 square feet. Utilities&Public Services Existing Conditions Report - Lindsay Subarea Plan - September 2025 B-258 AMC 20.52.030 - Residential usable open space Every residential development must dedicate at least 10% of the total area (minus critical areas) as usable open space. AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans - Park Requirement As outlined in Section Error! Reference source not found., the fourth element of the AMC 2 0.44.032 Subarea Plans supersedes the above two requirements, and similarly requires 10% of the total land area (excluding the Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA)) to be dedicated to recreational facilities, open spaces, and a trail system. This must include areas proposed to be dedicated to the city as public spaces. All dedicated parks must be a minimum of two acres in size and coordinated with the city prior to approval. The proposed trail system must be paved and connect the sidewalk network to all recreation facilities and open spaces. 2.2 Schools Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan The public schools that serve the City of Arlington and portions of unincorporated Snohomish County are part of Arlington Public Schools (the "District"). The District serves a student population of 5,466 with four elementary schools (K-5), two middle schools (grades 6-8), and one high school (grades 9-12). The District prepared the Six Year Capital Facilities Plan (2024 - 2029) to plan for future needs. The educational service standards outlined below reflect the standards set by the District. The outlined standards apply only to regular classrooms and do not include special education rooms, labs, gyms, or other special-use spaces. For the school years of 2022- 2023, the District's compliance with the minimum educational service standards was as follows. Exhibit 6. Average Class Size based on Educational Service Standards 2022-2023 Grade level Minimum Average Class Size Reported Average Class Size Elementary school 26 20.7 Middle school 26 19.3 High school 32 28.6 Source: Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan, 2024 Utilities&Public Services Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-259 The Arlington School District operates 11 public schools within the City of Arlington. The Stillaguamish Valley School and Weston High School are housed in separate District- owned facilities and not included in the District's capital facilities plan. The table below provides an inventory of schools owned and operated by the Arlington School District within the City of Arlington. Pioneer Elementary School and Arlington High School are located within a mile of Lindsay. Exhibit 7. Public School Serving the City of Arlington School Building Area(sq ft) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Eagle Creek Elementary School 57,362 28 630 Kent Prairie Elementary School 57,362 28 630 Presidents Elementary School 60,977 31 680 Pioneer Elementary School* 61,530 25 562 ......... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Post Middle School 76,323 361 9072 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........................................ Hailer Middle School 86,002 311 612 Arlington High School* 273,871 63 2,0363 Source: Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan, 2024 *Schools within 1-mile of Lindsay. 'Includes a total of six special education classroom between Post and Hailer Middle School 21ncludes 150 added seats for the replacement and expansion of Post Middle School,which is expected to be complete in 2028. 31ncludes Arlington High School Addition — 256 seats,completed summer 2022. The District has identified several projects to address student growth over the next six years, including the replacement of Post Middle School with 150 additional permanent seats and additions of portable classrooms as needed. In 2022, the Arlington High School expansion, which added 256 permanent seats, was completed to support projected enrollment growth. The recent and planned increase in permanent capacity at the middle and high school levels has created a projected surplus through 2029. However, even with the Post Middle School replacement, the District anticipates shortfalls beginning around 2028-2029. The District has begun exploring options to expand elementary school capacity. 2.3 Public Safety According to the Book 7 Public Safety of the Comprehensive Plan, the City's level of service for police, fire, and emergency medical services has generally kept pace with recent growth and development. With continued planning, adequate funding, and strong interagency coordination—supported by the Arlington Police Department's 2024 Strategic Plan and Utilities&Public Services Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-260 North County Fire & EMS 2019-2044 Strategic Plan—Arlington will maintain current service levels and effectively support future growth. Police The Arlington Police Department (APD) is located in the Old Town neighborhood and shares facilities with City Hall and the City Council Chambers. The city's assets include a police station, police vehicles, training facilities, and equipment. The Arlington's Police Department currently employs 37 sworn officers. APD has adopted a care-first approach to enhance public safety services by focusing on prevention, outreach, and support. A key component of this approach is the Embedded Social Worker Program, which pairs a full-time Arlington police officer with a social worker to address issues such as homelessness, substance use, and mental health. In 2020, the City also launched a two-year, $750,000 pilot program in partnership with the Center for Justice Social Work. This initiative aims to reduce non-emergency 911 calls by delivering integrated social services in the field, such as referrals and home visits. 2.3.1 Fire/Emergency Services On February 9, 2021, voters overwhelmingly approved the annexation of the Arlington Fire Department into the North County Regional Fire Authority (NCFA), also known as "North County Fire & EMS", which provide service to 25,000 people over 110 square miles, including community members of Arlington, Stanwood, and Snohomish County unincorporated areas. As of August 2021, NCFA provides fire and emergency services to the City of Arlington, including: • Emergency fire suppression, including wildland firefighting • Emergency medical services and transport • Fire prevention, inspections, and plan reviews • Public education and outreach Arlington is served by two fire stations: Station 46 in downtown Arlington, equipped with a medic unit, engine, and brush truck; and Station 48 at the Arlington Airport, which houses a medic unit, ladder truck, and aid unit. (See Exhibit) For emergency and medical services, the City of Arlington relies on Skagit Regional Health and Cascade Valley Hospital. Utilities&Public Services Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-261 Wildfire Risk and Response A wildfire is any uncontrolled fire that involves vegetative fuels that occurs in wildland or wildland-urban interface areas (WUI), where wildland vegetation meets urban and suburban development. Lindsay is located within a WUI Intermix area, characterized by lower-density housing interspersed with undeveloped wildland vegetation. The Snohomish County Wildfire Hazard Map indicates that much of the City of Arlington falls within the lowest wildfire risk zone. To mitigate wildfire risk, the City's regulations require clear property addressing to improve emergency response times, require multiple ingress and egress routes, and encourage the use of non-combustible materials in new development. Utilities&Public Services Existing Conditions Report • Lindsay Subarea Plan • September 2025 B-262 C Conceptual Mitigation Plan Lindsay Subarea Plan Appendices • Appendices • November 2025 C-1 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN LINDSAY ANNEXATION JUNE 2025 Soundview Consultants Environmental Assessment Planning+Land Use Solutions C-2 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN LINDsAY ANNEXATION JUNE 20,2025 PROJECT LOCATION 8014,8228,8210,AND 8326 172ND STREET NORTHEAST ARLINGTON,WASHINGTON 98223 PREPARED FOR MJS INVESTORS 1140 Southeast 8`'Street, Suite 200 BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004 PREPARED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC 2907 HARBoRvIEW DRIVE GIG HARBOR,WASHINGTON 98335 (253) 514-8952 77 Q; Soundview Consultants Environmental Assessment Planning+Land Use Solutions C-3 Executive Summary Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting MJS Investors (Applicant) with a conceptual mitigation plan for the proposed residential redevelopment of a 32.28-acre site located at 8014, 8228, 8210, and 8326 172nd Street Northeast within the City of Arlington, Washington. The Proposed Project Area (PPA; here forth referred to as the subject property) consists of five tax parcels situated in the Northeast 'A of Section 26, Township 31 North, Range 05 East, W.M. (Snohomish County Tax Parcel Numbers 31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, and 31052600102300). SVC investigated the subject property and publicly accessible areas within 300 feet of the project area for potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species in December of 2022 and April of 2024. Using current methodology,the site identified four potentially- regulated wetlands onsite (Wetlands A — D) and one stream (Stream Z) on the subject property. Additionally,one offsite wetland (Wetland 1)was identified offsite to the west of the subject property. Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) 20.93.800 establishes wetland buffers based on wetland rating, and wetland water quality and/or habitat score. Wetlands A and D are classified as Category IV wetlands and are subject to a standard 40-foot buffer regardless of habitat score per AMC 20.93.830 Table 20.93-4 with the required use of minimization measures outlined in AMC Table 20.93-5.Wetlands B, C,and 1 are Category III wetlands with moderate habitat scores of(6 or 7)and are subject to a standard 110-foot buffer per AMC 20.93.830 Table 20.93-4 with the required implementation of a relatively undisturbed, 1 00-foot wide protected corridor between the wetlands and other areas specified in AMC 20.93.830(1)(A) and use of minimization measures. Stream Z is a Type Ns (non-fish habitat, seasonal) water per AMC 20.93.700 and is subject to a standard 50-foot buffer per AMC 20.93.730 Table 20.93- 3. In addition, a 15-foot structure setback is required from the edge of any wetland or stream buffers per AMC 20.93.340. No other potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species were identified within 300 feet of the subject property. The Applicant proposes residential redevelopment of the subject property to include 167 single-family residences, internal site access and parking, open space areas, utilities, and stormwater facilities including several stormwater detention ponds that will disperse treated runoff to the outer portion of the wetland and stream buffer areas onsite to maintain existing site drainage patterns and hydrology. The project was carefully designed to minimize impacts to critical areas to the greatest extent feasible by fully utilizing all developable upland areas onsite. However, due to the odd shape of the subject property which constrains the orientation of development,the spatial requirements needed to provide a high-density residential development and associated infrastructure consistent with City development standards and the high capacity residential zoning designation of the site, the extent of encumbrance by the identified critical areas and associated buffers throughout the site, complete avoidance is not feasible. In order to meet density requirements and standards for open space, site access,utilities,and stormwater facilities associated with the proposed residential development, the proposed project requires the necessary, unavoidable complete fill of Wetland D, as well as the partial fill of Wetlands A and C. Additionally, permanent and temporary impacts to the buffers of Wetlands A, B, and C, offsite Wetland 1,and Stream Z are necessary and unavoidable in order to provide pedestrian walking trails and stormwater dispersion outfalls/trenches necessary to maintain existing site drainage patterns and hydrology.All temporary impacts will be fully restored immediately after construction is complete. Direct impacts to Wetlands A, C, and D, indirect impacts to Wetlands A and C, and permanent impacts to the onsite wetland and stream buffer areas will be compensated through a combination of onsite,in-kind wetland creation and enhancement and buffer creation and enhancement actions. The 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation i Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-4 proposed onsite mitigation actions aim to establish higher functioning wetland habitat, improve screening and habitat between the identified critical areas and the proposed development, and,where feasible, establish protected corridors maintaining connectivity accessibility between onsite critical areas. It is anticipated that these measures will achieve a net positive ecological benefit onsite and in the greater Snohomish River watershed, and exceed the mitigation ratios establish in AMC 20.93.840(d) Table 20.93-7 to ensure no net loss of wetland or critical area buffer functions onsite. See Chapter 3 for further details and analysis. The table below identifies the onsite critical areas and summarizes the potential regulatory status by local, state, and federal agencies. Regulated Regulated Regulated Feature Name Size (Onsite) Category' Under KCC Under RCW Under Clean Chapter 11.06 90.48 Water Act Wetland A 22,644 SF IV Yes Yes Likely Wetland B 45,715 SF III Yes Yes Likely Wetland C 29,723 SF III Yes Yes Likely Wetland D 117 SF IV Yes Yes Not Likely Wetland 1 NA III Yes Yes Likely Stream Z —160 linear Type Ns Yes Yes Likely feet 1. Washington State Department of Ecology(WSDOE)wetland rating system(Hruby and Yahnke 2023)per AMC 20.93.800 and AMC 20.93.730 The table below summarizes the proposed critical area impacts. EMmpact FP Total Impact Area Direct Permanent Wetland Fill 11,399 SF Indirect Permanent Wetland Impacts 12,003 SF Permanent Buffer Impacts 2,467 SF Temporary Buffer Impacts 7,379 SF The table below summarizes the planned mitigation actions. Mitigation TypeT 7 Mitigation Area Wl'edand Mitigation Wetland Creation 69,115 SF Wetland Enhancement 29,086 SF Wetland as Buffer Enhancement 12,003 SF Buffer Mitigation Buffer Creation 8,684 SF Buffer Enhancement 101,308 SF Buffer Restoration 6,379 SF 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation ii Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-5 Site Map vwm4m-P 7ASTREET NE 4, ILI 0-.rlw..q Fj T,.A9YI i /WETLAND GTEOONYN LOCAMN 40i Bkomm I"SF m. R,W� WETLAND OFFWM VVerLANDC SBEET INDEX t U1.0 MT�- .,Pwmms UZO MAN&WAM 100 P PCVO-m%rm MAN&W1C.AMN VVETLAND A • ZNT 7 U4.0 0 22-- 'WET' r L�AND B CT I GKkFHIC SCAT E v PLANT LEGFSD INCaSS 2.kw%m BY IAND mc,"OOLCOM.M. MOT 3. �10�LAO J TA STREAM CBIfERLFE —MR 2419.0002 Lindsay Annexation iii Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-6 Table of Contents Chapter1. Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................1 1.1 Critical Area Findings.............................................................................................................................2 1.2 Regulatory Considerations.....................................................................................................................2 Chapter2. Proposed Project...........................................................................................................................7 2.1 Purpose and Need...................................................................................................................................7 2.2 Project Description.................................................................................................................................7 2.3 Site Planning............................................................................................................................................7 2.4 Description of Impacts........................................................................................................................11 2.5 Authorizations.......................................................................................................................................12 Chapter 3. Conceptual Mitigation Plan.......................................................................................................13 3.1 Mitigation Strategy................................................................................................................................13 3.2 Approach and Best Management Practices.......................................................................................16 3.3 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards...............................................................................16 3.4 Plant Materials and Installation...........................................................................................................19 3.5 Maintenance &Monitoring Plan........................................................................................................21 3.6 Reporting................................................................................................................................................22 3.7 Contingency Plan..................................................................................................................................22 3.8 Critical Area Protective Measures.......................................................................................................23 3.9 Financial Assurances.............................................................................................................................23 Chapter4. Closure..........................................................................................................................................24 Chapter5. References ....................................................................................................................................25 Figures Figure1. Subject Property................................................................................................................................1 Tables Table 1. Wetland Buffer Summary..................................................................................................................3 Table 2. Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands .................................................................3 Table3. Stream Buffer Summary. ...................................................................................................................4 Table 4. Summary of Wetland Impacts........................................................................................................12 Table 5. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Summary for Wetland Impacts.........................................14 Appendices Appendix A—Existing Conditions and Site Plans Appendix B — Qualifications 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation iv Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 Ci-7 Chapter 1. Existing Conditions Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting MJS Investors (Applicant) with a conceptual mitigation plan for the proposed residential redevelopment of a 32.28-acre site located at 8014,82288, 8210, and 8326 172nd Street Northeast within the City of Arlington, Washington (Figure 1). The subject property consists of five tax parcels situated in the Northeast '/4 of Section 26,Township 31 North, Range 05 East, W.M. (Snohomish County Tax Parcel Numbers 31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, and 31052600102300). The subject property is located within a rural residential setting within the City of Arlington and is partially developed with four single-family residences, associated infrastructure,gravel driveways, and garages. Much of the site consists of open fields, lawn, and small pockets of deciduous trees and shrubs,with a larger forested area located on the southeast area of the subject property. The subject property abuts 172nd Street Northeast to the north, a single-family residence and undeveloped land to the east, undeveloped forested land and chicken farm facilities to the south, and single-family residences on large lots to the west. Topography on the site generally slopes from southeast to northwest with elevations ranging from approximately 408 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 360 feet amsl. The subject property is within the Snohomish River Watershed(Water Resources Inventory Area 7). Figure 1. Subject Property. Subject Property V� Location w fir, i' Nt . IL AV— A� +}� � .,,I,�a�:�j �: ►a�.�► C _ "l v► •ir. Ala , A. 4/22/2024.9:58:08 AM 1:7,500 0 AS 470 9400 Subject Area 0 70 140 280 m M9vM Somuvien c�nsu..my 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation I Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-8 1.1 Critical Area Findings SVC investigated the subject property and publicly accessible areas within 300 feet of the project area for potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species in December of 2022 and April of 2024. Using current methodology,the site identified four potentially- regulated wetlands onsite (Wetlands A — D) and one stream (Stream Z) on the subject property. Additionally, one offsite wetland (Wetland 1) was identified offsite to the west within 300 feet of the subject property. AMC 20.93.800(a) has adopted the current wetland rating system for western Washington (Hruby and Yahnke 2023). Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed.These are wetlands that functions may be replaced, or in some cases improved. Category III wetlands include wetlands with moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points) that have generally been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated in the landscape than Category II wetlands. Wetlands A and D are classified as Category IV wetlands,and Wetlands B,C,and 1 are classified as Category III wetlands with moderate habitat scores ranging from 6 to 7 points. Stream Z is a classified as a Type Ns (non- fish habitat, seasonal) water. No other potentially-regulated wetlands,waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat,and/or priority species were identified within 300 feet of the subject property during the site investigations. Critical area findings are described in a LVetland and Fish and Wildlife HabitatAssessment.•Lindsay Annexation report by SVC dated June 21,2024. 1.2 Regulatory Considerations 1.2.1 Local Buffer Requirements Per AMC 20.93.830(a) Table 20.93-4,wetland buffers are based on wetland category and the level of habitat functions. Category IV wetlands are subject to a standard 40-foot buffer regardless of habitat score. Category III wetlands with moderate habitat scores ranging from 6 to 7 points are subject to standard 110-foot buffer. Table 1 below summarize the standard buffer widths for the identified wetlands. Per AMC 20.93.830(1), for wetlands with habitat scores of 6 points or more, these buffer widths presume the implementation of a relatively undisturbed vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide protected between the wetland and: i. A legally protected, relatively undisturbed and vegetated area (e.g., priority habitats, compensatory mitigation sites, wildlife areas/refuges, national, county, and state parks where they have habitat management plans with areas designated as natural,natural forest, or natural area preserve); ii. An area that is the site of a watershed project identified within, and full consistent with a watershed plan as defined by RCW 89.08.460; iii. An area where development is prohibited according to the provisions of the local shoreline master program; or iv. An area with equivalent habitat quality that has conservation status in perpetuity, in consultation with WDFW. Additionally, for all wetlands, regardless of category, standard buffer widths require the implementation of minimization measures described in AMC 20.93.830(a) Table 20.93-5 (Table 2 below). An Existing Conditions Exhibit is provided on Sheet 1 of Appendix A. 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 2 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-9 Table 1. Wetland Buffer Summary. Wetland Category Habitat Score Standard Buffer Width (Feet) A IV 6 40 B III 7 110 C III 6 110 D IV 5 40 1 III 6 110 Table 2. Re uired Measures to Minimize Im acts to Wetlands Examples of Activities and Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Uses that Cause Disturbances • Direct lights away from critical areas and buffers • Parking lots,warehouses,Lights manufacturing,residential, • Day use only regulations preventing the need for lights parks • Timer on lights • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetlands • If warranted,enhance existing buffer with native • Manufacturing vegetation planting adjacent to noise source Noise • For activities that generate relatively continuous, • Residential potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining establish an additional 10 ft heavily vegetated buffer strip • Seasonal limitations on hours of operation • Parking lots,roads, • Route all new,untreated runoff away from manufacturing,residential wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered Toxic runoff* areas,application of • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides agricultural pesticides, within 150 feet of critical area or buffer landscaping • Apply integrated pest management • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for • Parking lots,roads, roads and existing adjacent development Stormwater manufacturing,residential • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly runoff areas, commercial, enters the buffer landscaping • Use Low Intensity Development technique • Impermeable surfaces • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer Change in • Lawns new runoff from impervious surfaces and new water regime • Tilling lawns • Forest and forest duff • Retain minimum forest and forest duff removal • Use privacy fencing; plant dense vegetation to Pets and delineate buffer edge and to discourage human • Residential areas and parks disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the disturbance ecoregion • Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement Dust • Construction sites • Use best management practices to control dust 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 3 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-10 Examples of Activities and Disturbance Uses that Cause Disturbances Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Disruption of • Roads,residential, • Maintain connection to offsite areas that are undisturbed corridors or commercial,manufacturing,connections landscaping, stormwater • Restore corridors or connections to offsite habitats by replanting *These examples are not necessarily adequate for minimizing toxic runoff if threatened or endangered species are present at the site. In order to adopt the standard buffer widths described in AMC 20.93.830(a) Table 20.93-4, the greatest light and noise generating sources (such as internal access roads) associated with the proposed development will be located interior to the development away from critical areas to the greatest extent feasible. All new runoff will be collected in stormwater detention ponds and treated prior to being dispersed to wetland and stream buffers to retain existing site drainage patterns and hydrology. Protected corridors will be established where feasible onsite,maintaining accessibility between higher functioning habitat areas for local wildlife.Furthermore,critical areas signs and fencing will be installed along the boundaries of critical areas buffers to prevent intrusion. Stream Z onsite is classified as a Type Ns (non-fish habitat,seasonal)water.Per AMC 20.93.730 Table 20.93-3, Type Ns waters are subject to a standard 50-foot buffer. Table 3 below summarizes the standard buffer width for Stream Z. Table 3. Stream Buffer Summary. Stream Typing Standard Buffer Width (feet) Z Type Ns 50 Per AMC 20.93.730(a), stream buffer widths shall be maintained on both sides of the stream channel and all existing native vegetation shall be preserved. The existing buffer areas associated with Stream Z onsite are degraded due to mowing, and the encroachment of non-native invasive species. Per AMC 20.93.340 an additional 15-foot building setback is required from the edge of any critical area buffer. 1.2.2 State Regulations All onsite wetlands and streams are regulated as surface waters of the state by the WSDOE under the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.48. 1.2.3 Federal Regulations On January 18,2023,USACE and EPA published a revised definition of"Waters of the United States" (USACE and EPA,2023a). The revised rule became effective on March 20,2023. On May 25,2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision affecting the definition of Waters of the United States, or "WOTUS", in Sackett Et Ux. V Environmental Protection Agency Et Al. On August 29, 2023, the US EPA and USACE issued a final rule to amend the final"Revised Definition of Waters of the United States"' rule. The amendment conforms the definition of"Waters of the United States" to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Sackett Et Ux. V Environmental Protection Agency Et Al case. 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 4 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-11 The 2023 revised and amended definition of Waters of the United States defines"adjacent"as"having a continuous surface connection." The revised and amended definition of "Waters of the United States"is as follows: (a) Waters of the United States means.- (1) Wlaters which are. (i) Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (ii) The territorial seas;or(iii)Interstate waters; (2)Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified underparagraph (a)(5) of this section; (3) Tributaries of waters identified inparagraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; (4) Wletlands adjacent to the following waters: (i) Wlaters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;or(ii) Kelatively permanent,standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph(a)(2)or(a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters; (5)Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in paragraphs(a)(1)through (4) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or(a)(3) of this section; (b) The following are not "waters of the United States"even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of this section: (1) Wlaste treatment ystems, including treatmentponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean WlaterAct; (2)Prior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status asprior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean VaterAct, the final authority regarding Clean VaterActjurisdiction remains with EPA; (3) Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water; (4)Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased; (5)Artificial lakes orponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing (6)Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons; (7) Vate filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fall, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States;and 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 5 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-12 (8) Swales and erosional features (e.g.,gullies, small wasbes) cbaracteri.Zed by loan volume, infrequent, or short duration flox. Stream Z is a tributary to Edgecomb Creek, which connects into Middle Fork Quilceda Creek, a tributary to the main stem of Quilceda Creek which outlets directly to the Puget Sound, a regulated Water of the United States (WOTUS). As such, Stream Z is regulated as a WOTUS under Category (a)(3) above. Wetlands A - C and offsite Wetland 1 all share hydrological connections to the onsite ditches that outlet into Edgecomb Creek offsite to the west; thus Wetlands A - C and Wetland 1 are likely federally regulated wetlands under the CWA, and as such are likely regulated as WOTUS under category (a)(4). Wetland D is a small,isolated depression that lacks and outlet and therefore does not share a surface water connection with potential WOTUS and does not meet the criteria of an adjacent wetland under category (a)(4). 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 6 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-13 Chapter 2. Proposed Project 2.1 Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed project is to provide additional housing units within the City of Arlington to help alleviate the shortage of residences in the greater Seattle area. 2.2 Project Description The Applicant proposes residential redevelopment of the subject property to include 167 single-family residences, internal site access and parking, open space areas, utilities, and stormwater facilities including several stormwater detention ponds that will disperse treated runoff to the outer portion of the wetland and stream buffer areas onsite to maintain existing site drainage patterns and hydrology. The proposed residential development requires direct impacts to Wetland D and direct and indirect impacts to Wetlands A and C in order to provide a high-density residential development and associated infrastructure consistent with City development standards and the high capacity residential site zoning. Additionally, temporary and permanent impacts to the buffers of Wetlands A, B, and C, offsite Wetland 1, and Stream Z are required to support the construction of a walking trail and stormwater dispersion outfalls/trenches at a location that maintains existing site drainage patterns and hydrology. The project proposes to mitigate for these impacts through a combination of onsite wetland creation and enhancement, buffer creation, and restoration of all temporary impacts. 2.3 Site Planning 2.3.1 Mitigation Sequencing Per AMC 20.93.740 and 20.93.840,adequate mitigation must be provided in order to avoid significant environmental impacts for activities where impacts to wetlands, streams, and/or associated buffers are unavoidable. What is considered adequate mitigation will depend on the nature and magnitude of the impact. According to AMC 20.93.100, "mitigation" is defined as avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse critical area impacts in the following sequential order of preference: a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action orparts of actions. The project was carefully designed to minimize impacts to critical areas to the greatest extent feasible by fully utilizing all developable upland areas onsite. However, due to the odd shape of the subject property which constrains the orientation of development, the spatial requirements needed to provide a high-density residential development and associated infrastructure consistent with City development standards and the high capacity residential zoning designation of the site, the extent of encumbrance by the identified critical areas and associated buffers throughout the site, complete avoidance is not feasible. In order to meet density requirements and standards for open space, site access, utilities, and stormwater facilities associated with the proposed residential development, the proposed project requires the necessary,unavoidable complete fill of Wetland D, as well as the partial fill of Wetlands A and C. Additionally, permanent and temporary impacts to the buffers of Wetlands A, B, and C, offsite Wetland 1, and Stream Z are necessary and unavoidable in order to provide pedestrian walking trails and stormwater dispersion outfalls/trenches necessary to maintained existing site drainage patterns and hydrology. 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 7 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-14 b. Minimise or limit the degree or magnitude of actions and their implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts. The proposed project was carefully designed to limit critical area impacts to the minimum necessary while providing the space necessary to support a high-density residential development and associated infrastructure and maintain existing site drainage patterns and hydrology. Direct wetland impacts are limited to the fill of one small (<200 square feet), isolated Category IV wetland (Wetland D), a portion of the lower functioning, Category IV wetland (Wetland A), and a portion of Wetland C that is degraded due mowing and the encroachment of non-native invasive species. Permanent impacts to the critical area buffers onsite are situated within the outer 25 percent of the buffers and are limited to the footprint of the proposed pedestrian trail. Remaining buffer impacts are limited to temporary impacts necessary for grading during trail construction and the installation of stormwater outfalls/dispersion trenches necessary to retain existing site drainage patterns and hydrology. All buffer impacts are located in portions of the critical areas buffers degraded by prior land clearing,mowing,and the encroachment of non-native invasive species.In addition to limiting all permanent and temporary impacts to low-functioning,degraded areas onsite,minimization measures outlined in AMC 20.93.830(a) Table 20.93-5 will be implemented. Furthermore, all appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures consisting of silt fencing, seeding of disturbed soils, and items outlined in the project's erosion and stormwater control plans,to be prepared by a Project Engineer prior to clearing and grading activities, will be implemented throughout the duration of project construction. c. Becting the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected Mitigate any impacts by repairing rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment. All temporary buffer impacts will be fully restored immediately following the completion of site grading to prevent erosion and sedimentation. Permanent direct impacts to Wetlands A, C, and D and permanent impacts to wetland and stream buffers cannot be rectified. Indirect impacts to Wetlands A and C will ultimately transition to function as wetland buffer. Areas indirectly impacted by the proposed development consist of degraded areas impacted by prior land clearing, mowing, and the encroachment of non-native invasive species. These wetland areas will be enhanced with native vegetation to improve habitat and screening between the remainder of the wetlands and the proposed development,improving existing onsite wetland functions. d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. The proposed direct and indirect wetland impacts are the result of permanent actions that cannot be reduced or eliminated over time. However, additional potential impacts to critical areas will be reduced over time through a combination of buffer and wetland enhancement activities which will include densely planting targeted, degraded areas with appropriate native vegetation. Furthermore, appropriate fencing and critical areas signs will be posted to discourage intrusion into the critical areas and associated buffers consistent with the requirements of AMC 20.93.290. e. Compensating for the impact by replacing enhancing orproviding substitute resources or environments. 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 8 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-15 Direct impacts to Wetlands A,C,and D,indirect impacts to Wetlands A and C,and permanent impacts to the onsite wetland and stream buffer areas will be compensated through a combination of onsite, in-kind wetland creation and enhancement and buffer creation and enhancement actions. The proposed onsite mitigation actions aim to establish higher functioning wetland habitat,improve screening and habitat between the identified critical areas and the proposed development,and,where feasible,establish protected corridors maintaining connectivity accessibility between onsite critical areas. It is anticipated that these measures will achieve a net positive ecological benefit onsite and in the greater Snohomish River watershed, and exceed the mitigation ratios establish in AMC 20.93.840(d) Table 20.93-7 to ensure no net loss of wetland or critical area buffer functions onsite. f. Monitoring the ha.Zard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. The wetland creation and enhancement areas and buffer creation and restoration areas will be maintained and monitored for a period of 10 years to ensure the success of mitigation actions, consistent with the requirements of AMC 20.93.850 and interagency guidance(WSDOE et al., 2021).Appropriate contingency measures will be implemented if monitoring indicates that the goals and performance standard of the mitigation plan are not being met. 2.3.2 Mitigation Requirements—Streams and Surface Water Features Per AMC 20.93.740(a), in order to avoid significant environmental impacts for those activities not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program and allowed pursuant to Section 20.93.720, the applicant for a land use or development permit will select one or more of the following mitigation actions,listed in order of preference: 1. On-site environmentaly critical area restoration/improvement—Restoration or improvement in functional value of degraded on-site waterways and/or their buffers at a two to one ratio (two square feet for every one square foot impacted). 2. On-site ECA/Creation—Creation of on-site waterways and their buffers at a two to one ratio (two square feet for every one square foot impacted). 3. On-site ECA buffer restoration—Restoration or improvement in functional value of degraded on-site wateraay buffers at a ratio of six to one. As mentioned in the mitigation sequencing (Section 2.3.1) described above, the proposed project requires necessary, unavoidable permanent impacts to the buffer of Stream Z to support the construction of a pedestrian trail and stormwater dispersion outfalls/trenches at a location that will maintain existing site drainage patterns and hydrology. Additional temporary impacts are also necessary for site grading and the construction of these facilities.The portions of the Stream Z buffer proposed to be impacted consist entirely of herbaceous areas degraded by mowing and the encroachment of non-native invasive species. Overall, approximately 2,467 square feet of buffer impacts are anticipated across the site, which will be offset through 8,684 square feet of buffer creation, exceeding a 2:1 ratio. Additionally, all temporary impacts will be fully restored immediately after construction is completed. With the implementation of buffer creation and restoration actions, no net loss of stream buffer functions is anticipated. 2.3.3 Activities Allowed in Wetland Buffers The proposed project requires permanent impacts to the buffers of Wetlands A, B, and C, and offsite Wetland 1 to support the construction of a pedestrian pathway and stormwater 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 9 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-16 outfalls/dispersion trenches at locations that maintain existing site drainage patterns and hydrology. Per AMC 20.93.820(3), the following activities may be permitted in wetland buffers: (A)Activities having minimal adverse impacts on buffers and no adverse impacts on regulated wetlands. These may include loam intensity,passive recreational activities such as loan impact trails in the outer twenty-five percent, non permanent wildlife watching blinds, show-term scientific or educational activities, and sports fishing The proposed pedestrian trail is a low impact development activity that is located in the outer 25-percent of the buffers of Wetlands A, B, and C, offsite Wetland 1, and Stream Z. Permanent buffer impacts, totaling 2,467 square feet, are limited to the footprint of the trail and will be offset through onsite buffer creation exceeding a 1:1 ratio. Temporary impacts from grading during the construction of the trail will be fully restored immediately after construction is complete. All temporary and permanent impacts are located in portions of the wetland buffers already degraded due to prior land clearing, mowing, and the encroachment of non-native invasive species. (B) Wlith respect to Category III and IV wetlands, stormwater management facilities having no reasonable alternative on-site location;or The proposed stormwater dispersion outfalls/trenches are located within the buffers of Category III and IV wetlands; and the locations are necessary to maintain existing site drainage patterns and hydrology. Impacts associated with these features will be limited to temporary buffer impacts during construction/installation, which will be fully restored immediately after site development is complete. All stormwater will undergo enhanced water quality treatment prior to being dispersed to wetland buffers, and wetland buffer enhancement is proposed to establish a dense native plant community to further disperse and remove pollutants from runoff before it reaches the wetlands. (C) Wlith respect to Category III and IV wetlands, development having no feasible alternative location when the following conditions have been met.-Impacts are the minimum necessary;Buffer impacts are mitigated through buffer averaging. No further impacts to wetland buffers are proposed onsite. 2.3.4 Mitigation Requirements—Wetlands Per AMC 20.93.840,in order to avoid significant environmental impacts, the applicant for a land use or development permit shall compensate for unavoidable wetland impacts, listed in order of preference. What is considered adequate mitigation will depend on the nature and magnitude of the potential impact. 1. On-site wetlands restoration/improvement—Restoration or improvement in functional value of degraded on- site wetlands and/or their buffers at the ratio listed in Table 20.93-7 according to the wetland type. 2. On-site wetlands creation—Creation of on-site wetlands and their buffers at the ratio listed in Table 20.93-7 according to the wetland type. 3. On-site wetlands buffer restoration—Restoration or improvement in functional value of degraded on-site wetland buffers at the ratio listed in Table 20.93-7 according to the wetland type. 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 10 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-17 4. Off-site wetlands protection—Where on-site protection is not possible, dedicate an exclusive easement for the protection of equivalent(in ecological type and function)wetland and its buffer on an off-site wetland at the ratio listed ' Table 20.93-7 according to the wetland type. The location of any off-site wetland mitigation area shall be located within the same watershed as the impact and as near to the site as possible,following this preferred order.• A. Contiguous to the impacted wetland, B. Within the same drainage basin where it would best provide the same function as the impacted wetland, and C. Elsewhere within the city. Compensatory mitigation for necessary, unavoidable direct and indirect wetland impacts will be provided through onsite, in kind wetland creation in order to meet the mitigation ratios specified under AMC 20.93.840(d)Table 20.93-7 and ensure no net loss of wetland functions onsite.Additional wetland and wetland buffer enhancement are also proposed in order to improve existing degraded critical areas functions onsite; however, wetland creation was determined to be more adequate to compensate for lost wetland functions due to the ratios required for enhancement to offset wetland impacts and the ability to compensate for the net loss in wetland area through wetland creation. 2.4 Description of Impacts 2.4.1 Wetland Impacts The proposed project requires the necessary and unavoidable complete fill of Wetland D, and partial fill of Wetlands A and C (11,399 square feet of wetland fill total). Additionally, the partial fill of Wetlands A and C will result in 12,003 square feet of indirect wetland impacts. Wetland functions for the wetlands proposed to be impacted have been assessed using the 2014 Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby and Yahnke, 2023). The wetland functions are summarized, and the wetland rating forms are provided in the Wletland and Fish and Wildlife HabitatAssessment Report•Lindsay Annexation (SVC, 2024). The proposed project will result in a complete loss of functions provided by total fill of Wetland D and partial loss of functions provided by partial fill of Wetlands A and C. A summary of wetland impacts is provided in Table 4. The proposed site plan and impacts are depicted on Sheet 2 of Appendix A. • Wetland A: Wetland A is a Palustrine Emergent, Seasonally Saturated slope wetland. The proposed fill will result in the partial loss of these areas,as well as indirect impacts to additional areas that will transition to function as buffer. The portions of Wetland A proposed to be filled are degraded due to mowing, the encroachment of non-native invasive species, and the lack of native shrub and tree cover. The remaining portions of Wetland A outside of the proposed fill will continue to be representative of the existing Cowardin classes and hydroperiods. • Wetland C: Wetland C is a Palustrine Emergent, Seasonally Saturated and Flooded depressional wetland.The proposed wetland fill will result in the partial loss of these areas,as well as indirect impacts to additional areas that will transition to function as buffer. The portions of Wetland C proposed to be filled are degraded due to mowing, the encroachment of non-native invasive species, and the lack of native shrub and tree cover. The remaining portions of Wetland C outside of the proposed fill will continue to be representative of the existing Cowardin classes and hydroperiods. 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 11 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-18 • Wetland D: Wetland D is a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub/Emergent, Seasonally Saturated depressional wetland.The proposed wetland fill will result in the complete loss of all associated wetland functions. Table 3. Su mary of Wetland Impacts Onsite Wetland HGM Cowardinl Ra g DOE Wetland Impact Impact Area Area A Slope PEMB IV 22,644 SF Direct(fill) 1,499 SF (0.52 ac) (0.034 ac) C Depressional PEMBC I11 29,723 SF Direct(fill) 9,783 SF (0.68 ac) (0.225 ac) D Depressional PSS/EMBC IV (117 F Direct(fi00 ll) (0.17 F Total Direct Wetland Impacts 11,399 SF (0.262 ac) A Slope PEMB IV 22,644 SF Indirect 690 SF (0.52 ac) (0.016 ac) C Depressional PEMBC III 29,723 SF Indirect 11,313 SF 0.68 ac 0.260 ac Total Indirect Wetland Impacts 12,003 SF 0.276 ac 1. Current WSDOE rating system(Hruby and Yahnke 2023)per AMC 20.93.800. 2. Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013); class based on vegetation: PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub; PEM = Palustrine Emergent.Modifiers for Water Regime or Special Situations:B=Seasonally Saturated;C=Seasonally Flooded. 2.4.2 Buffer Impacts The proposed project requires 2,467 square feet of permanent impacts to the buffers of Wetlands A, B, and C, offsite Wetland 1,and Stream Z, as well as 7,379 square feet of additional temporary buffer impacts associated with site grading, the construction of a pedestrian trail, and the construction/installation of stormwater outfalls/dispersion trenches. These impacts will primarily result in the loss of herbaceous areas already degraded due to mowing and the encroachment of non- native invasive species. All temporary impacts will be fully restored by replanting native vegetation. 2.5 Authorizations Proposed wetland impacts will require coordination and authorization from local, state, and federal agencies. The Applicant will apply for federal authorization under Section 404 of the CWA through Nationwide Permit (NWP) #29 —Residential Developments and will also require state authorization from WSDOE for Section 401 of the CWA through a Water Quality Certification and compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Program. Additionally, direct and indirect wetland impacts and buffer impacts will require coordination and authorization from the local agency (City of Arlington). 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 12 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-19 Chapter 3. Conceptual Mitigation Plan The proposed project impacts and mitigation actions attempt to closely adhere to local critical areas regulations specified in AMC 20.93 while also utilizing the best available science (Granger et al.,2005; Hruby et al.,2009;WSDOE et al.2006,and WSDOE et al.,2021).In general,compensatory mitigation should be located within the same watershed as the impact site and should be located where it is most likely to successfully replace lost functions and values that best benefit the impacted watershed. Potential compensatory wetland mitigation actions were examined in the context of both onsite and watershed processes to determine the most suitable wetland mitigation strategy. The proposed mitigation actions are intended to compensate for lost wetland functions and values by providing an overall improvement in the quality of water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions according to the needs of the site, local sub-basin, and overall Snohomish River watershed. The project proposes onsite wetland creation to mitigate the proposed direct and indirect impacts to Wetlands A, C, and D. In addition, onsite wetland enhancement, buffer enhancement, and buffer creation will be provided to further improve onsite wetland functions and screening between the identified critical areas and the proposed development.This chapter presents the mitigation details for the proposed residential development project. The Conceptual Mitigation Plan depicting existing conditions,proposed impacts, and onsite mitigation actions is included in Appendix A. The Applicant will submit any proposed substantial changes to the project or mitigation plan, such as significant changes to the amount, location, or design of mitigation; the goals, benchmarks, or performance standards; the monitoring or adaptive management provisions, to WSDOE for review and approval prior to implementation. Minor changes, such as alterations to the species listed in the planting plan,will be documented in the as-built report. 3.1 Mitigation Strategy 3.1.1 Wetland Mitigation Strategy The onsite mitigation actions are anticipated to compensate for the proposed direct and indirect wetland impacts through 69,115 square feet(1.587 acre) of compensatory wetland creation connecting the remaining portions of Wetlands A and C on the southern portion of the subject property. The compensatory wetland creation is proposed as mitigation according to local, state, and federal rules and guidance, and the mitigation ratios established in AMC 20.93.840(d) Table 20.93-7 and joint state and federal agency guidance (WSDOE et al., 2021). The area of calculations for the compensatory mitigation area are summarized in Table 5 below. In addition to the proposed compensatory wetland creation, 32,557 square feet (0.747 acre) of wetland enhancement are proposed to further offset the loss of functions provided by the wetlands proposed to be filled and provide a net gain in wetland area and functions onsite. 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 13 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-20 Table 5. Compensatory Wetland Miti ation Summary for Wetland Impacts Compensation WSDOE Impact Wetland Impact Type Area Rating' Creation/Re- (acre) Establishment Area(acre) Ratio A IV Direct 0.034 1.5:1 0.051 A IV Indirect 0.016 0.75:12 0.012 C III Direct 0.225 2:1 0.450 C III Indirect 0.260 1:12 0.260 D III Direct 0.003 1.5:1 0.004 Total Compensatory Wetland Creation Required: 0.777 Total Wetland Creation Proposed: 1.587 Notes: 1. WSDOE rating according to Washington State wetland rating system for Western Washington(Hruby and Yahnke,2023). 2. Indirect impacts are mitigated at one half the standard mitigation ratio for direct wetland impacts(WSDOE et al,2021). The proposed onsite wetland creation area will be located on the southern portion of the subject property, between/connecting Wetlands A and C. The wetland mitigation area has been designed to ensure the created wetland area will be protected by a minimum of a 110-foot"perimeter buffer".The wetland creation area will be separated from the proposed development by this "perimeter buffer" at a minimum. Currently, the area surrounding the wetland creation area consists of herbaceous plants and areas degraded due to mowing, the encroachment of non-native invasive species, and lack of native trees and shrubs. Following development, the wetland creation area will be situated in a protected corridor with Wetlands A, B, and C on a site developed with a high-density residential plat that meet the criteria of a high intensity land use. According to local and joint state and federal guidance (WSDOE et al,2021),Category III wetlands adjacent to high intensity land uses should have a protective 150-foot perimeter buffer. However, per AMC 20.93.830(a)(1), a 110-foot buffer associated with moderate land use impacts may be implemented when a relatively undisturbed vegetated corridor at least 100-feet wide is maintained between the wetland and any other protected areas,and minimization measures described in AMC 20.93.830 Table 20.93-5 are implemented.These measures will be enacted onsite to allow for a 110-foot perimeter buffer surrounding the wetland creation area. The 110-foot perimeter buffer overlaps with areas dominated by non-native invasive species and will be enhanced with native plantings (see section 3.1.2 below) to increase buffer functions surrounding the wetland creation site. The proposed wetland creation site will be further protected by the establishment of a protective easement or tract surrounding the wetland creation area and surrounding the existing wetlands and streams forming a connected corridor on the western portion of the subject property. The goal of the proposed compensatory wetland creation is to create a larger, higher functioning forested and/or scrub-shrub depressional wetland on the southern portion of the subject property by connecting Wetlands A and C. The existing wetland areas proposed to be impacted onsite consist of predominantly emergent slope/depressional wetlands with areas of seasonal flooding and saturation that are partially degraded by mowing and the encroachment of non-native invasive species. Furthermore, Wetland D is isolated in the landscape. As such, the proposed wetland creation area situated between Wetlands A and C will provide an increase in wetland functions onsite. 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 14 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-21 The wetland creation areas will be excavated from uplands between Wetlands A and C. At a minimum, the excavation should achieve a water table within twelve inches of the soil surface during the early growing season for at least two consecutive weeks. Organic topsoil can be added to the wetland creation site as needed to provide a suitable substrate for native plantings; topsoil may be sourced from onsite or an approved offsite supplier. Through careful design and utilization of best available science, the proposed mitigation plan has a high probability of success and persistence. The newly created wetland area will be installed in the same environment as the existing wetlands. The mitigation plan proposes to plant a variety of native tree, shrub, and groundcover species selected based on species wetland indicator statuses, targeted hydroperiods,local topography, and species currently present in the existing onsite wetland areas. By following the site preparation specifications outlined herein (e.g., excavation, topsoil installation as needed, and plantings), the wetland creation area will be able to maintain wetland hydrology during the growing season in most years to match the existing hydrologic regimes of the wetland areas proposed to be impacted and to provide functional wetland habitat. In addition to the proposed wetland creation actions, the entirety of Wetland A and targeted areas in Wetland C that are currently degraded due to mowing and the encroachment of non-native invasive species will be enhanced by removing non-native invasive species and planting a dense assortment of native trees, shrubs, and groundcover to improve existing wetland functions onsite. Overall, the proposed wetland creation and wetland enhancement actions are anticipated to provide a net lift in wetland functions onsite when compared to the existing, degraded wetland areas proposed to be impacted by improving horizontal and vertical plant diversity which will improve opportunities for browsing, cover, and nesting, and by increasing plant density which will slow and attenuate surface runoff,improving water quality and hydrologic functions. 3.1.2 Buffer Mitigation Strategy In order to offset 2,467 square feet of permanent wetland and stream buffer impacts, 8,684 square feet of buffer creation is proposed. Additionally, targeted buffer areas (totaling 101,308 square feet) that are currently degraded due to mowing, the encroachment of non-native invasive species, and largely lacking native tree and shrub cover,will be enhanced.Throughout both the buffer creation and buffer enhancement areas,non-native invasive species and other degradations (trash,debris, etc.) will be removed, and the areas will be densely planted with an assortment of native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. The buffer creation and enhancement areas are depicted in Appendix A. Providing native plantings within the buffer will enhance the habitat functions and critical area protection provided by the site, improve hydrology and quality of water leaving the project site, and increase buffer screening between the wetlands, Stream Z, and proposed development. Areas of established native vegetation will be retained. Overall, the proposed project will result in a net gain in ecological functions when compared to the existing degraded conditions of the existing wetland buffers. 3.1.3 Mitigation Recommendations The wetland creation, wetland enhancement, buffer creation and buffer enhancement proposed will include,but may not be limited to, the following recommendations: • Pre-treat invasive plants within the wetland buffer areas with a Washington Department of Agriculture approved herbicide. After pre-treatment, grub to remove the invasive plants and 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 15 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-22 replant all cleared areas with native trees, shrubs, and ground covers listed in the plan set. Pre- treatment of the invasive plants should occur a minimum of two weeks prior to removal; • Excavate a wetland creation area contiguous with/connecting Wetlands A and C to a sufficient depth to hold wetland hydrology; • Removal of all trash, refuse, and debris within the mitigation areas; • Plant all mitigation areas with native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers listed in the plan set, or substitutes approved by the responsible Project Scientist, to help retain soils, filter stormwater, and increase biodiversity; • Retention of established native vegetation where possible; • An approved native seed mix will be used to seed the disturbed areas after planting; • Maintain and control invasive plants annually, at a minimum, or more frequently if necessary. Maintenance to reduce the growth and spread of invasive plants is not restricted to chemical applications but may include hand removal,if warranted; • Provide dry-season irrigation as necessary to ensure native plant survival; • Direct exterior lights away from the critical areas wherever possible; and • Place all activities that generate excessive noise (e.g., generators and air conditioning equipment) away from the remaining critical areas where feasible. 3.2 Approach and Best Management Practices The proposed onsite mitigation actions will provide increased wetland functions and wetland and stream protections by the maintenance or improvement of wetland and wetland and stream buffer functions onsite. Mitigation actions should occur immediately after grading is complete. Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures will be implemented that consist of high-visibility fencing (HVF) installed around native vegetation along the reduced perimeter of the buffer, silt fencing between the graded areas and undisturbed buffer,plastic sheeting on stockpiled materials,and seeding of disturbed soils.These TESC measures should be installed prior to the start of development or mitigation actions and actively managed for the duration of the project. All equipment staging and materials stockpiles will be kept out of the critical areas and associated buffers,and the area will need to be kept free of spills and/or hazardous materials.All fill material for site preparation and road surfacing will be sourced from upland areas onsite or from approved suppliers and will need to be free of pollutants and hazardous materials. Construction materials along with all construction waste and debris will be effectively managed and stockpiled on paved surfaces and kept free of the critical areas and buffers. Following completion of the development, the entire site will be cleaned, and detail graded using hand tools wherever necessary, and TESC measures will be removed. 3.3 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards The goals and objectives for the onsite mitigation actions are based on replacing and improving onsite wetland and wetland and stream buffer functions impacted by the proposed project relative to existing conditions. These actions are capable of providing moderate to high levels of hydrologic, water quality, and habitat functions. The goals, objectives, and performance standards are listed below. "Cover"is used in this Mitigation Plan to mean the proportion of the ground surface that is covered by vegetation when viewed from above. Native recruits will be utilized in assessing performance standards unless otherwise specified 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 16 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-23 for a particular performance standard. Dead or dying plants may be replaced, and replacement plants may be utilized in assessing performance standards, unless otherwise specified for a particular performance standard. Goal 1—Compensate for the loss of 11,399 square feet of wetlands and 12,003 square feet of indirect wetland impacts by creating a minimum of 69,115 square feet of wetland area that provides a moderate level of habitat functions. Objective 1.1—Establish a minimum of 69,115 square feet of wetland creation area between Wetlands A and C. Performance Standard 1.1.1—The wetland creation area will measure at least 69,115 square feet in size as demonstrated by wetland delineations in Year 5 and Year 10. The wetland area will be delineated using the 1987Army Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual and the 2010 Wlestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Regional Supplement, Version 2. Performance Standard 1.1.2 — In at least 5 out of the 10 monitoring years, the wetland creation area will have surface water or a water table or saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface for a minimum of 14 consecutive days during the growing season. Wetland hydrology will be assessed through soil pits and/or direct observations. Objective 1.2 — Establish forested and scrub-shrub wetland habitat within the wetland creation area with diverse horizontal and vertical vegetation structure and species richness to provide habitat for wetland-associated wildlife. Performance Standard 1.2.1 — At the end of Year 1, minimum plant survivorship within the wetland creation areas will be at 90 percent of the number of installed trees and shrubs (replacement of lost plants allowed). Native volunteer species may be included in the count. Performance Standard 1.2.2—Native woody vegetation in the wetland creation area will provide at least 20 percent cover by Year 3, at least 30 percent cover by Year 5, at least 50 percent cover by Year 7, and 75 percent cover by Year 10. Performance Standard 1.2.3 — In all monitoring years, the wetland creation areas will have at least 2 species of native trees and 3 species of native shrubs. Objective 1.3— Effectively control and/or eliminate non-native invasive species from the wetland creation area. Performance Standard 1.3.1 — Non-native, invasive plants (excluding reed canary grass)will not make up more than 20 percent cover during all monitoring years. Non- native,invasive plants are plants listed by the Washington State Noxious Weed Board. Performance Standard 1.3.2—Reed canary grass cover will be reduced compared to baseline conditions established immediately prior to the mitigation actions: 15 percent reduction below baseline cover by Year 5,and 30 percent reduction below baseline by Year 10. 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 17 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-24 Performance Standard 1.4.3—State-listed,Class-A noxious weeds,purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and all non-native knotweeds and hybrids, and hybrids including Polygonum cuspidatum, P.polystachyum, P. sachalinense, P. bohemicum, etc. will be eradicated from the wetland creation area during all monitoring years. Goal 2—Enhance a minimum of 41,089 square feet of existing wetlands to provide a moderate level of habitat functions. Objective 2.1—Increase native woody plant cover within the wetland enhancement areas to create diverse horizontal and vertical vegetation structure and additional wildlife habitat. Performance Standard 2.1.1 — At the end of Year 1, minimum plant survivorship within the wetland enhancement area will be at least 90 percent of the number of installed trees and shrubs. Performance Standard 2.1.2 — Native woody vegetation in the wetland enhancement area will provide at least 20 percent cover by Year 3,at least 30 percent cover by Year 5, at least 50 percent cover by Year 7, and 75 percent cover by Year 10. Performance Standard 2.1.3 — In all monitoring years, the wetland enhancement areas will have at least 2 species of native trees and 3 species of native shrubs. Objective 2.2 — Effectively control non-native invasive species within the wetland enhancement areas. Performance Standard 2.2.1 — Non-native invasive plants, excluding reed canarygrass,will not make up more than 20 percent cover during all monitoring years. Non-native invasive plants are plants listed by the Washington State Noxious Weed Board. Performance Standard 2.2.2—During all monitoring years, Reed canary grass cover will not exceed the baseline percent cover established during Year 0 (As-Built). Performance Standard 1.2.3—State-listed,Class-A noxious weeds,purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and all non-native knotweeds and hybrids, and hybrids including Polygonum cuspidatum, P.polystachyum, P. sachalinense, P. bohemicum, etc. will be eradicated from the wetland enhancement area during all monitoring years. Goal 3— Enhance 109,992 square feet of buffer (which includes 8,684 square feet of buffer creation) to offset 2,467 square feet of permanent buffer impacts and improve onsite buffer functions by creating native woody plant communities. Objective 3.1—Establish 109,992 square feet of buffer enhancement areas that are vegetated with native woody plant cover to create diverse horizontal and vertical vegetation structure and wildlife habitat. Performance Standard 3.1.1 — At the end of Year 1, minimum plant survivorship within the buffer enhancement area will be at least 90 percent of the number of installed trees and shrubs. 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 18 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-25 Performance Standard 3.1.2 — Native woody vegetation in the wetland buffer enhancement areas will provide at least 20 percent cover by Year 3,at least 30 percent cover by Year 5, at least 50 percent cover by Year 7,and 75 percent cover by Year 10. Performance Standard 3.1.3—In all monitoring years,the buffer enhancement areas will have at least 2 native tree species and 4 native shrubs species. Objective 3.2—Effectively control and/or eliminate non-native invasive species in the buffer enhancement areas. Performance Standard 3.2.1 — Non-native invasive plants (excluding reed canary grass)will not make up more than 20 percent cover during all monitoring years. Non- native invasive plants are plants listed by the Washington State Noxious Weed Board. Performance Standard 3.2.2—During all monitoring years, Reed canary grass cover will not exceed the baseline percent cover established during Year 0 (As-Built). Performance Standard 3.2.3—State-listed,Class-A noxious weeds,purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and all non-native knotweeds and hybrids, and hybrids including Polygonum cuspidatum, P.polystachyum, P. sachalinense, P. bohemicum, etc. will be eradicated from the buffer enhancement area during all monitoring years. Goal 4—Restore 6,379 square feet of buffer to replace existing buffer functions in areas temporarily impacted by development activities. Objective 4.1—Establish native plant cover within the targeted buffer areas to create diverse horizontal and vertical vegetation structure and additional wildlife habitat. Performance Standard 4.1.1 — At the end of Year 1, minimum plant survivorship within the buffer restoration area will be at least 90 percent of the number of installed trees and shrubs. Performance Standard 4.1.2 — Native woody vegetation in the buffer restoration areas will provide at least 20 percent cover by Year 3, at least 30 percent cover by Year 5, at least 50 percent cover by Year 7, and 75 percent cover by Year 10. Performance Standard 4.1.3 — In all monitoring years, the buffer restoration area will have at least 2 species of native trees and 3 species of native shrubs. Objective 4.2—Effectively control non-native invasive species within the buffer restoration area. Performance Standard 4.2.1 — Non-native invasive plants will not make up more than 20 percent cover during all monitoring years. Non-native invasive plants are plants listed by the Washington State Noxious Weed Board. 3.4 Plant Materials and Installation Plant Materials 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 19 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-26 All plant materials to be used for mitigation actions will be nursery grown stock from a reputable, local source. Only native species are to be used;no hybrids or cultivars will be allowed. Plant material provided will be typical of their species or variety; if not cuttings they will exhibit normal, densely developed branches and vigorous, fibrous root systems. Plants will be sound,healthy,vigorous plants free from defects, and all forms of disease and infestation. Container stock shall have been grown in its delivery container for not less than six months but not more than two years. Plants shall not exhibit rootbound conditions. Under no circumstances shall container stock be handled by their trunks,stems,or tops.Seed mixture used for hand or hydroseeding shall contain fresh, clean, and new crop seed mixed by an approved method. The mixture is specified in the plan set. All plant material shall be inspected by the Project Scientist upon delivery. Plant material not conforming to the specifications below will be rejected and replaced by the planting contractor. Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site. Fertilizer will be in the form of Agriform plant tabs or an approved like form. Mulch will consist of sterile wheat straw for seeded areas (if necessary) and clean recycled wood chips approximately '/c- inch to 1-inch in size and '/2-inch thick for woody plants. The mulch material may be sourced from non-invasive woody materials sourced from the land clearing activities. Plant Scheduling, Species; Size, and Spacing Plant installation should occur as close to conclusion of the construction activities as possible to limit erosion and limit the temporal loss of function provided by the wetlands, stream and buffers. All planting should occur between September 1 and May 1 to ensure plants do not dry out after installation, or temporary irrigation measures may be necessary. Quality Control for Planting Plan All plant material shall be inspected by the qualified Project Scientist upon delivery. Plant material not conforming to the specifications above will be rejected and replaced by the planting contractor. Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site. Under no circumstances shall container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops. The landscape contractor shall provide the responsible Project Scientist with documentation of plant material that includes the supplying nursery contact information, plant species, plant quantities, and plant sizes. Product Handling,Delivery, and Storage All seed and fertilizer should be delivered in original, unopened, and undamaged containers showing weight, analysis, and name of manufacturer. This material should be stored in a manner to prevent wetting and deterioration.All precautions customary in good trade practice shall be taken in preparing plants for moving. Workmanship that fails to meet industry standards will be rejected. Plants will be packed, transported, and handled with care to ensure protection against injury and from drying out. If plants cannot be planted immediately upon delivery they should be protected with soil, wet peat moss, or in a manner acceptable to the responsible Project Scientist. Plants, fertilizer, and mulch not installed immediately upon delivery shall be secured on the site to prevent theft or tampering. No 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 20 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-27 plant shall be bound with rope or wire in a manner that could damage or break the branches. Plants transported on open vehicles should be secured with a protective covering to prevent windburn. Preparation and Installation of Plant Materials The planting contractor shall verify the location of all elements of the mitigation plan with the responsible Project Scientist prior to installation. The responsible Project Scientist reserves the right to adjust the locations of landscape elements during the installation period as appropriate. If obstructions are encountered that are not shown on the drawings,planting operations will cease until alternate plant locations have been selected by and/or approved by the Project Scientist. Circular plant pits with vertical sides will be excavated for all container stock. The pits should be at least 1.5 times the width of the rootball, and the depth of the pit should accommodate the entire root system. Broken roots should be pruned with a sharp instrument and rootballs should be thoroughly soaked prior to installation. Set plant material upright in the planting pit to proper grade and alignment.Water plants thoroughly midway through backfilling and add Agriform tablets. Water pits again upon completion of backfilling. No filling should occur around trunks or stems. Do not use frozen or muddy mixtures for backfilling.Form a ring of soil around the edge of each planting pit to retain water and install a 4- to 6-inch layer of mulch around the base of each container plant. Temporar,T�gation Specifications While the native species selected for mitigation actions are hardy and typically thrive in northwest conditions and the proposed actions are planned in areas with sufficient hydroperiods for the species selected, some individual plants might perish due to dry conditions. Therefore, irrigation or regular watering may be provided as necessary for the duration of the first two growing seasons, two times per week while the native plantings become established. If used, irrigation will be discontinued after two growing seasons. Frequency and amount of irrigation will be dependent upon climatic conditions and may require more or less frequent watering than two times per week. Invasive Plant Control and Removal Invasive species onsite to be removed include Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and any listed noxious weeds or other invasive species that are existing or may colonize the mitigation area. These species are found nearby; therefore, to ensure these species do not expand following the mitigation actions, invasive species within the mitigation areas will be pretreated with a root-killing herbicide approved for use in aquatic sites (e.g., e.g. Glyphosate 5.4 containing herbicide) a minimum of two weeks prior to being removed from the wetland and stream buffers.The pre-treatment with herbicide should occur prior to all planned mitigation actions,and spot treatment of any surviving other invasive vegetation should be performed again each fall prior to leaf senescence for a minimum of three years. 3.5 Maintenance & Monitoring Plan Conceptual Maintenance and Monitoring Plans are described below in accordance with AMC 20.93.390, and anticipated conditions from other regulatory agencies. The Applicant is committed to compliance with the mitigation plan and overall success of the project. As such, the Applicant will continue to maintain the mitigation areas,keeping the site free from of non-native invasive vegetation, trash, and yard waste. 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 21 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-28 The mitigation actions will require continued monitoring and maintenance to ensure the mitigation actions are successful.Therefore,the mitigation areas will be monitored for a period of ten years,with formal inspections by a qualified Project Scientist. Monitoring events will be scheduled at the time of construction, 30 days after planting, and minimally on an annual basis during Years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10. Closeout monitoring will also occur in Year 10. Delineation of compensatory wetland creation areas by a qualified Wetland Scientist will be conducted in Years 5 and 10 to ensure the success of the compensatory actions. Monitoring will consist of percent cover measurements and stem counts at permanent monitoring stations, walk-through surveys to identify invasive species presence and dead or dying enhancement plantings, photographs taken at fixed photo points, wildlife observations, and general qualitative habitat and wetland function observations.Data collected during monitoring visits will be appropriate for the performance standards of the relevant monitoring year. The permanent monitoring stations will be established such that the mitigation site is representatively sampled. Circular sample plots, approximately 30 feet in diameter(706 square feet),will be centered at each monitoring station.Sample plots will be located entirely within the proposed mitigation site. Sample plot shapes may need to be adjusted to ensure that sample plots do not cross the mitigation site boundaries; adjusted sample plot shapes should maintain the same area as the 30-foot-diameter circular sample plots.Mean survivorship and percent cover measurements from the sample plots will be used to estimate survivorship and percent cover across the mitigation site. To determine survivorship,individual tree and shrub stems within the relevant circular sampling plots will be counted. Plants which grow several stems from a single base will be counted as one individual plant.These trees and shrubs will then be recorded as dead/dying or alive.To determine percent cover and species richness of woody vegetation, each species of tree or shrub within the approximately 30- foot-diameter circular sampling plots will be recorded and identified as native or invasive. Plants may be recorded by genus if species is unable to be determined at the time of the monitoring visit. Herbaceous vegetation will be sampled from a 10-foot diameter (78.5 square feet), established at the same location as the center of each tree and shrub sample plot. Herbaceous vegetation within the sampling plot will be recorded to at least the genus level and identified as native or invasive. A list of observed tree, shrub, and herbaceous genera or species, cover estimates, and wetland indicator status will be included within each monitoring report. 3.6 Reporting Following construction, an as-built report will be submitted to the City of Arlington, WSDOE, and the USACE. Additionally, a brief monitoring report detailing the current ecological status of the wetland creation and enhancement and the buffer creation and enhancement actions, measurement of performance standards, and management recommendations will be prepared and submitted to the City of Arlington, WSDOE, and USACE within 90 days of each monitoring event to ensure full compliance with the mitigation plan. 3.7 Contingency Plan If monitoring results indicate that performance standards are not being met, it may be necessary to implement all or part of the contingency plan. Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise.Should any portions of the mitigation areas fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with Agency approval. Such plans are adaptive and should be prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 22 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-29 Contingency plans can include additional plant installation, erosion control, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. The Contingency measures outlined below can also be utilized in perpetuity to maintain the wetlands and buffers associated with the proposed project site. Contingency/maintenance activities may include,but are not limited to: 1. Using plugs instead of seed for emergent vegetation coverage where seeded material does not become well-established; 2. Replacing plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary; 3. Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate after two growing seasons with the same species or native species of similar form and function; 4. Irrigating the mitigation areas only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry,with a minimal quantity of water; 5. Reseeding and/or repair of wetland and buffer areas as necessary if erosion or sedimentation occurs; 6. Spot treat non-native invasive plant species; and 7. Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the buffer area as necessary. 3.8 Critical Area Protective Measures Long-term protection of the mitigation site shall be provided by placement in a separate critical area tract in which development is prohibited or by execution of an easement dedicated to the City of Arlington, a conservation organization, land trust, or similarly preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the city. The location and limitations associated with the mitigation area shall be shown on the face of the deed or plat applicable to the property and shall be recorded with the Snohomish County recording department. 3.9 Financial Assurances Under AMC 20.93.390(5), performance security is required to assure that all actions approved under this Mitigation Plan are satisfactorily completed in accordance with the mitigation plan, performance standards,and regulatory conditions of approval.Prior to final inspection,a maintenance and warranty security (bond) shall be obtained according to the conditions of approved development agreements with the City and appropriate permitting agencies. 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 23 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-30 Chapter 4. Closure The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application for the Lindsay Annexation project. These findings and conclusions have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this assessment report are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the operation scope, budget,and schedule of this project. No warranty,expressed or implied,is made.In addition,changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Due to such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this assessment may need to be revised wholly or in part in the future. 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation 24 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-31 Chapter 5. References Arlington Municipal Code (AMC). 2025. Chapter 20.93 - Critical Areas Ordinances. Website: http s://www.arhngtonwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8106/Chapter-2093-Critical-Area- Ordinance. Current through January 29, 2025. City of Arlington. 2023. City of Arlington Zoning Map. Website: chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/DocumentCent er/View/7357/Zoning-Map-24x36-PDF. Comp Plan Amendment June 6, 2023. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States.FGDC-STD-004-2013.Second Edition.Wetlands Subcommittee,Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington,DC. Hruby,T.,Harper,K., and S. Stanley. 2009. Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach. Ecology Publication #09-06-032. December 2009. Hruby,T.&Yahnke,A. 2023. Washington State Wetland luting System for Western Washington:2014 Update (Version 2). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #23-06-009. Soundview Consultants (SVC). 2024. Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report- Lindsay Annexation. June 21,2024. Gig Harbor,Washington. Supreme Court of the United States. Sackett Et Ux. V Environmental Protection Agency Et Al. May 25, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-05/Sackett%20Opinion.pdf. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule. Federal Register. Volume 73,Number 70 (33 CFR Parts 325 & 332, 40 CFR Part 230). USACE and EPA.2023a. `Revised Definition of Waters of the United States."88 FR 3004. January 18,2023. USACE and EPA. 2023b. Revised Definition of"Waters of the United States"; Conforming. Final Rule. Federal Register.Volume 88,Number 173 (33 CFR Part 328, 40 CFR Part 120). September 8,2023. Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE),U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans(Version 1.0,March 2006,WSDOE publication# 06-06-11b).WSDOE Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program. Olympia,Washington. WSDOE, USACE, and EPA Region 10. 2021. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State-Part 1:Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 2). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #21-06- 003. 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation 25 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-32 Appendix A - Existing Conditions and Site Plans 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-33 EXISTING CONDITIONS VICINITY MAP ---------- 4—J 0 17AD'ST REET NE --------------- -------------- ----------- D Z _7F ;J M 2 C3 = IL 2 C) E O A ------ SOURCE:ESR1(ACCESSED 01/27/2025) Z7A II 7j < z Z Z_ t! D -o CIO - ------------ �.; - *D-2 j LU M APPLICANT/OWNER „ o Z '" _ NAME: 4S INVESTORS STREAM TYPE NS �py ADDRESS: 11400 SE 8TH STREET,SUITE 200, BUFFER ------- BELLEVUE,WA 98004 0 CONTACT: ROB RISINGER -22 PHONE: (425)417-6004 0 -A z" E-MAIL: ROBR@MJSINVESTORS.COM, WETLAND D S. 7r CATEGORY IV LOCATION 40-FT BUFFER j� —1b THE NE Y4 OF SECTION 26, 117SF 0 1 TOWNSHIP 31N,RANGE 5E,WM D­. I ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT z ----------- SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC U ------ cl, 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE k, E. GIG HAP Z HARBOR,WA 98355 WETLAND 1 (253)514-8952 Z p tT C OFFSITE WETLAND CATEGORY III 11 0-FT BUFFER 11 0-FT BUFFER ­21 CATEGORY 111, DI-7. D 2 1j' 29,723 SF(ONSITE) s tj i Dl� z C) z .6 SHEET INDEX M SHEET SHEET TITLE. A T-11 I M1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS B M3.0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN&MITIGATION M2.0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN &MPACTS WETLAND A Z2, M3.1 PLANTSCHEDULE CATEGORY IV, M4.0 DETAILS, A-1 40-FT BUFFER -1 %21 0 100 200 4 22,644 SF A-3, WETLAND �2 CATEG6RY`iIL A� J 2 1 i0-FT BUFFER' GRAPHIC SCALE Fa -4�,71J5�Sf(QNSITEJ 1"=100' k\,. .12 qD­. . ). . . ­7 7- 6 PLAN LEGEND —PROPERTY LINE NOTES 1. SURVEY PROVIDED BY COMPANY,ADDRESS,PHONE EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY NUMBER. 66 z —APPROXIMATED WETLAND BOUNDARY 2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY LAND TECHNOLOGIES,INC. 18820 3RD AVE NE ARLINGTON WA 98223,360-652-9727 (NOT SURVEYED) X —STANDARD WETLAND BUFFER 3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY SOUNDVIEW *w.# WETLAND FLAG LOCATION k. . . . . . CONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. *DP4 DATA PLOT LOCATION —STREAM CENTERLINE DATE: 8/4/2025 STREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE(OHW) — — —STREAM BUFFER SCALE: AS SHOWN A04 STREAM OHW(ORDINARY HIGH WATER) BY: mw FLAG LOCATION —DITCH CENTERLINE Know what's below. EXISTING CONTOUR Call before you dig. JOB#: 2419.0002 ----------------- SHEET: M1.0 _j C-34 PROPOSED SITE PLAN&IMPACTS - 2ND STREET NE _ - -------- -------------I I - --- - - - N N r� ;J i cn Q 53 E Q W m a a o• �-�1 N [� I 05 974 P 52CE'> A \ 4 5 b 7 8 9 51 I O ,... 1-4 x 10 11 12 - _ - '^ is 7, Q V O 49 > ai ai C Q Q I W I�..GII \ 13 48 STREAM Z 47 TYPE NS \ 14 _ _ _ _ - _ 50-FT BUFFER 46 Is \ 45 16 �' I 130 I - WETLAND D 43 4 F IT, W �\. CATEGORY IV I �o 40-FT BUFFER 42 I - 117 SF FILLED 4, a n o h I a W o I 9 M M O Z /1 w' zg a �� --------------- _ \ 2, 20 22 ; . � a,40 I Y--I zi O`n \ I Z � yyou 27 NO F �O WETLAND 1 39 �/, °G o N OFFSITE WETLAND C 28 WETLAND A I I = z o 0 CATEGORY III \ CATEGORY III .... 2930 CATEGORY IV Q 00 o N 110-FT BUFFER 110-FT BUFFER 31 32 110-FT BUFFER o 29,723 SF(ONSITE) ` 22,644 SF 36 I I H r x on z N \ i w 37 38 I I v 77.,� �. I �It-� 0 100 200 400 �� ��� �E�LAN CATEGORY III, III, FF - —__-- W� GRAPHIC SCALE -------------�---- -------_ = ��' 110-FFT Bu ER Ca 1"=100' - -= 4`3,71.�` -���NS17E�� PLAN LEGEND _-- PROPERTY LINE IMPACTS LEGEND CW. 3 WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND IMPACTS 66 —APPROXIMATED WETLAND BOUNDARY —TOTAL WETLAND FILL 11,399 SF O (NOT SURVEYED) FILL--WETLAND A 1,499 SF 5 — — —STREAM CENTERLINE FILL--WETLANDC 9,783 SF - - _ FILL--WETLAND D 117 SF STREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE(OHW) — — —EXISTING DITCH CENTERLINE OINDIRECT WETLAND IMPACTS 12,003 SF 3< —POST-CONSTRUCTION BUFFER INDIRECT IMPACTS-WETLAND A 690 SF / / INDIRECT IMPACTS-WETLAND C 11,313 SF DATE: g 4 2025 _ PROPOSED CLEARING LIMIT SCALE: AS SHOWN BUFFERIMPACTS —TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS 7,379 SF1 BY: MW (FOR GRADING AND UTILITIES;TO BE RESTORED) 3i R WR —PERMANENT BUFFER IMPACTS 2,467 SF Jos#: 2419.0002 �m (FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAIL) SHEET: M2.0 m r�s C-35 PROPOSED SITE PLAN&MITIGATION �auo N N a —J 7 7 7 172ND STR� NE '-' � m M M lV N N N ...... 0 n M MC) 53 I E z W a a �1 0 "� 1 05974 o. w 52 3--1 2 3 12 I Q �., Z Z 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 51 — - - - - •_ - _ _ _ rn a a a a a 50 I v J 4 V1 / O I R7 49 cc 00 LU M � . \ 13 _ _ 48 STREAM Z _ - _ 47 TYPE NS \ 14 50-FT BUFFER 46 Is 45 16 44z - 131 43 \ .I I Woo �o 1 I 42 '^ z mo N 41 I 19 P. c40. W m O - _ - I W P.20 21 \ 22 23 24 25 40 z P. 0 0 27 I z V N o O WETLAND 1 28 39 I _1 z m 0 0 OFFSITE WETLAND C WETLAND A CATEGORY III \ CATEGORY III 29 30 CATEGORY IV Q x o 0 110-FT BUFFER 110-FT BUFFER 31 32 110-FT BUFFER 7 0p 29,723 SF(ONSITE) 22,644 SF ^ z N M 36 H W O o r o r _ Z o \ \ I• 37 38 I m 0 100 200 4 WETLAND B �. CATEGORY III I I I 110-FT BUFFER GRAPHIC SCALP, \ IL I 45,715 SFLL(ONSITE) 1"=100' - . . .• PLAN LEGEND -- PROPERTY LINE MITIGATION LEGEND WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND MITIGATION BUFFER MITIGATION 66 —APPROXIMATED WETLAND BOUNDARY 0 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT 29,086 SF —WETLAND AS BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 12,003 SF O (NOT SURVEYED) (INDIRECT WETLAND IMPACTS) — — — — —POST CONSTRUCTION BUFFER —WETLAND CREATION 69,115 SF BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 101,308 SF W — • • — • —STREAM CENTERLINE FENCES&SIGNS BUFFER RESTORATION 6,379 SF - STREAMORDINARYHIGHWATERLINE(OHW) — — —POST-CONSTRUCTION BUFFER/ (FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION 3a CRITICAL AREA FENCE 1,235 SF RELATED IMPACTS) — — —EXISTING DITCH CENTERLINE DATE: 8/4/202$ CRITICAL AREA SIGN 23 SIGNS BUFFER CREATION 8,684 SF SCALE: AS SHOWN BY: MW 3 WR Jos#: 2419.0002 m SHEET: M3.0 _'s r�a C-36 PLANT SCHEDULE cq PLANT SCHEDULE o Areas : 69,115 41,089 15,063 101.308 226,575 4-2 -6 Cov'g(%): 100 75 100 75 n In Trees(%): 50 50 50 50 N N N Shrubs(%): 50 50 50 50 � � a w Welland Wet ad Buffer Creatioaaad Spacing Height Size N O Scientific Name Common Name WLStatas Creation Enhancement Restoration Baffor Enhaneemeat TOTAL (rota.) (min.) (min-) Planting Area C� J VI TREES O 0) z � al lmorubra red alder FAC 0 0 0 100 too IOA 3ft Igal Drs/Moist-on hammock ( 1 a a FYangula pwshi.n.(Ithumrtus p) cars FAC 0 0 4 I8 22 10 ft 3 it 2 gal Dr) cas � M � C Malusfusea(Pyrusf.) Pacific crabapple FACW 18 8 0 0 26 10 ft 3ft 2ga1 Wet-in wetland W N Pkea sirehensis SiOm spruce FAC 27 12 4 27 70 10 ft 3ft Sgal Moist-oa hummock r--1 y � a � zz Populus trichocarpa black cottonwood FAC 19 0 8 0 26 10 ft 3ft 2ga1 Moist/Wet-on hummock O fN, Q �+ ;3 17 0 �J J E N Pseudorsuga menziesii Douglas fir FACU 0 0 4 18 22 ]0 ft 3ft 5gal Dry 17 p� c/ O a prS3j Saf lasiondrn Pacific willow FACW 45 23 8 54 130 10 ft 4ft Stakes Wet 0 0 W M pa Salix scoulermins Scoulei's willow FAC 142 60 31 ISO 413 5ft 4ft Stakes Dry / n � Salixsitchensis Sitka willow FACW 142 75 31 144 392 5ft 411 Stakes Moist/Wet N Thuja p/icma —stern redcedar FAC 9 4 0 0 13 10 D 3ft 5 gid Moist-on hummock Totahl 401 1 182 541 1 1214 SHRUBS Q Q Q v N e etrcimtum e maple FAC 0 0 0 89 89 10 ft 4ft 2 gal Dry/Moist O L W W c n s Corpus stolonifera red-osier dogwood FACW 692 335 0 0 1027 4ft 3ft 1gal Moist/Wet �� W N O p Crataegus douglasii Douglas hawthorn FAC 222 0 0 0 222 5ft 3ft 2 gal Moist ,�.,,// C Lonicera lnvo/ucrnra black twinberay FAC 116 0 0 0 116 4ft ft 1 gal MoisUWet W W N� 777 o Physocarpus capitatus Pacific ninebark FACW 222 43 0 0 265 5ft 2ft Igal Moist/Wet v o O O Rosa gymnocarpa bald hip rose FACU 0 0 70 556 626 4ft 2ft 1 gal Dry/Moist Rosa makana Nooks ease FAC 0 0 70 70 4ft 2ft 1 gal Dry F/~1 0 Rosa pisocapa clustered wild rose FAC 0 70 70 4ft 2ft 1 gal Wet F 1 O N M Rebus speclabilis var,spec/abi/is salmonbesy FAC 268 70 556 894 4ft 2ft 1 gal Moist Spiraea douglasii Douglas spsea FACW 346 67 413 4ft 2ft 1gal Moist/Wet aM Semphoriemin.albac em,/aerigrrrac mmon snowberr)' FACU 0 0 70 556 626 1 4 ft 211 1 gal Dry Total: 1598 713 1 350 1757 4418 GRASSES (Qty) (Qty) (Qty) (Qty) (Qty) Carex obm pm slough sedge OHL 500 0 0 0 100 4 f[ b in plug Wet Total: 500 0 0 0 51111 Wenana wetiana Bnrcer Creation and SEED MIXES(www.riverrefugeseed.com) WLStatus Creation Enhancement Restoration Buffer Enhancement TOTAL Native Upland Grass Mix#9 20 Ibs/acre (Qty) (Qty) (Qty) Qty) (Qty) Elymusglaueus Blue wildrye 30% Bromus cndnalus California bromc 25 Hordeum brachyan/hermrr Meadow barley 10 Fectuea roemeri Roemees fescue 10% ` o eschampsia elongata Slender hairgrass 10% grostls exam!. Spike bentgrass 5% Q Desrhampsia cespi/osa Tufted hairgoo, 5% Fesmca rubs vm. .be. Red fescue 5% Total(lbs): 0 1 0 1 7 0 7 Native Wetland Grass Mix#10 20 Ibs/acre Gly...in oreidentalis we fern mannagraas 40. 9 Beckmannia.cvzigachne American sloughgrass 30% Hordeum brachyamherum Meadow barley 20% z to ecurus ne ua/is Shortawn foxmil 10% Total(Ibs): 24 0 0 0 24 Moist re Rush Mix#I 0 Ishere (Q (Q ) (Q ) (Q ) (Q ) Carex 66 One-sided sedge 70% O Carex dens Dense sedge 12% 19 Junes effu sus Common rush 5% 5 Junes seams Slender rush 5% era 2� ✓uncus bufonius Toad Carex s/ipara Awl fruited sedge Carex obeinqua Slough sedge 3a at.(Ibs): 8 1 0 0 0 8 I-Scientific names and species identification taken from Flora ofthe Pacific Northwest,2ndEdition DATE: 8/4/2025 (Hitchcock and Cronquist,Ed by Giblin,Ledger,Dim,,and Olmstead 2018). 2-Over-sized container plants are suitable far replacement pending P jest Biologist approval. SCALE: AS SHOWN �$ 3-Alternate native plant species may be substituted or added with Project Biologist approval. 4-All disturbed and bare soil areas in the buf£to be seeded with a native grass seed mix. BY: MW 5-Stwb calculations based upon 5-ft average spacing. 6-Tree calculations based upon 10-ft average spacing. WR JOB#: 2419.0002 m SHEET: M3.1 _'s r�a C-37 DETAILS N N 7 C .n rn O � � Cl] 7 7 7 Critical Area Protection Area '� U) Iq Iq (D M M Sign Installation Guidelines , I N N O SPLIT RAIL FENCE DETAIL ;J ° U J DO NOT TO SCALE rr r • �+ C CRITICAL AREA 12°%1B"Aluminumsi nwithwhite P E Paint white with black levering. 6 V La PROTECTION AREA refl.Na background.g A 6.6'SPLIT N CEDAR POSTS d Install one per protected feature ! • �.,+�wwue. ` in a conspicuous place. 6. Q \\ Pressure treated 2"%4°(NOM.( 7 77Minimum of two galvanized or rainless fi ••"1 E z Wooden stake,metal or steelwood lag bolts to firmly secure sign. 4ft. fiberglass pose. 4TO 6'SPLIT 1,�. N O .W. 5 ft. ' min. (Carsonite style is ok provided CEDAR RAILS,TYP. N A 4'%4'pressure treated wooden it has an anchor.( 3'-0' E post with 1/2'chamfer at top. I� Q �, 7�, z Magnetic locator pin PITCH SURFACE TO DRAIN Y Q Magn ell domtor pin(e.g.,pipe,rebar, (e.g.,pipe,rebm, FINISHED GRADE O O 2g penny nail,etc placed 8-12"from a) ° past along NGPA line. 20 penny nail,etc.) _ f,� Placod 8-12"from =I II' fJT -III III past along CAPA line. Mry .T1 I.a CONCRETE FOOTING (Yi Quick-set Concrete - Quick-set Camretef•.I I II��NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL tC Q 333 2 It• 7.5 ft. Steel anchor or similar anchor pa min. min. may be substituted for m Crete 4-6" COMPACTED / p; GRANULAR on Type 2 signs provided it ��� SUB-BASE firmly anchors the post. 12'DIAM. W WWW Compacted native material 6' ZD 0 Compacted NOTES: N (� native material — — 1. POSTS AND RAILINGS PRE-CUT FOR ASSEMBLY. NOTES: 2. 3-RAIL DESIGNS ARE PERMITTED. 1.CAPA signs shall be placed no greater than 100 feet apart around the perimeter of the Critical Area Protection Area.Minimum placement shall include 3. FENCE SHALL BE PLACED AT APPROVED BUFFER EDGE. O one Type 1 sign per wetland,and at least one Type 1 sign shall be placed in any lot that borders the Critical Area Protection Area,unless otherwise approved Z uj a o by the County biologist. 2.Sign placement shall be subject to the approval of Snohomish County.Alternative sign designs may be submitted to Snohomish County for approval. 3.All signs must be secure and permanent. W 2 o No O N a M ,cam I—7 P. Z oz o 00 TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL,TYP. LIVE STAKE PLANTING DETAIL(TYPICAL) 7Q NOT TO SCALE F—I N O NOT TO SCALE C� STORAGE OF LIVE STAKES: 7 (1�..1 ^ §M ALL WOODY PLANT CUTTINGS COLLECTED MORE THAN H W vNi LOCATOR LATH(IF SPECIFIED) 12 HR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION,MUST BE CAREFULLY H z BOUND,SECURED,AND STORED OUT OF DIRECT 1 c•1 SUNLIGHT AND SUBMERGED IN CLEAN FRESH WATER ICI FOR A PERIOD OF UP TO TWO WEEKS. OUTDOOR TEMPERATURES MUST BE LESS THAN 50 DEGREES F AND TEMPERATURE INDOORS AND IN STORAGE CONTAINERS MUST BE BETWEEN 34 AND 50 DEGREES F. IF THE LIVE STAKES CANNOT BE INSTALLED DURING min.30 in. THE DORMANT SEASON,CUT DURING THE DORMANT above grade SEASON AND HOLD IN COLD STORAGE AT SET TOP OF ROOT MASS/ROOT TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 33 AND 39 DEGREES F FOR BALL FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE UP TO MONTHS. OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE 3 to 4 INCH LAYER OF MULCH-KEEP MULCH MIN.3" —I AWAY FROM TRUNK OF SHRUB UNDISTURBED OR 1..0 LEVE STAKES TO BE A MIN.112 INCH DIAMETER:MIN. y A COMPACTED SUBGRADE 48 INCH LENGTH. 2. USE 1121NCH MIN.DIAMETER REBAR OR ROCK BAR to -7-7 1—— TO MAKE PILOT HOLE WHEN PLANTING IN DENSE OR TAIL—TIII=11� I"I u' 11-I�II�' III II II NMI GRAVELYSOILS TOAMIN.DEPTH OF 18 INCHES. 1 W r 3. MANUALLY INSERT LIVE STAKE INTO PILOT HOLE _ IIJNJII TAPERED END UP AND TEMP SOIL AROUND BASE. NOTES: 11JII Ii III-IIIkI CUTTINGS SHOULD BE INSERTED TO A DEPTH OF AT 1.PLANT SHRUBS OF THE SAME SPECIES IN TM I I=11- LEAST 18 INCHES.LEAVE A MIN.OF 30'OF THE GROUPS OF 310 9 AS APPROPRIATE,OR AS SHOWN ON PLAN. min.18 in. III II II III CUTTING ABOVE GROUND SURFACE TO ALLOW FOR AVOID INSTALLING PLANTS IN STRAIGHT LINES TO ACHIEVER below grade II SUCCESSFUL FOLIAGE DEVELOPMENT. ° NATURAL-LOOKING LAYOUT. II II III q, MINUMUM TWO BUDS ABOVE GRADE. 2.EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTH OF ROOT MASS III I S. SET LIVE STAKES WITH DEAD-BLOW HAMMER. AND 2 X ROOT MASS DIAMETER.SPREAD ROOTS TO FULL - 6. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION. WIDTH OF CANOPY.SCARIFY SIDES OF PIT. III 11= 66 3.MIDWAYTHROUGH PLANTING ADD AGROFORM TABLET AND —1 .� WATER THOROUGHLY. L-- O 4.BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTED USING WATER ONLY. 5.WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION. 3a DATE: 8/4/2025 SCALE: AS SHOWN BY: MW 3 WR JOB#: 2419.0002 m SHEET: M4.0 _'s r�a C-38 Appendix B — Qualifications Project Manager: Kramer Canup Report Preparation By: Monique Metza Map Preparation By: Gerardo Solorzano Zaragoza Document Quality Assurance By: Morgan Kirsanov Kramer Canup is a Senior Project Manager and Environmental Scientist with 10 years of professional experience. Kramer has a professional background in project management, ecological restoration, vegetation monitoring, invasive plant management, monitoring protocol development, grant writing, tropical ecology,wildlife monitoring and environmental education. He currently manages residential and commercial projects, performs wetland and ordinary high-water delineations and shoreline assessments; conducts environmental code analysis and prepares environmental assessment and mitigation reports, biological evaluations, and permit applications to support clients through the planning and permitting processes. His noteworthy experiences include supporting clients with navigating environmental regulations related to land use and development, managing wetland and riparian restoration projects, leading wetland and ordinary high water delineations throughout the Puget Sound region, and instructing study abroad courses in the Peruvian Amazon for the University of Washington. Education:Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Studies with a minor in Ecological Restoration from the University of Washington. Professional Trainings:Basic Wetland Delineator Training with the Wetland Training Institute 40-hour USACE wetland delineation training. Kramer has been formally trained through the Washington State Department of Ecology,Coastal Training Program,How to Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark,Using the Washington State Wetland Rating System(2014),and Using the Credit-Debit Method for Estimating Mitigation Needs. Monique Metza is a Staff Scientist III/ Junior Project Manager with 8 years of professional experience. Monique has a background in Wildlife Biology, Ecology and Conservation. She currently supports Soundview in wetland, stream, and shoreline delineations and fish and wildlife habitat assessments; conducts environmental code analysis; and prepares environmental assessment and mitigation reports, biological evaluations, and permit applications to support clients through the regulatory and planning process for various land use projects. Her noteworthy experiences include analyzing large datasets to understand bat activity and the potential presence of disease in bat populations during winter seasons, collecting environmental samples to determine presence of the White-nose syndrome causing fungus in outdoor recreation areas, translocation of bighorn sheep to decrease prevalence of pneumonia in domestic and wild populations, and managing public lands to ensure Peregrine falcon nest success over multiple years. Education: Master of Arts and Science in Biology from the college of William & Mary, Virginia. Bachelor of Science in Organismal Biology from Montana State University, Bozeman. Professional Licenses/Certifications: Desktop GIS (Pace University).Wildlife Chemical Restraint and Immobilization Certification (Center for Wildlife Studies). Animal Health Certification (Baldy View Regional Occupational Program). Animal Science Certification (Baldy View Regional Occupational Program). Professional Trainings: Wildland Firefighter Type 2 (USFS). Qualified Author and Scientist Lists: 2022 Summer Acoustic Bat Monitoring Field Report, Devils Tower National Monument. National Park Service. 2021 Summer Acoustic Bat Monitoring Field Report, Devils Tower National Monument. National Park Service. Publications: Metza, M.L., Swaddle, J.P., (2024). Bats and Rockreation: is 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-39 recreation a vector of Pseudogymnoascus destructans at Devils Tower National Monument? [Unpublished master's thesis] Gerardo Solorzano Zaragoza has been a licensed Architect in Mexico since 2016, with 7 years of professional experience. Gerardo has a background in Architectural design for residential structural and industrial design. Currently he works with landscape, mitigation, tree assessment, and grading plans. Experience includes 7 years of AutoCAD and more than 11 years as a student using Architectural CAD programs for all types of processes. Education:Bachelor of Architecture from Mexico Colima State University & specialty of Design and History of Art(2016).Professional training:6 months Architectural design company(Panto Arquitectura Guadalajara Mexico, 2015) 6 months Architectural design company (Dcasa, Colima Mexico, 2015), Using professional blueprints, engineer calculations, CAD programs&files, structural&installations. Morgan Kirsanov is an Environmental Scientist III with 6 years of professional experience. She has a background in marine and freshwater ecology, wildlife and natural resource assessments, and monitoring wetland and riparian habitat restoration sites in the Pacific Northwest. She currently assists with performing wetland, stream,and shoreline delineations and fish and wildlife habitat assessments, conducting environmental code analysis, and preparing and/or providing final quality assurance/control for various types of scientific reports and permits for agency submittal. Her noteworthy experiences include analyzing datasets for wetland hydrology monitoring, collecting eDNA samples from streams for analysis, providing document quality assurance on critical area reports,mitigation plans,and permitting documents prior to submittal,and assisting with Endangered Species Act documentation for federal permit submittals. Education: Bachelor of Science degree in Biology with Marine Emphasis from Western Washington University, Bellingham. Professional Training: 40-hour Wetland Delineation Training (Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast and Arid West Regional Supplements),Using the 2014 Wetland Rating System,How to Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark,and Using the 2021 Interagency Wetland Mitigation Guidance.Qualified Author and Scientists Lists: Pierce County Wetland Specialist. 2419.0002—Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20,2025 C-40 D Updated PendingProJ'ect Area Site Plan and Mitigation Lindsay Subarea Plan Appendices • Appendices • November 2025 D-1 LEGEND A PORTION OF SECTION 25&26,TOWNSHIP 31 NORTH,RANGE 5 EAST,W.M. to Property in Contract Boundary Line �_■ - r1 E-4 g Rvhlof WoyUne U O w E Av Lo/,Ye --- Eishngforemen/Line J Z Cq C4 E isHngR dCen/en/he 0 O 0 a 80 IN, �- Eishng Edge olA Pho// z N>Q OIL. Erkhh9We d = Q>CV E-I,ag Wei d v' -Q C R oved Mill O +u. W-all-altion Addi O=q M .'� Existing Wetlantl 0o< _•� Excavation 0 Euh/gWe//andBn SUBAREA WITH Z Buffer Removvetl PENDING PROJECT --- � 7/ 1 Welland Buller Addition N 3 OpenSpa.Usable 1 z Op Open Space(RUOS) J LLO fed Open Space : O Space(OS) 'yS O w - LE PrNate Open Space ,.. - ww_ V,v � �z-s""TRH-; , M � ° J III J � O 1 _ I p p b J Q n I I— J 5 h h h_ � 5,882 sY -...._. oncepl C Vault -_ - �--- _- 1 RUOS-989 - 12]18s( ZZI ^ o h o ° -Lo153— o `o a `o 0 t m _ m w m '° o � oM. ° o `o•1 ROadD---- � ___ �' J � � � � a Lot 52 1 � F I I � Lot 51 0 5 0 0 ° - v m 0 ° 0 0 ° _ o 0o a Lot 50 RU05-988 °Lc ° 0 0 4• a a a j 989 sf — - .,. J ° ° o n a Lot 49 o ��Q y I� I WedaodZ s Road C -- _ Lot 48 RUGS-892 Lot 13 --� - --- w m 49,679 sf I - v 'a _^ m w N \ Lot 47 F m - M v O-8 Lot 14 ° _ - = w><z 0000� w.. JI ° 0 5 - _ c�v N n h n n n o J ° `o o - - - - w3u ° o `0 2 Lot 46 �Uo o...s b J J J __ ___ _ u - Lot 45 Lot 16 - Bfor f 1 n INP1._. 1751 o y = Lot 44 1 Residential sable Lot 130 Lot 43 \ v = J J o Open 5pac 983 Lot 17 - VO,,�.� g O O O O O ,� q 63,I55 sf LO}131 III I' R o,00889 V°t��3 Lot 42 o dot ETA .1 o w - � _ Lot 41 v M o _ o - ° o o 0 Road C 848 L � 9 i ®UOS-98 N v'°x 10 ^4 I/ 19,248 f W N r R606893 0 �b w Wetland ('� �b'ti +co/ wy'y Z_ S,ot + + + - 7 sf Vpf RUGS-890 �g3 J 13,91 � Z J 05_873 A + / -- Ll..l RoadF 849 J 902s Vol\B / 1 S + + �I // Q Wedged Create LU LU �. + °t%bb W&AuRdA BC / o yj Candhed � Q RUOS-891 'ot�g7 a ,� .� + Tr t 999 _ 3 14,994 sf 322,983tf y.l o r U - + a LL 0 a 3 - - 1 CLo a th St NE of 190 + n a o m 87°14 13"W OS-876 1,799 Ex. W 1 a) - m Z 584.34' sf 30'a do-�dU�ryEosemen! � � � � d a x o AF.N hao Ea7 0 - i0 W Z W EaA,F.M.09 enema/ eo6omi Orlaty - I o � A.rNnc�soza7os - E.,famg sr,Eg�evandutiNEosemem ���� A";�. - (��• _, u S1�_ N89°10'1 ,_ ! I,..)w A.F.K7708/60/70,9/042WI759ond9Gm6/9LU7fl EXHIBIT PROJECT AREA 0 100, 200' y - r Scale:1"=100' N ZO J w y 0 O O 0 O O a a 0 a SHEET CALL AT LEAST 2 El a} El BUSINESS DAYS 24x36 BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 25 109347 LDA