Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 30 - Lindsay Subarea Plan Final EIS City of Arlington � Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement Y 06 rim November 2025 G��Y U� ArlingtonCity of ��AtING``% E Community & Economic Development November 25, 2025 Subject: City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Plan and Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement Dear Reader, The City of Arlington,jointly with MJS Investors, is developing the Lindsay Subarea Plan and has completed a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzing potential impacts of implementing the plan. The Draft EIS was published on September 26, 2025, and the City provided a 30-day comment period. The Final EIS builds on the Draft EIS. Chapter 4 presents updates and clarifications, and Chapter 5 responds to comments on the Draft EIS. The City is considering adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) under RCW 43.21 C.440 and associated SEPA Rules in WAC 197-11 to streamline environmental review and permitting process for future proposals consistent with the PAO, Subarea Plan, and development regulations. This Planned Action EIS provides a broad assessment of potential environmental impacts of planning policies and planning-level decisions, comparing a "No Action" Alternative and an "Action" Alternative to help the City assess impacts, benefits, and trade-offs, and select a Preferred Alternative. As the City reviews and adopts new subarea plans, it is important to understand how the subarea fits into the City's and Snohomish County's long-term plans for growth and infrastructure investments and what environmental impacts may occur from such growth. This EIS evaluates potential impacts related to the following topics: Land Use and Urban Form, Natural Environment, Transportation, Public Services, and Utilities. The EIS analyzes two alternatives for the Lindsay Subarea, and the City selected Alternative 2 Proposal as the preferred alternative: • Alternative 1 No Action: Retain existing Residential Ultra Low-Capacity zoning and follow current development standards and capital improvement plans over the next 20 years. • Alternative 2 Proposal, Preferred Alternative: Implement AMC 20.44.032 to allow for low-to moderate-intensity housing such as small-lot homes, townhomes, and multifamily units, supported by infrastructure, transportation, and parks and trails investments. The Preferred Alternative includes more detail on the intended residential density and flexibility on building type variety. 18204 591h Avenue NE, . ; Arlington, 60 - i Please see the Fact Sheet for more information. Thank you for your interest in the Lindsay Subarea Plan and EIS. Sincerely, 4�1 too Amy Rusko, Community & Economic Development Director and SEPA Official Fact S Project Title Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Proposed Action and Alternative The City of Arlington,jointly with MJS Investors, is conducting a community planning process to develop a vision, plan, and implementation strategies for the Lindsay Subarea. This planning process will lay the groundwork for continued, coordinated, and efficient growth of the neighborhood. The final product is an adopted Lindsay Subarea Plan, which will be incorporated in the City's development code, and Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) to facilitate development that meets community goals. The subarea plan is being developed for consistency with the Growth Management Act, countywide planning policies, and the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan. The PAO will be developed under RCW 43.21 C.440 and associated SEPA rules in WAC 197- 11 based on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Future proposals consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance, Subarea Plan, and development regulations would have a streamlined environmental review and permitting process. The Planned Action EIS will assess two alternatives. The No Action alternative assumes no change to current regulations under the existing Residential Ultra Low Capacity zoning and development standards. Additionally, the City commitments, policies, and capital improvement plans would continue as planned over the next 20 years. The Action Alternative implements AMC 20.44.032 to accommodate low-to moderate-intensity residential uses, including small-lot detached single-family homes, townhomes, and multifamily housing. This alternative also includes investments in capital infrastructure, transportation improvements, and a comprehensive system of parks, open spaces, and trails within the subarea. Proponent MJS Investors Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Lead Agency City of Arlington Location The Lindsay Master Plan Subarea is bounded by SR 531 (172nd St NE) on the north, the 841n Ave NE alignment on the east, the 168t" St NE alignment on the south, and the 75t" Ave NE alignment on the west, in the Hilltop neighborhood. Tentative uate of ImplementailluidAction Subarea Plan adoption expected Winter 2025 Responsible 5F-ep► vfficiall Amy Rusko, Community and Economic Development Director City of Arlington 18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98233 arusko@arlingtonwa.gov arlingtonwa.gov (360) 403-3550 Contact Person Amy Rusko, Community and Economic Development Director City of Arlington 18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98233 arusko@arlingtonwa.gov (360) 403-3550 Required Approvals The following City of Arlington actions would be required to implement the Proposal: • Adoption of Lindsay Subarea plan • Adoption of Design and Development Regulations Amendments • Adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance Prior to City action, the State of Washington Department of Commerce will coordinate state agency review of the legislative proposal. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 After City action, the likely permits to be acquired by individual development proposals include but are not limited to land use permits, construction permits, building permits, and right-of-way use permits. Principal EIS Authors and Contributors Under the direction of the City of Arlington, the consultant team prepared the EIS as follows: • MAKERS: Prime, alternatives, land use/urban form, public services, noise, subarea plan, and outreach • Land Technologies Inc: Action alternative, utilities • Transpo Group: Transportation • Soundview: Natural environment Draft EIS Date of Issuaii%;e September 26, 2025 Public Comments on the Draft EIS The City received 6 comments from citizens, agencies, tribes, and all interested parties during the public comment period on the Draft EIS held from September 26, 2025 to October 27, 2025. Prior Environmental Review The City of Arlington developed an EIS in association with its Comprehensive Plan in 2024. See the Comprehensive Plan Appendix 0: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Subsequent Environmental Review If the Planned Action Ordinance is adopted, project-specific review would follow procedures outlined in the Planned Action Ordinance. Location of Background Data You may review the project website for more information at the project website below. If you desire clarification or have questions, please seethe contact person above. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Purchase/Availability of Elf- This EIS is posted on the website below. Print copies of the document are available for purchase at cost at City of Arlington, Community and Economic Development, 18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA, 98233. Please arrange the copies with the contact person above. Project website: https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/892/Lindsay-Subarea-Plan Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 vi r 0 1s ri* but *ion is The following agencies and organizations are receiving a notice that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for review. Federal & Tribal Agencies Regional & County . Arlington Postmaster &Office Agencies . Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians . Puget Sound Partnership • Tulalip Tribes . Puget Sound Regional Council . Snohomish County — Public Works State Agencies . Snohomish County — Planning . Department of Agriculture . Department of Archaeology and Historic Arlington, Adjacent Preservation Jurisdictions, Service . WSDOT Aviation Division Providers . Department of Commerce . Snohomish County . Department of Corrections . Snohomish County PUD . Department of Ecology . Snohomish Health District . Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council Waste Management (EFSEC) Arlington Public Works . Department of Fish and Wildlife Arlington School District • Department of Health Arlington Police Department • Department of Natural Resources North County Regional Fire Authority . Parks and Recreation Commission . Department of Social and Health Services City of Marysville • Department of Transportation Community Organizations . Department of Transportation - & Individuals Management of Mobility Division Property owners within 500 feet of the subarea Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I November 2025 vii Contents 1 SUMMARY 1 1.1 Introduction 2 1.2 Study Area 2 1.3 Purpose 4 1.4 SEPA Process 6 1.4.1 Environmental Review 6 1.4.2 Public Comment Opportunities 6 1.4.3 Scope of Environmental Review 7 1.5 Objectives and Alternatives 7 1.5.1 Objectives 7 1.5.2 Alternatives Summary 8 1.6 Key Issues & Options 8 1.7 Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation of the Proposal 9 1.8 Summary of Impacts & Mitigation Measures 9 1.8.1 Land Use and Urban Form 10 1.8.2 Natural Environment 11 1.8.3 Transportation 12 1.8.4 Public Services 13 1.8.5 Utilities 14 1.9 Significant Adverse Impacts 15 2 PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES 16 2.1 Introduction 17 2.1.1 Proposal Overview 17 2.1.2 Study Area 18 2.2 SEPA Process 19 2.2.1 Environmental Review Process 19 2.2.2 Scope of Environmental Review 19 2.3 Planning Context 21 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 viii 2.3.1 Arlington Comprehensive Plan 21 2.3.2 AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans 22 2.4 Public Engagement 24 2.5 Objectives and Alternatives 27 2.5.1 Proposal Objectives 27 2.5.2 Alternative 1: No Action 27 2.5.3 Alternative 2: Proposal, Preferred Alternative 29 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES 39 3.1 Land Use and Urban Form 40 3.1.1 Affected Environment 40 3.1.2 Potential Impacts 49 3.1.3 Mitigation Strategies 55 3.1.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 60 3.2 Natural Environment 60 3.2.1 Affected Environment 60 3.2.2 Potential Impacts 63 3.2.3 Mitigation Strategies 70 3.2.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 77 3.3 Transportation 78 3.3.1 Affected Environment 78 3.3.2 Potential Impacts 85 3.3.3 Mitigation Strategies 93 3.3.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 94 3.4 Public Services 95 3.4.1 Affected Environment 95 3.4.2 Potential Impacts 102 3.4.3 Mitigation Strategies 106 3.4.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 107 3.5 Utilities 108 3.5.1 Affected Environment 108 3.5.2 Potential Impacts 112 3.5.3 Mitigation Strategies 114 3.5.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 115 4 CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATION 116 4.1 Introduction 117 4.2 Chapter 1 Summary 117 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 ix 4.3 Chapter 2 Proposal & Alternatives 117 4.4 Chapter 3 Affected Environment, Impacts & Mitigation 118 4.4.1 Section 3.1 Land Use and Urban Form 118 4.4.2 Section 3.2 Natural Environment 118 4.4.3 Section 3.3 Transportation 118 4.4.4 Section 3.4 Public Services 118 4.4.5 Section 3.5 Utilities 119 4.5 Appendices 119 5 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 120 5.1 Introduction 121 6 ACRONYMS & REFERENCES 127 6.1 Acronyms 128 6.2 References 128 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 x Exh 'l' b 'l*ts Exhibit 1.1-1. Lindsay Subarea Context 3 Exhibit 1.1-2. Lindsay Subarea Study Area 4 Exhibit 1.3-1. Planned Action Process 6 Exhibit 1.7-1. Summary of Potential Land Use and Urban Form Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts 10 Exhibit 1.7-2. Summary of Potential Natural Environment Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts 11 Exhibit 1.7-3. Summary of Potential Transportation Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts 12 Exhibit 1.7-4. Summary of Potential Public Services Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts 13 Exhibit 1.7-5. Summary of Potential Utilities Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts 14 Exhibit 2.1-1. Study Area 18 Exhibit 2.4-1. Engagement Summary 24 Exhibit 2.5-1. Alternative 1: No Action 28 Exhibit 2.5-2. Alternative 1: No Action - Housing and Jobs Capacity by 2044 28 Exhibit 2.5-3. Preferred Alternative 29 Exhibit 2.5-4. 4.1temative 2: Proposal Example Site Plan 30 Exhibit 2.5-5. Alternative 2, Preferred: Expected Housing Units 31 Exhibit 2.5-6. Alternative 2, Preferred: Proposed Housing 31 Exhibit 2.5-7. Alternative 2: Proposal, Preferred — Future Development Area Residential Density 32 Exhibit 2.5-8. Alternative 2, Preferred: Housing Types 33 Exhibit 2.5-9. Housing type examples 33 Exhibit 2.5-10. Open Space and Trails 34 Exhibit 2.5-11. Recreational Facilities, Open Space, and Trail System 35 Exhibit 2.5-12. Shared Open Space Illustrations 36 Exhibit 2.5-13. Alternative 2, Preferred: Street Types 37 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 A Exhibit 2.5-14. Street type examples 38 Exhibit 3.1-1. Summary of City and Regional Planning Framework 41 Exhibit 3.1-2. Lindsay Zoning Map 42 Exhibit 3.1-3. RULC Density and Dimension Standards 43 Exhibit 3.1-4. Lindsay's 2044 Comprehensive Plan and PSRC Housing Capacity 44 Exhibit 3.1-5. Lindsay Subarea Full TAZs Map 45 Exhibit 3.1-6. Noise levels near Lindsay Subarea 47 Exhibit 3.1-7. Arlington Municipal Airport Traffic Patterns 48 Exhibit 3.1-8. Alternatives Consistency with City and Regional Planning Framework 49 Exhibit 3.1-9. Net New Housing Units in 2044 by Alternatives 51 Exhibit 3.1-10. Lindsay Development Standards 55 Exhibit 3.1-11. Lindsay Design Standards Overview 57 Exhibit 3.2-1. Wetlands and Streams 61 Exhibit 3.2-2. AMC 20-93 Code Allowances with Associated Mitigation Requirements 71 Exhibit 3.3-1. Subarea Location and Study Intersections Locations 79 Exhibit 3.3-2. Existing (2025) PM Peak Hour Volumes 82 Exhibit 3.3-3. Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary 83 Exhibit 3.3-4. Five Year Collision Summary — 2019 to 2023 84 Exhibit 3.3-5. 2044 Lindsay Subarea Full TAZs Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation 87 Exhibit 3.3-6. 2044 Alternative 1 PM Peak Hour Volumes 88 Exhibit 3.3-7. 2044 Alternative 1 Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary 89 Exhibit 3.3-8. 2044 Alternative 2— Lindsay Subarea Plan Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation 90 Exhibit 3.3-9. 2044 Alternative 2 PM Peak Hour Volumes 91 Exhibit 3.3-10. 2044 Alternative 2 — Proposal (Lindsay Subarea Plan) Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary and Comparison 92 Exhibit 3.4-1. Public Services in Arlington 95 Exhibit 3.4-2. Parks and Trails within 1 mile of Lindsay 96 Exhibit 3.4-3. PRMP Planned Improvements 98 Exhibit 3.4-4. Average Class Size based on Educational Service Standards 2022-2023 99 Exhibit 3.4-5. Public School Serving the City of Arlington 99 Exhibit 3.4-6. New Students by Alternative 102 Exhibit 3.4-7. New Officers Required to Maintain Current Ratio 103 Exhibit 3.4-8. New Firefighters Required to Maintain Current Ratio 103 Exhibit 3.5-1. Existing offsite infrastructure and optional routes 109 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Exhibit 3.5-2. Offsite water system 111 Exhibit 3.5-3. Arlington Capital Projects near Lindsay Subarea 115 Exhibit 5.2-1. Responses to Individual Comments 121 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 xiii Chapter 1 1 SUMMARY I Introduction 1 SUMMA Y Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action DEIS • Volume I • November 2025 1 Chapter 1 1 SUMMARY 1 . 1 Introduction The Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) completes the environment review process for the City of Arlington's Lindsay Subarea Plan, development and design standards, and Planned Action Ordinance. It incorporates the comments received on the Draft EIS and applies the necessary corrections or clarifications. The Final EIS presents the preferred alternative as Alternative 2 Proposal, Preferred Alternative, adding flexibility for the Future Development Area's site layout to better reflect critical area buffers, provided that land uses remain consistent with AMC 20.44.032 and maintain the anticipated residential density of around 11 units per acre within the gross buildable land area (excluding critical areas, buffers, and easements). The Final EIS builds on the Draft EIS by providing updates since the Draft EIS was issued on September 26, 2025. Because the Preferred Alternative closely matches the Draft EIS's Alternative 2 Proposal, no new analyses have been conducted. The Final EIS adds Chapter 4 Corrections and Clarifications, Chapter 5 Comments and Reponses, and Appendix G Comment Letters. Appendix G Comment Letters provides a copy of the comments received during the Draft EIS comment period. In the Final EIS's Chapters 1 through 3, text deletions are shown with strjkethro irtih, and new text is underlined. The Lindsay Subarea, also referred to as the Subarea, is located at the southern portion of the Hilltop neighborhood in southeast Arlington. The Lindsay Annexation was completed in 2022 under Ordinance 2022-003, making Lindsay one of the neighborhoods within the Hilltop Subarea. Lindsay retains much of its agricultural-rural character, with single family homes interspersed with large open fields and natural areas like forests and wetlands. A ravine is located at the western portion of the Subarea and the seasonal Edgecomb Creek tributaries run through at two locations. Future development is anticipated to mirror the patterns of nearby subdivisions, such as Edgecomb, Gleneagle, and Northen Hilltop (see Exhibit 1.1-1. Lindsay Subarea Context). The SR 531 (172nd St NE) and SR 9 provide local and regional connections across Arlington and into nearby towns and cities. The SR 531(172nd St NE) runs along the northern edge of the Subarea and provide connection to 1-5 to the east and SR 9 to the west. SR 9 connects Arlington to other the cities within Snohomish and Skagit counties. Lindsay benefits from its proximity to key commercial, civic, and industrial hubs, supporting its evolution as a complete neighborhood. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 1 SUMMARY • Commercial: The intersection of SR 531 (172nd St NE) and SR 9 is identified as a future commercial node with retail, services, and community-focused businesses that serve nearby residents and visitors. • Civic: Just northeast of Hilltop, at the intersection of Crown Ridge Blvd and SR 9, is a cluster of institutions, including Pioneer Elementary School, Arlington High School, and the Byrnes Performing Arts Center. • Cascade Industrial Center (CIC): West of 67t" Ave NE is the second-largest Manufacturing-Industrial Center in Snohomish County. The CIC includes a range of resource-based manufacturing and processing facilities, as well as the Arlington Municipal Airport. It is a key employment hub and may attract family and working-age households to the Lindsay area. Lindsay Subarea has two development areas as defined below. Development boundaries are identified in Exhibit 1.1-2 Lindsay Subarea Study Area. • Pending Project Area: Properties assembled by MJS investors, and where development is anticipated closely following 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 1.1-1. Lindsay Subarea Context _M;,� W 530 4 J r, - - Subai ear `;,r'ql:-.. - • lam. f�. �.'- � �- 9 'Qvi, Source: MAKERS, 2025. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS Volume I November 2025 3 Chapter 11 SUMMARY Exhibit 1.1-2. Lindsay Subarea Study Area un w^ 9 O \_ = 1172nd St NE m u 531 � nr. �Norpoint ..Shooting Center m Pending Development Area Project Area t. v' N " �i_ _ �• Arlington Z r• i m c t � 168th)5t NE + 'LTndsay Subarea Snohomish Cou Note: Replaced map:the Pending Project Area expanded to include additional properties. Source: MAKERS, 2025 1 .3 Purpose This document is a draft non-project EIS that analyzes environmental impacts associated with the Lindsay Subarea Plan proposal and its alternatives. The purpose of this EIS is to inform and assist the public and City of Arlington decision-makers in evaluating options for future growth, multimodal transportation improvements, and policy/code appropriate within the Subarea. The City of Arlington,jointly with MJS Investors, has begun the community planning process for the Lindsay Subarea to guide future land use, economic development, environment, public facilities and services, and transportation. The Lindsay Subarea Plan is being developed in accordance with the Growth Management Act (GMA), countywide planning policies, and Arlington's Comprehensive Plan. Once adopted, the Subarea Plan will be integrated into the City's development code and guide future land use decisions. The Linday Subarea planning process is also guided by Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) 20.44.032 Subarea Plans, amended in November 2023 through the Ordinance No. 2023-016 (see Section 2.3.2). AMC 20.44.032 requires subarea plans for all fourteen Comprehensive Plan-designated subareas, including Lindsay, and mandates they include a Planned Action Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 1 1 SUMMARY EIS to support coordinated development with a mix of housing, transportation, amenities, infrastructure, and capital improvements. As part of this process, the City intends to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance for the Lindsay Subarea under RCW 43.21 C.440 and associated State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) rules in WAC 197-11, streamlining permitting processes for development proposals consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance and Lindsay Subarea Plan. Alternatives are different approaches to achieve the proposal's objective and serve as the basis for environment analysis. The two alternatives under consideration in this EIS are described in Section 1.4 and summarized below: • Alternative 1: No Action. Maintains current regulations under the existing Residential Ultra Low-Capacity zoning and development standards. City commitments and capital improvement plans would continue as planned over the next 20 years. • Alternative 2: Proposal. Implements AMC 20.44.032 to accommodate low-to moderate- intensity housing (e.g., small-lot homes, townhomes, multifamily), along with investments in infrastructure, transportation, parks and trails. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 5 Chapter 11 SUMMARY 1 .4 SEPA Process 1 .4.1 " ivironmental Revip- Under RCW 43.21 C.440 and WAC 197-11-164, the City of Arlington is designating the Lindsay Subarea as a Planned Action area. Instead of conducting project-by-project environmental reviews, this EIS provides a cumulative, subarea-wide environmental analysis to support adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance, which will define City and developer mitigation responsibilities. Development proposals that are consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance and Subarea Plan will not require a new SEPA threshold determination or additional environmental review of topics analyzed in the EIS. This process offers regulatory certainty, streamlines permitting, and advances the goals of SEPA and the GMA. Following the completion of the EIS process, the City will consider adopting the Planned Action Ordinance and Subarea Plan. Future permits will be reviewed for consistency with these adopted plans. Exhibit 1.3-1. Planned Action Process 1. Prepare&Issue 2. Consider Adoption of 3. Review Future Permits Environmental Impact Plann-. Action Ordinance for Consistency Ordinance Statement(EIS) and Subarea Plan and Subarea Plan 1 .4.2 Public Comment Opportunities The City led numerous community engagement activities and informal conversations from the Comprehensive Plan outreach that help inform the Subarea Plan and the alternative concepts studied in the Draft EIS. In late May 2025, the city held a 21-day scoping period. A summary of the public engagement is found in Section 2.4.. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 11 SUMMARY 1 .4.3 Scope of Environmental Review SEPA elements of the environment that will be analyzed in the EIS include: • Land Use and Urban Form: Relationship to existing land use plans, aesthetics/urban form, housing, and noise • Natural Environment: Earth and water quality and plants and animals • Transportation: Non-motorized facilities, traffic volumes, operations, and safety • Public Services: Parks, schools, police, and fire emergency services • Utilities: Water, sewer, electrical power, and natural gas See section 2.2.2 Scope of Environmental Review for information on why other environmental topics were not included. 1 .5 Objectives and Alternatives 1 .5.1 Objectives SEPA requires a statement of objectives describing the purpose and need for the proposal. The following objectives apply to the alternatives evaluated in this EIS: • Define action strategies that reflect community priorities and citywide goals for Lindsay, compatible with the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. • Evaluate environmental hazards and growth potential to align future infrastructure investment that supports housing, public space, multimodal transportation, and environmental health. • Develop recommendations for new zoning standards, design standards, and adjustments to other city regulations for City Council consideration Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 7 Chapter 1 1 SUMMARY Alternatives Summary Alternatives are different ways of achieving a project's purpose and need and serve as the basis for environmental analysis. Each alternative is evaluated for its potential impacts on different elements of the environment such as land use, natural resources, or transportation. The alternatives are described in greater detail in Chapter 2 of this Dra#tEIS. Under SEPA rules, an EIS must include an alternative that represents "no action" and one or more alternatives that include changes to land use or policies, called the "Action Alternatives." Action Alternatives allow the City to understand the impacts of a range of growth scenarios and test ideas, implications, benefits, and impacts and compare them to the impacts of the No Action baseline. This EIS analyzes two alternatives: • Alternative 1: No Action assumes that development would occur within the Subarea based on the current Comprehensive Plan land use, zoning, and development standards • Alternative 2: Proposal, Preferred Alternative, implements AMC 20.44.032 to accommodate varied housing, along with investments in infrastructure, transportation, parks and trails. Analyzing different alternatives, and especially the differences among them, allows decision-makers and the public to compare the effects of different options and ultimately to select a Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2. with slight clarifications, is the Preferred Alternative. The alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 2. KeyOptionsIssues & The key issues facing decision makers are summarized below. • Approval of a Subarea Plan Update including a vision, guiding principles, goals and strategies for land use, transportation, natural systems, utilities, proposed infrastructure investments, and programmatic recommendations. • Approval of a new set of design standards. • Approval of code amendments for wetland and stream buffers flexibility. • Type and location of transportation and park infrastructure, and housing in future phases. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 11 SUMMARY 1 . 7 Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation of the Pronosal If the proposed action is delayed, growth in the Subarea would continue under the Comprehensive Plan and current zoning, instead of under a coordinated and more geographic-specific and detailed subarea plan. This would allow for growth but would not fully accommodate regional growth strategies or targets to the same degree as described in Alternative 2 Proposal. Retention of Alternative 1 No Action would lead to a dispersed growth pattern that falls short of meeting housing goals for more diverse housing types. It could result in inconsistencies with transportation metrics, as well as delays in infrastructure investments. Alternative 1 No Action would likely cause greater adverse impacts on natural resources and miss opportunities to leverage the Tulalip Tribes efforts to enhance the Edgecomb Creek and surrounding wetlands. Delaying Alternative 2 would also be inconsistent with the Growth Management Act and City of Arlington planning policies, potentially hindering the City to attain regional, state, and federal grants and loans for infrastructure. 1 .8 SummaryImpacts &of Mitigation Measures This section highlights the impacts that would potentially result from the alternatives analyzed in this Df-a# EIS. This summary is not intended to be a substitute for the complete discussion of each element that is contained in Chapter 3. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 9 Chapter 11 SUMMARY 1 .8.1 Land Use and Urban Form Exhibit 1.7-1. Summary of Potential Land Use and Urban Form Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposal Impacts ■ Relationship to Existing Land Use ' Relationship to Existing Land Use Plans/Housing: Plans/Housing: Projected housing growth in Projected housing growth in Alternative 1 is much lower than Alternative 2 would meet the adopted the adopted growth targets in growth targets in Arlington Arlington Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan. ■Aesthetics/Urban Form: • Redevelopment would be consistent Alternative 1's gradual transition to with the Linsday Subarea Plan,the a more developed landscape is not intent and goals of the Arlington's expected to have urban form Comprehensive plan, Puget Sound impacts. Regional Council's VISION 2050 regional plan for growth, and the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act. ■Aesthetics/Urban Form: Expected development likely shifts from a rural residential landscape to a residential development pattern similar to the adjacent Gleneagle and Hilltop neighborhoods with a slightly more compact urban form but more connected and usable open spaces. More housing type variety with small lot single family homes,townhouses, and apartments/condominiums, coordinated parks,trails, and street design for multimodal connectivity. Measures to reduce ■ Existing development code and ' Updates development regulations to or eliminate impacts design standards regulate urban allow development that meets form Arlington's residential growth needs. • No mitigation measures to meet ■ Lindsay Design Standards will be growth targets applied to new development to encourage appearance. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 10 Chapter 11 SUMMARY 1 .8.2 Natural Environment Exhibit 1.7-2. Summary of Potential Natural Environment Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposal Impacts ■ Grading to level site for ■ Grading to level site for development development ■ Loss of open field habitat ■ Loss of open field habitat ■ Increased impervious surface ■ Increased impervious surface ■ Increased runoff ■ Increased runoff ■ Temporary buffer impacts due to ■ Temporary buffer impacts due to grading grading ■ Expansion of 791h Avenue NE ■ Expansion of 791h Avenue NE ■ Complete and/or partial fill of ■ Piecemeal development and several low functioning wetlands implementation over extended onsite, resulting in direct and time,which results in difficult-to- indirect wetland impacts quantify cumulative impacts,and ■ Permanent and temporary buffer also limits the ability to impacts for allowed uses implement minimization measures,such as grouping developments • Man-made total fish passage barrier located within Edgecomb Creek on parcel 31052600100300 will likely remain in place ■ Degraded Stream Z channel will not be enhanced ■ Degraded stream buffers will not be enhanced • Degraded wetlands will not be enhanced ■ Continued non-conforming land uses Measures to reduce ■ Avoid steep slopes ■ Avoid steep slopes or eliminate impacts ■ Enhance degraded wetland buffers ' Enhance degraded wetland buffers in in vicinity of any proposed vicinity of any proposed development development per AMC 20.93.830 per AMC 20.93.830 ■ Protected critical areas tracts ■ Protected critical areas tracts ■ Stormwater treatment ■ Stormwater treatment ■ Restoration of temporarily ■ Restoration of temporarily impacted impacted buffer areas buffer areas ■ Culvert replacement for 791h ■ Culvert replacement for 79th Avenue Avenue NE crossing NE crossing ■ Potential to avoid all direct ■ Implementation of vegetated wetland and stream impacts corridors depending on proposed ■ Use of buffer averaging to ensure no loss of buffer area onsite Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 11 Chapter 1 SUMMARY ProposalAlternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: development over the next 20 • Enhancement of degraded stream years buffers • Net ecological lift throughout the site and watershed as a result of proposed mitigation actions ■ Strategic design will utilize existing degraded or developed areas and group developments together to minimize impacts • Remove existing non-conforming land uses • Purchase of credits from appropriate mitigation bank as compensation for impacts • Onsite wetland creation and enhancement of existing degraded wetlands as compensation for wetland impacts • Removal of man-made total fish passage barrier located within Edgecomb Creek on parcel 31052600100300(with project- specific analysis and redevelopment) • Buffer creation and enhancement as mitigation for buffer impacts • Implementation of standard minimization measures specified in AMC Table 20.93-5 • Wetland and stream buffer flexibility 1 .8.3 Transportation Exhibit 1.7-3. Summary of Potential Transportation Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts Impacts • All study intersections meet • All study intersections meet operational standards with planned operational standards with planned improvements except for the SR improvements except for the SR 9/204th Street NE intersection and 9/204th Street NE intersection. 80th Drive NE/SR 531 (172nd • As part of the development of the Street NE) intersection. Lindsay subarea, access will be required on a new south leg of the Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 11 SUMMARY ProposalAlternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: 80th Drive NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) intersection. ■ Two additional accesses would be required along SR 531 (172nd Street N E). Measures to reduce ■ The SR 9/204th Street NE ■ The SR 9/204th Street NE intersection or eliminate impacts intersection is a WSDOT is a WSDOT intersection, and it is intersection, and it is assumed that assumed that WSDOT will assess and WSDOT will assess and address address operational deficiencies. operational deficiencies. ■ To accommodate other planned ■ To accommodate other planned improvements along SR 531 (172nd improvements along SR 531 Street NE)and provide operations that (172nd Street NE)and provide meet LOS standards, a 2-lane operations that meet LOS roundabout with an added south leg standards, a 2-lane roundabout would be installed at the 80th Drive would be installed at the 80th Drive NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) intersection. intersection. ■ A full access would be provided west of 80th Drive NE, and a right-in/right- out only access would be provided east of 80th Drive NE. 1 .8, 'ublic Services Exhibit 1.7-4. Summary of Potential Public Services Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts ProposalAlternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Impacts ■ Parks, schools, police, and ■ Although there is an increase in fire/emergency services have demand for schools, police, and adequate capacity for the expected fire/emergency services, existing plans level of growth. support the expected level of growth. ■ Residential growth could occur ■ Transportation investments enhance without a coordinated parks and service delivery/emergency response trails system in new residential times and access to community neighborhoods. destinations such as schools and parks. ■ 12%of the site is designated as active open space, including common open space and parks, exceeding the AMC 20.44.032 requirement for 10%of the site to be dedicated to parks and trails. ■ Parks investments improve access to green space and other recreational facilities. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ■ Volume I ■ November 2025 13 Chapter 11 SUMMARY ProposalAlternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Measures to reduce ■ Plans are regularly updated to • The City, School District, and Fire or eliminate impacts maintain alignment with evolving District should continue coordinating community needs, and should and updating their plans to maintain continue to do so. alignment with evolving community needs. 1 .8.5 Utilities Exhibit 1.7-5. Summary of Potential Utilities Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts Proposalr Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Impacts ■ Demand for water, sewer, and dry • Growth would increase demand for utilities would increase modestly. water, sewer, and dry utilities. With With planned improvements, planned improvements,Arlington's sewer and utility capacity likely sewer and water system will have sufficient. sufficient capacity to serve the ■ Less compact development additional homes anticipated in patterns would result in less Lindsay. With coordination with dry efficient utility infrastructure. utilities providers, no impacts are anticipated. ■ Utility system would be designed for efficiency, maximizing homes served. Measures to reduce ■ Planned water and sewer • Onsite sewer and water systems will be or eliminate impacts improvements, and ongoing built to handle anticipated demand coordination with dry utility and designed for efficiency. providers will maintain adequate • Coordination with dry utility providers system capacity. will maintain adequate system capacity. ■ Utilities will be designed to avoid • Offsite infrastructure upgrades and mitigate impacts to wetlands depends on sewer and water and streams, with review during modeling. project approval. ■ Utilities will be designed to avoid and ■ All new utilities, including mitigate impacts to wetlands and improvements along SR 531, will streams, with review during project be placed underground. approval. ■ All new utilities, including improvements along SR 531, will be placed underground. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 14 Chapter 1 1 SUMMARY 1 .9 Significant Adverse Imp AF Based on the full analysis presented in Chapter 3 of the DfA EIS, implementation of the alternatives would result in the following significant unavoidable adverse impacts for the following elements of the environment: Land Use and Urban Form: Alternative 1 No Action would likely not meet the 2044 housing growth targets adopted in the Arlington Comprehensive Plan under the Residential Ultra Low Capacity zoning and development standards. Not meeting the adopted target could be considered a significant adverse impact unless the City is able to accommodate housing growth elsewhere. The following environmental elements, with mitigation, are expected to have no significant adverse unavoidable impacts: • Land Use and Urban Form: Alternative 2 meets the City's housing and urban form goals. • Natural Environment: Alternative 1 would result in limited impacts to the natural environment but would also limit the potential improvements throughout the site. Alternative 2 would result in direct and indirect wetland impacts that would be compensated through onsite and offsite mitigation. The proposed impacts are not anticipated to be considered significant. Therefore, neither alternative is anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts to the natural environment. However, Alternative 2 does provide a significant amount of mitigation both as compensation for potential impacts as well as voluntary improvements that are anticipated to provide an overall net lift in ecological benefits of the site. • Transportation: Alternative 1 No Action and Alternative 2 Proposal would result in operational impacts at the 80th Drive NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE); however, a 2-lane roundabout would be installed to mitigate the operational impacts for both alternatives. Therefore, neither alternative is anticipated to result in significant adverse transportation impacts. • Public Services: Anticipated growth under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 may increase demand for parks, schools, police, and fire/emergency services; however, existing staffing and facility capacity, with continued coordination with agencies, no significant adverse impacts public service impacts are anticipated. • Utilities. Utilities are available at varying capacity to accommodate increased land use intensity. Potential impacts cannot be determined until the City's updated system modeling is available; however, continued capital facilities planning and coordination and construction of planned improvements, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES I Significant Adverse Impacts 2 P OPOSAL & ALTE NATIVES Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action DEIS • Volume I • November 2025 16 Chapter 21 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES 2 . 1 Introduction 2.1 .1 Proposal Overview The Lindsay Annexation was completed in 2022 under Ordinance 2022-003, making Lindsay 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, which guides the subarea planning process. This amendment introduced several key changes: • Subarea plans must be created for all fourteen Comprehensive Plan-designated subareas, including two areas designated as Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) Overlay, which are Lindsay and East Hill. • Each subarea plan must be developed in conjunction with a Planned Action Environmental lmnant Statomen+ (EIS) EIS. • 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 2.3.2 for detailed descriptions of required elements. This draft EIS considers two alternatives for Lindsay Subarea. • Alternative 1: No Action would retain existing Residential Ultra Low-Capacity zoning and follow current development standards and capital improvement plans over the next 20 years. • Alternative 2: Proposal, Preferred Alternative,would implement AMC 20.44.032 to allow for low-to moderate-intensity housing such as small-lot homes, townhomes, and multifamily units, supported by infrastructure, transportation, and parks and trails investments. Allowed development layouts and types are flexible, provided land uses remain consistent with AMC 20.44.032 and maintain the minimum residential density of approximately 5 units per gross acre (approximately 436 units total on the 87.5-acre Lindsay subarea). Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 17 Chapter 21 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES 2.1 .2 ' tudy Are The Lindsay Subarea, also referred to as the Subarea, is located at the southern portion of the Hilltop neighborhood in southeast Arlington. The Subarea encompasses approximately 87 acres. It is bounded by SR 531 (172nd St NE) on the north, the 84th Ave NE alignment on the east, the 1681h 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 nearby towns and cities. The seasonal Edgecomb Creek flows through two locations of the site and the ravine is located in the western portion of the Subarea. The Lindsay Subarea has two development areas: • Pending Project Area: Properties assembled by MJS investors, and where development is anticipated closely following 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. Future development proposals within the Pending Project Area and Future Development Area that align with the subarea plan and planned action will undergo streamlined project- level SEPA review. See Study Area 2.2.1 Environmental Review Process. Exhibit 2.1-1. Study Area N 6'i co 172nd St NE — Norpoint AShnooting Center Future. � �~ din ltur m I Peng Development Area Project Area .: ' he •y" � >lM,,, ` 0, Arl.'ngton �I68th6t NE�� Lindsay Subarea Snohomish County Note: Replaced map:the Pending Project Area expanded to include additional properties. Source: MAKERS, 2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 18 1 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES 2 .2 SEPA Process 2.2.1 r-,nvi ro n m e nta I Revi a SS Under RCW 43.21 C.440 and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-164, the City of Arlington is designating the Lindsay Subarea as a Planned Action area. Arlington will complete upfront SEPA analysis of anticipated future development and adopt a Planned Action Ordinance that clearly defines City and developer responsibilities for mitigation. This EIS provides a cumulative, subarea-wide impact analysis during the areawide planning stage, rather than piecemeal review of the environmental impacts and mitigation on a project-by-project basis during the permit review stage. Future development that is consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance and Lindsay Subarea Plan would not have to repeat the environmental review completed in this EIS. This provides regulatory certainty and predictability for developers and the community, supports streamlined environmental review for permitting, and aligns with the goals of SEPA and the Growth Management Act (RCW Chapter 36.70A). The EIS process includes the following steps: (1) scoping the EIS content with input from agencies, tribes, and the public; (2) preparing a Draft EIS and allowing for public comments; (3) responding to comments and establishing a preferred alternative; (4) issuing the Final EIS; and (4) adopting supporting legislation aligned with the EIS. Following the adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance including specific procedures and mitigation measures, future permits would be reviewed for consistency with the ordinance. A The Final EIS,will be issued in Winter 2025,aPA w+lf includes responses to public comments received during the Draft EIS comment period. Following the EIS process, the City will consider adoption of the subarea plan. 2.2.2 Scope of Environmental Review The City of Arlington held a joint community workshop and SEPA EIS scoping meeting in April 2025 (see Appendix A Scoping Notice & Comment Summary). Following scoping, the City identified the following elements and associated environmental topics that will be analyzed in the EIS: • Land Use and Urban Form: Relationship to existing land use plans, aesthetics/urban form, housing, and noise • Natural Environment: Earth and water quality and plants and animals Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 19 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES • Transportation: Non-motorized facilities, traffic volumes, operations, and safety • Public Services: Schools, police, and fire emergency services • Utilities: Water, sewer, cable/telephone, and natural gas These elements are presented in Chapter 3 of the EIS, respectively, including an analysis of the affected environment, potential impacts, and mitigation measures. SEPA elements of the environment considered but not analyzed in this D-raft EIS include the following: • Air: Air quality was not analyzed because the alternatives are not expected to result in significant adverse impacts. Minor dust and equipment exhaust emissions may occur during construction. Air pollution from vehicle exhaust over time is expected as part of urban growth, and by allowing growth in the urban growth area, regional roadway-related air pollution is reduced due to shorter and fewer vehicle trips. Standard mitigation measures are required under local laws such as dust control using water and compliance with vehicle emission standards. Energy and Natural Resources will continue to be addressed in project-level review with Snohomish County PUD and Puget Sound Energy due to site and use-specific energy needs. No significant adverse impacts are expected to natural resources. Stormwater is addressed in overview under Water Quality. No adverse impacts are anticipated because development would be required to adhere to City of Arlington Public Works Stormwater Standards and Specifications and Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (DOE Stormwater Management Manual), which would not allow for worsened unmitigated conditions to occur. Environmental Health (topics other than noise) are not analyzed because the alternatives are not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to environmental health (e.g., toxic chemicals, hazardous waste). Noise is addressed under Land Use and Urban Form due to community interest raised during the scoping community meeting. Light and Glare. The types of glare and lights (e.g., auto traffic, street lights, and night lights from homes) likely to be produced are typical to the urban environment, are regulated by local building and street standards to prevent spillover onto adjacent properties and promote a dark night sky, and are not expected to result in significant adverse impacts. • Recreation is analyzed in the Public Service element under Parks, and parks and trails opportunities are expected to expand as a result of the Subarea Plan. • Historic and cultural preservation. Project-level review will condition permit approvals to require all construction activity to be subject to study, monitoring, and preservation of tribal cultural and archaeological resources, as is standard practice. No post-colonial historic resources were identified. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 21 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES 2 .3 Planning Context 2.3.1 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: Ennnnmin -Deyel ,ongen+ nfatkir,l Environment 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. Housing 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. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 21 Chapter 21 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES H-5 Encourage mixed-income and mixed-use neighborhoods. 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-13 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." The City of Arlington and Snohomish County are planning for residential and employment growth in Hilltop, though no employment growth is projected within the Lindsay Subarea. Housing growth in the Lindsay Subarea is expected to significantly increase by 2044, as outlined in Exhibit 3.1-4. Lindsay's 2044 Comprehensive Plan and PSRC Housing Capacity 2.3.2 AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans Ordinance No. 2023-016, adopted in November 2023, amended AMC 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 a subarea planning process. AMC 20.44.032 requires subarea plans for all fourteen Comprehensive Plan-designated subareas, including two areas designated with the Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) Overlay, East Hill and Lindsay. Key amendments 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. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 22 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES (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 (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- 11-172. 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: (1) 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) (8) 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. (8) The trail system shall consist of a paved trail that connects the required sidewalk system and to all recreation facilities and open spaces. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 23 Chapter 21 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES (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. (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. (10)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 (§20.16.225 Special Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits). " 2 -4 Public Engagement The input from the scoping/neighborhood meeting and Comprehensive Plan outreach helped the City develop the alternatives for this EIS. See Appendix A for scoping/neighborhood meeting summary. Exhibit 2.4-1. Engagement Summary Event Date What We Heard Scoping/ March 20- ■ Community members value the rural character of the area but there Neighborhood April 10, are conflicting visions for future land uses within the Subarea. Meeting 2025/ ■ Single-family homes and attached home styles are most preferred in April 7, the area. Some community members raised concerns about smaller 2025 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 172"1 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. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 24 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES Event Date What We Heard 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. Comprehensive 2022-2024 ■ 48%of those surveyed are satisfied with the sense of community Plan Public among residents. Engagement and ■ 12%of those surveyed believed there was an availability of Outreach - affordable housing within the city. Housing Survey ■ 47%of those surveyed had acceptance of residents of all backgrounds. Comprehensive 2022 -2024 ■ Good appearance and has adequate lighting Plan Public ■ No essential services nearby Engagement and ■ No easy access to medical services Outreach - Hilltop ■ No variety of housing types Subarea Survey* ■ No bus stops ■ No fully improved streets ■ Not part of a trail network ■ No obvious attractions ■ No public art ■ Mixed results on walkability, neighborhood safety, close to employment, public services, pedestrian concerns, and sites for socialization. *Note:The following survey response is for the Hilltop Subarea and guide the Lindsay Subarea planning process. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 25 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES Objectives and Alternatives 2 .5 objectives and Alternatives 2.5.1 Proposal Objectives SEPA requires the statement of objectives describing the purpose and need for the proposals. The following objectives apply to the alternatives considered in this EIS: • Articulate a vision and action strategies to meet community and citywide goals for Lindsay, compatible with the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. • Encourage diverse housing options, accommodating planned housing growth within the subarea that aligns with citywide goals. • Encourage high-quality, pedestrian-oriented design that prioritizes walkability, safety, accessibility, and opportunities for social connection. • Advance Arlington's tree canopy goals and climate resilience strategies. • Develop a safe, comfortable, and accessible transportation network for people of all ages and abilities—whether walking, biking, rolling (e.g., wheelchairs and mobility devices), or driving. • Create a well-connected, cohesive network of parks, open space, and trails. • Enhance natural environment health through protecting and enhancing wetland and stream health. 2.5.2 Alternative 1 : No Action A No Action Alternative is required to be evaluated in the EIS under SEPA. It assumes no change to current regulations and that City commitments, policies, and capital improvement (i.e., parks, roads, and utilities) plans would continue as planned over the next 20 years. The area is zoned Residential Ultra Low Capacity, meaning limited development is allowed without making use of the Master Planed Neighborhood Overlay. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action DEIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES I Objectives and Alternatives Exhibit 2.5-1. Alternative 1: No Action Residential Ultra Low a sofh — Capacity Master Planned 17-2,,0, E' Neighborhood Overlay Lindsay Subarea A& I Q Arlington Norpoint "r �«� Shooting Center 4 m / ra 400 r �'_. °�"r_• . Arlington y;F Snohomish County Source: City of Arlington, MAKERS, 2025 Under the Residential Ultra Low Capacity zoning and development standards, development feasibility, and thus housing capacity, is limited. The City planned for the Lindsay Subarea to develop with about 85 net new housing units, for a total of 102 housing units, over a 20 year period. No jobs currently exist in the Lindsay subarea, and none would be expected with any development occurring under the Residential Ultra Low Capacity zoning. Exhibit 2.5-2. Alternative 1: No Action - Housing and Jobs Capacity by 2044 Existing Net New Total Housing Units 17 85 102 Jobs 0 0 0 Source: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Forecasts,2024 Development would likely be piecemeal over time without a cohesive parks, open space, and trails system. A mini-park would be created with any development greater than 25 units (per AMC 20.52.010). If developments include fewer than 25 units, it is likely no parks would be included. Development would likely include no trails. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES I Objectives and Alternatives 2.5.3 Alternative 2: Proposal, Preferred Alternative Alternative 2 Proposal would make use of the Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay and implement AMC 20.44.032 (see 2.3.2 AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans), accommodating low- to moderate-intensity residential uses, including small-lot detached single-family homes, townhomes, and multifamily housing. This alternative also includes investments in capital infrastructure, transportation improvements, and a park(s), open space, and trails system. Exhibit 2.5-3. Preferred Alternative Rural Low CO L�, Ca�acit I17L LC Fs.10'rroW �� E_Aww 531 __ z3 — �.--• - c M�190I29na,'o _ =" Wetland 1' o - r.gdy Creotion � flDM' AppmfimarecxaMn or w G JO'Mad W smrenr Col ry fx.ea A 74230!W lauon �wetland scale:,•=zoo' e w•ExonMere.,,,,,,.,r Crea6onc�n—' ROW a=.JawM noeozfo,ArZoning:z r n A.F.N J359Ui9 Zoni Zoning: Er.39'nxpesAfgrersa�MU(iGryE R-5 a Tribes O— AFN IJOBI�rTr(9)06Z90199rnd9gb."l5�p9 � y� 0 Existing Proposed Pending Project Area 0 Wetlands Active green space 0 Stormwater vault Future Development Area -residential(and optional ——— Streams Bioretention type Wetland creation commercial)mix I Buffers Trails Wetland enhancement C] Slopes Easement Note: This site plan represents a likely land use configuration in the Pending Project Area,while the site layout in the Future Development Area is flexible,provided it follows the Lindsay Subarea Plan standards to ensure the Lindsay Subarea as a whole implements AMC 20.44.032. Source: Land Technologies, 2025: MAKERS,2025. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS a Volume I e November 2025 29 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES I Objectives and Alternatives Exhibit 2.5-4. AItprnatiye 2: Proposal Example Site Plan I Gr I l 1 1 I Ruro!Low Ico 06 t - (l7LC) rx.mFvw e m W LC� tin .._ ---- -- �.:• _ ._ -- _ ._-�---- " _ - Y - _crwe.oe« M f , z — — K ide p \ I , C ,a w c...m'.e>x,.oc ryc own Co'n t e...w[xraede,�m� y we+bnd DBpressio w r' `kVW _ E.JO'C.#bzvrprsf mi/ Creation r .f ianram: Zoning: B y 7onin . I I ZoninO ec Jn'agrn�FjecmMWd"re»,�"'"^'... R—� ,ter -o TrehP Note: This site plan represents one of several possible land use configurations to implement AMC 20.44.032. It would likely need updates in the Future Development Area to meet critical area buffer requirements, and distribution of housing types may change. Source: Land Technologies, 2025 Land Use In accordance with AMC 20.44.032, the proposal includes a diverse mix of housing types, totaling 436 units at an average gross density of 5 units per acre. The Subarea would primarily accommodate single-family homes on 3,600 square-foot lots, which would make up approximately 70% of the expected housing units. Townhomes would make up 20% of the units, and multifamily homes would make up 10% of units. Houses and townhomes are allowed to be up to 3 stories (35 feet), and apartments up to 5 stories (50 feet). Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 30 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES I Objectives and Alternatives Exhibit 2.5-5. Alternative 2, Preferred: Expected Housing Units C:....le ia.«:1.. M..1+:fa.«:1..1....«esL*ndsa y hnmp-r des nr ether Subarea Area \ 1� �l 1� E--f 8%_) Future 2*9 Development Area Subarea T /330-5/_� /�p8-7� /�_4p4p/� 436 ( 0 ) (20 ) ( 1 V ) 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 Areal (19%) (20%) (10%) (49%) Lindsay Subarea 305 87 (70%) (20%) 436 Gross area (acres) 87.5 1. Mixed-use,small commercial,and ADUs are allowed, but not included in Gross density(units per acre) 5.0 draft proposal. 2. Example land use mix meeting AMC Pending Project Area gross area(acres) 48.2 20.44.032 and aligning with Pending Pending Project Area gross density(units per acre) 4.6 Project Area development.Additional housing types not explicitly mentioned Future Development Area gross area (acres) 39.3 in the chart (e.g., duplexes,triplexes, stacked flats) would also be allowed. Future Development Area gross density(units per acre) 5.4 Note: Housing units chart replaced:the Preferred Alternative includes a larger Pending Project Area than the Draft EIS's Alternative 2. resulting in more units counted in the Pending Project Area. Source: Land Technologies, MAKERS, 2025. Exhibit 2.5-6. Alternative 2, Preferred: Proposed Housing Existing Net New Total Housing Units 17 419 436 Source: Land Technologies, 2025; MAKERS, 2025. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS - Volume I - November 2025 31 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES I Objectives and Alternatives The Preferred Alternative achieves a minimum residential density of approximately 5 units per gross acre (see Exhibit 2.5-5). The Pending Project Area is anticipated to develop similarly to the layout shown in Exhibit 2.5-3, while the Future Development Area's site plan is not determined. The Preferred Alternative's Future Development Area achieves a residential density of 5.4 units per gross acre, or 11 units per gross buildable acre (excludes critical areas, buffers, and easements), and the layout, housing types, and opportunity for small commercial is flexible. Exhibit 2.5-7. Alternative 2: Proposal, Preferred — Future Development Area Residential DensitFuture Development Area Minimum Residential Density Future Development Area 39 gross area (acres) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unbuildable land - 20 critical areas, buffers, and easements(acres) Gross buildable land (acres) 19 Residential Density 11 Expected units/gross buildable land acres(units/acre) Note: If development in the Pending Project Area does not occur as expected,the subarea-wide minimum gross density and land use mix requirements would continue to apply. Development may be configured across the full subarea differently than displayed in the example site plan. Source: Land Technologies, 2025 Though the proposal does not address commercial uses, the AMC 20.44.032 allows for a small portion of mixed-use, small commercial, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which could be included in the Future Development Area. Home Occupations are allowed in every residential home or unit by code. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 32 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES I Objectives and Alternatives Exhibit 2.5-8. Alternative 2, Preferred: Housing Types r . _ . _ N • _ 172ND ST NE _ I T T rr-171 at St 1I- J qi lli�71 - - -- — 1 1I - IIIL-1J_L �Roa" _- i 1-_II r Roao'F �- F Roadf i i IIVi - L ST_NE Single Family homes Easement Future Development Area- Active Green Space residential (and optional Natural Areas commercial) mix Streams 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. The Future Development Area site plan is shown as an example. Source: Land Technologies, MAKERS,2025 Housing types are envisioned to be similar to the examples shown in Exhibit 2.5-7. Exhibit 2.5-9. Housing type examples - -- L Y � Single Family homes Townhomes Multifamily homes Source: Land Technologies, MAKERS, 2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I November 2025 33 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES I Objectives and Alternatives 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 2.5-8), including shared 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 (canyon on the west side of the subarea) Exhibit 2.5-10. Open Space and Trails r• • — . _ • -- - 172NDSTNE - C�31 DI ii Active Open Space Easement Trails Wetlands Natural Areas Streams 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.The Future Development Area site plan is shown as an example and would be updated to meet critical area requirements. Source: Land Technologies, MAKERS,2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 34 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES I Objectives and Alternatives 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 2.5-11. Recreational Facilities, Open Space, and Trail System Total Lindsay Subarea 3,810,914 Gross Area Required Open Space 368;323 0 8,6-83 3-&% eper. space 142,307 4-'Yo- 4 12% Pending Project Area NGPA 337,425 19% open Space 35,536 �Of� �T 3�S Future Development Area NGPA 791,260 2+% Cper Space 166,777 3-0/0- Parks. Storm Management, Recreation Areas 2 ^^, Total Lindsay Subarea 3,810,914 Gross Area Required Open Space 268,223 (10% of(gross area minus NGPA)) Native Growth Protection Areas(NGPA) 1,128,685 30% Open Space 108,244 3% Parks: Storm Management, Recreation Areas 470,776 12% Pending Project Area NGPA 337,425 9% Open Space 43,834 1% Parks: Storm Management, Recreation Areas 122,426 3% Future Development Area Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I November 2025 35 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES I Objectives and Alternatives NGPA 791,258 21% Open Space' 64,410 Parks: Storm Management, Recreation Areas' 348,350 1. Example of open space and parks dedication to meet AMC 20.44.032 Exhibit 2.5-12. Shared Open Space Illustrations �s r■ Sources: Land Technologies,2025 Transportation The proposed street system includes a north-south connection-791h 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). All streets and alleys would comply with complete streets principles and would follow appropriate street guidance, such as NACTO Neighborhood Street, Yield Street, Residential Shared Street, or Green Alley. Within the smaller areas, a trail network would provide connections for people walking, biking, and rolling (i.e., wheelchair, scooter) at shorter intervals. The developer and/or City would install a roundabout at 801h Dr NE, depending on timing of development, and the developer would improve SR 531 (172nd St NE) along the Subarea. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 36 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES I Objectives and Alternatives Exhibit 2.5-13. Alternative 2, Preferred: Street Types • - _ . 72ND ST NE I - - 5 ---- ---------- _ - 1r7.1rst�St�NE--- i -_-=- o II - Io i i i Access Streets Easement Neighborhood Streets Active Green Space Drive Aisles Natural Areas Trails Streams 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. The Future Development Area site plan is shown as an example and would be updated to meet critical area requirements. Source: Land Technologies, MAKERS, 2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 37 Chapter 2 1 PROPOSAL&ALTERNATIVES I Objectives and Alternatives Exhibit 2.5-14. Street type examples 77 • i i i is CPfCVOE tlW\6LYE _ . II vcmcw[ 30 Mn wnvL� a K. Source: Land Technologies, MAKERS,2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I November 2025 38 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action DEIS • Volume I • November 2025 39 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form This chapter describes the affected environment, potential impacts, and mitigation measures for the following topics: • Section 3.1 Land Use • Section 3.2 Natural Environment • Section 3.3 Transportation • Section 3.4 Public Services • Section 3.5 Utilities After reviewing the affected environment, this analysis compares alternatives and offers mitigation measures for identified impacts. It also summarizes whether any significant adverse impacts are unavoidable. 3 . 1 Land Use and Urban Form 3.1 .1 Affected Environment Existing Land Use Plans City and Regional Planning Framework The table below summarizes pertinent city and regional plans and policies, that guide land use and development for the Lindsay Subarea Plan. Plans, policies, and code addressed include: • Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) VISION 2050, adopted in 2020, contains multicounty planning policies for King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties and a Regional Growth Strategy for the three counties as well as Kitsap County. • Snohomish Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) adopted in 2011 that guide local government Comprehensive Plans including subarea plans that are elements of them. • Arlington Comprehensive Plan, Arlington in Motion 2024 & Beyond, adopted in 2024, that identifies a vision, land use concept, and policies guiding decisions for future growth and development. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form Exhibit 3.1-1. Summary of City and Regional Planning Framework Planning Framework Growth Strategy& Accommodate future growth in alignment with the PSRC Regional Growth Development Pattern Strategy by encouraging the development of walkable, healthy, and equitable communities, while preserving rural and resource lands and fostering a strong sense of community Vision 2050: Regional Growth Strategy Goal, MPP-RGS-6, Development Pattern Goal; Snohomish CPP: Development Pattern Goal; Arlington 2024&Beyond: LU-1, LU-8, and LU-10 Housing Expand the housing stock to provide equitable access to affordable, diverse housing options that meet the needs of all income levels and demographic groups. Support the development of mixed-income neighborhoods strategically located near jobs, essential services, and transit to promote accessibility and inclusivity. Vision 2050: Housing Goal, MPP-H-2, and MPP-H-7; Snohomish CPP: Housing Goal and CPP-HO-2;Arlington 2024&Beyond: H-1, H-2, and H-5 Connectivity Promote safe, convenient movement of people, goods, and services through a well-connected multimodal transportation system that enhances both regional and local connectivity and supports economic growth. Encourage healthier, more sustainable travel options by expanding transit access and investing in active transportation infrastructure for people of all ages and abilities. Vision 2050:Transportation Goal, MPP-T-8, and MPP-T-14; Snohomish CPP: Transportation Goal and CPP-TR-4;Arlington 2024&Beyond:T-13 and T-15 Parks&Recreation Develop high-quality parks, trails, and open spaces that promote healthy and active lifestyles, while supporting environmental stewardship by thoughtfully locating recreational facilities to enhance and complement natural site features. Vision 2050: MPP-En-15; Snohomish CPP: CPP-Env-2;Arlington 2024&Beyond: E-1, E- 5, P-1, P-5 and P-6. Referto Public Services forthe Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Airport Protection Subdistrict The majority of Lindsay lies within the Airport Protection Subdistrict C (See Exhibit 3.1-2), which restricts uses that would interfere with airport and flight operations, limits building/structure heights to 166 feet, deters uses that increase bird impact problems, and does not limit residential or employment intensities. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS - Volume I - November 2025 41 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form Land Use/Zoning Lindsay's current land uses are predominantly low-density residential. Single-family houses and some barns are interspersed within open fields, wetlands, streams, and forested areas. Its existing development pattern is consistent with Snohomish County's rural residential areas that sometimes include agriculture. 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 3.1-2. Lindsay Zoning Map. Exhibit 3.1-2. Lindsay Zoning Map Ok GC = General Commercial RHC = Residential High Capacity Uj s r �RLc RLC = Residential Low Capacity -P ' z z q n ~La m M P/SP = Public/Semi-Public ZLI ��� _; �,1., RULC = Residential Ultra Low Capacity ' -------�r------------ ------- G• Pls -° P -- - - ------ r Master Planned Neighborhood � -�----- MPN - - p� a --------- - RHC (MPN) ------- y� ------- _----------- - 0 Airport District 0 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 3.1-3). The intent of the MPN overlay is to promote a more coordinated, efficient, and effective land development. Section 2.3.2 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. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form Exhibit 3.1-3. RULC Density and Dimension Standards Residential Ultra Low Capacity Minimum Lot Size(square feet) 1 9,600 or larger ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minimum Residential Densities 1 4 Du/AC ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minimum Lot Width (feet) 70 ........................................:...................................................................................................... Building Setback Non-Arterial ; Building 25 Requirements- Minimum I Street Right of Distance, in feet from: Way Line i ...................................................................................................... Freestanding Sign 10 •----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------{...................................................................................................... Arterial Street Building 40 Rightof Way Line -------------------------------------------------------------------------t------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Freestanding Sign 10 t------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rear Lot Building Primary-20 Boundary Line Accessory-5 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Side Lot Building and 5 Boundary Line or I Freestanding Sign Alley ---------------------------------------------------------------- ECA Buffer 15 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .....................................................................................t...................................................................................................... Height Limit(feet) 1 35 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Max. Lot Coverage(%) 35 Source:AMC Chapter 20.48 Density and Dimensional Regulations. 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 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS - Volume I - November 2025 43 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form 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 (TAZs) 423, 424, and 441—for which housing capacity is modeled (see Exhibit 3.1-5). Two TAZs 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 3.1-4. Lindsay's 2044 Comprehensive Plan and PSRC Housing Capacity Existing Net New Housing 2044 Total Housing Units 2044 Comprehensive PSRC' Comprehensive PSRC' Plan Plan Lindsay TAZ 423 9 34 242 43 251 TAZ 424 8 51 239 59 247 Subtotal 17 85 480 102 497 Outside of Lindsay TAZ 423 542 - - 542 542 TAZ 424 382 20 20 402 402 TAZ 441 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 PSRC targets are included only for informational purposes. Source: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Forecasts Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 44 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Land Use and Urban Form Exhibit 3.1-5. Lindsay Subarea Full TAZs Map Lindsay Subarea Outside of Lindsay TAZ Boundary 423 424 441 531 source: MAKERS, 2025 Aesthetics/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, and other than SR 531 (172nd St NE), are unpaved and lack street lighting. Current Adjacent Land Use Pattern To the west and south, the Subarea is bordered by unincorporated Snohomish County rural residential lands, forested lands with a similar low density residential development pattern as within Lindsay. To the east is the property owned by the Stillaguamish Tribe, which is largely an undeveloped open space. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form 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 into the neighborhood. The subdivisions 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. Housing As shown in Exhibit 3.1-4, there are currently 17 housing units in Lindsay, all of which are single-family homes situated on spacious lots consistent with the area's low-density, rural development pattern. For over two decades, there has been no residential development in the Subarea. 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 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. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 46 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Land Use and Urban Form Exhibit 3.1-6. Noise levels near Lindsay Subarea c Noise (dBA) 24-hr LAeq , > 90.0 ' 80.0-89.9 70.0-79.9 60.0-69.9 �. 55.0-59.9 50.0-54.9 - 45.0-49.9 A. Note: Map includes road and rail-related noise. Aviation noise data is not available. Source: National Transportation Noise Map, 2020 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 47 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Land Use and Urban Form Exhibit 3.1-7. Arlington Municipal Airport Traffic Patterns •u ii" _,� a fie'' ;•r �' M +k �a Jf jr apJs9 y P". d5xk� /AIlPOrt pia: s, "' I ;, . ,; r•x4 TWIN LAKES � Trldflc Pettams Edit $ ti. It{f 76-34 Fixed Wing r 7• f•► 11-29 Fued Wing �-► 76-34 Helicopter t► 11-29 Helicopter 76-34 Glider 4•f UMralight Noise Abatement Area Source:Traffic Patterns, City of Arlington,2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS Volume I November 2025 48 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form 3.1 .2 Potential Impacts Thresholds of significance include: • Relationship to existing land use plans/estimated population and employment. Alternative is inconsistent with PSRC VISION 2050 Growth Strategy, Countywide Planning Policies, City growth targets, or Comprehensive Plan policies. • Land use compatibility and City urban form goals. An increase in potential for incompatible land use transitions or inability to maintain a desirable built environment as defined in the City of Arlington Development Design Standards' intent statements. • Housing: Meet AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans goals to diversify housing options: 13 70% single-family residential or cottage housing, with a lot size of 3,600-4,500 square feet 11 20% attached residential, such as town homes, row houses, or duplexes 11 10% attached dwelling unit, multifamily homes (e.g., garden apartment, fourplex), mixed-use, and/or small commercial Impacts Common to All Alternatives Relationship to Existing Land Use Plans The table below outlines the regional and city planning framework and evaluates how well each alternative addresses them within the Subarea. Alternative 1 No Action and Alternative 2 Proposal are consistent with VISION 2050 goals, but Alternative 2 Proposal more effectively advances key priorities such as increasing densities and providing housing options, enhancing multimodal connectivity, and integrating parks and recreation to support development of healthy, connected community. Exhibit 3.1-8. Alternatives Consistency with City and Regional Planning Framework ProposalPlanning Framework Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Notes No Action Growth Strategy& ✓ J+ Alternatives would see residential Development Pattern growth within neighborhoods with Accommodate future growth in nearby amenities and opportunities. alignment with the PSRC Regional Alternative 2 would increase the Growth Strategy by encouraging the potential for denser development, development of walkable, healthy, improve community connectivity, and equitable communities,while include updated design standards preserving rural and resource lands for walkability, and create gathering and fostering a strong sense of spaces such as parks and shared community courtyards to strengthen sense of community. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 49 ■ Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form Planning Framework Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Notes No Action Proposal Housing J_ ✓+ Alternatives support increasing Expand the housing stock to provide housing stock.Alternative 1 would equitable access to affordable, be unlikely to increase housing type diverse housing options that meet diversity or increase housing stock the needs of all income levels and to the same extent as Alternative 2. demographic groups. Support the Alternative 2 would accommodate development of mixed-income planned residential growth and neighborhoods strategically located allow a variety of home types. nearjobs, essential services, and transit to promote accessibility and inclusivity. Connectivity ✓ J+ Alternatives would adhere to City Promote safe, convenient movement "Complete Streets", "Vision Zero", of people, goods, and services and"Safe Routes to School" through a well-connected guidelines to enhance walkability multimodal transportation system and streetscape.Alternative 2 would that enhances both regional and connect more residences to active local connectivity and supports transportation infrastructure and economic growth. Encourage make use of updated street healthier, more sustainable travel standards. options by expanding transit access and investing in active transportation infrastructure for people of all ages and abilities. Parks&Recreation J_ J+ Alternative 2 would increase the Develop high-quality parks,trails, potential for publicly accessible and open spaces that promote parks and recreation while healthy and active lifestyles,while protecting critical areas. supporting environmental stewardship by thoughtfully locating recreational facilities to enhance and complement natural site features. Legend: ✓-= partially meets ✓= meets ✓+ = optimally meets Aesthetics/Urban Form Housing development is anticipated under all the alternatives, though the scale and mix will vary. These developments will likely lead to noticeable changes in aesthetics, marking a shift in neighborhood character from a rural, pastoral setting to a more developed landscape. This transformation may include an increased presence of built elements such as buildings, roads, and parking areas, as well as landscaped areas, parks, and open space. Land Use Compatibility An increase in residential density (from low to medium) may introduce limited potential for land use transition conflicts, particularly where new development abuts existing rural or lower-density areas. SR 531 (172nd St NE) is a wide right-of-way that visually and physically separates Lindsay from Hilltop's other neighborhoods. Any changes in scale or housing type Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 50 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form across the street would not impact existing development's solar access, privacy, or other feature of a residential neighborhood, and increased housing type variety may be considered a benefit to the neighborhood. Lindsay's other boundaries are surrounded by rural, less developed, mostly wooded land. The protection of critical areas would maintain large open space corridors visually maintaining Lindsay's place in its ecological setting, and setback standards would prevent development from inappropriately abutting adjacent sites. Urban Form Goals Both alternatives would adhere to design standards. Any potential impacts would be effectively mitigated through design standards and development regulations that promote high-quality, context-sensitive design. Housing The City of Arlington recognizes Lindsay Subarea as a key area to accommodate a portion of the City's growth. In the figures below, the "Existing" reflects housing units as of 2024. Alternative 1 No Action represents Lindsay's housing capacity analyzed under the Comprehensive Plan. Alternative 2 Proposal supports a more proactive strategy, accommodating more housing units and achieving long-term growth objectives under AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans. Housing goal. Increasing housing capacity achieves City and community housing goals like increased affordability and expanded housing choice. Introducing low-to medium- density housing types provide a range of housing options that better align with resident needs at various income levels and life stages. It also supports the creation of more affordable options by reducing pressure on the existing housing stock and providing alternatives to traditional single-family homes. Exhibit 3.1-9. Net New Housing Units in 2044 by Alternatives JJJ'MAlternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 1: Alternative 2: No Action Proposal No Action Proposal Lindsay 17 85 419 102 436 Source: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Forecasts, Land Technologies,2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form Noise Under both alternatives, during active construction, noise is expected to be elevated during allowed hours of construction operation (7am to 7pm, Monday through Saturday), and equipment is generally required to use noise suppression. Increased residential density and small businesses may contribute to higher ambient noise levels, though these would likely generate noise levels comparable to typical residential conditions. Under both alternatives, traffic volumes are expected to be comparable, with an increase over existing conditions. Traffic-related noise from SR 531 (172nd St NE) may increase, though not to an extent that would be considered a significant unavoidable adverse noise impact. The shift to electric and hybrid vehicles may contribute to a reduction in noise pollution, especially at low speeds. Traffic-related noise may be further reduced by improvements to SR 531 (172nd St NE), such as the installation of a landscape buffer and fencing to reduce the perception of noise from roadways and a roundabout, which reduces noise from idling and sudden acceleration. Streets within Lindsay would adhere to the Lindsay design standards, which include relatively narrow streets and traffic calming measures, which result in lower noise volumes from motor vehicles. Indoor space can also be mitigated with noise reduction design and construction techniques, including enhanced insulation and sound-rated windows and doors. Under both alternatives, more residences would be developed near the Arlington Municipal Airport. This could result in more homes being impacted by aircraft-related noise if flight path guidance does not treat Lindsay as a noise sensitive area. Alternative 1 : No Action Relationship to Existing Land Use Plans The existing low-density residential zone constrains development feasibility, making it unlikely that the Subarea will meet its expected housing capacity under current conditions. Without strategic land development and supportive policy framework, the Subarea is unlikely to deliver a diverse mix of housing types, multimodal connectivity, and integrated network of parks and recreation. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 52 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form Aesthetics/Urban Form Land Use Compatibility If the current trend continues, the Subarea's rural and low-density development pattern would see modest increases in density, with the potential effects described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives. Urban Form Goals Development would likely occur in a piecemeal fashion, resulting in inconsistent urban design strategies to support a more pedestrian-oriented environment and limit opportunities to foster neighborhood identity, cohesion, and walkability. Streetscapes may lack continuity, and the built environment would offer few unifying elements or shared community amenities that could emerge from more coordinated redevelopment. Housing As shown in Exhibit 3.1-4. Lindsay's 2044 Comprehensive Plan and PSRC Housing Capacity , Alternative 1 No Action is projected to add 85 net new housing units and 102 total housing units. 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. Not meeting city and regional growth targets could be considered a significant adverse impact unless the region plans to accommodate population growth elsewhere. The types of development expected under this alternative would primarily be low-density residential, limiting the potential to provide a broader range of housing choices and affordability levels. Noise No further impacts beyond those common to all are anticipated. Alternative 2: Proposal, Preferred Alternative Relationship to Existing Land Use Plans Alternative 2 closely aligns with land use goals and policies, particularly those calling for more coordinated, efficient development patterns. It would achieve the intended outcomes of a diverse housing mix in a walkable, well-connected community. This alternative also supports the preservation and enhancements of natural areas. The potential for public- Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form private partnerships or development agreements under this alternative may encourage infrastructure improvements in the Subarea to occur sooner than under Alternative 1. Aesthetics/Urban Form Land Use Compatibility The predominant proposed land use consists of up to 3-story (35 feet) single-family homes, maintaining a residential scale similar to the northern neighborhoods. Low to medium- density housing, including townhomes (up to 3 stories or 35 feet) and multifamily homes (up to 5 stories or 50 feet), is proposed to be situated away from SR 531 (172nd St NE), which helps minimize the perceived intensity of change in residential scale and supports a more gradual transition from existing lower-density neighborhoods. Even if plans change and more intense development occurs close to 172nd St NE, the road provides a wide area to transition from a more intense scale to a lower scale, and taller buildings would complement the scale of the wide right-of-way. As noted in Section 3.1 .2, Impacts Common to All Alternatives, any compatibility impacts on Lindsay's other borders would be mitigated through the preservation of open space corridors, effectively nestling residential development within the rural landscape, proposed development standards (e.g., setbacks), and Lindsay-specific design standards, promoting compatibility and continuity with surrounding land uses. Urban Form Goals A combination of citywide and Lindsay-specific design standards—described in Section 3.1.3 Incorporated Plan Features—would be applied to the area, encouraging development to meet citywide urban form goals. Residential buildings would feature active fronts with porches or stoops and landscaping enhancing visual appeal and encouraging informal interaction between residents. Shared amenities like common open spaces, parks, and trails contribute to a cohesive urban form that promotes a welcoming neighborhood atmosphere. A finer-grained street network and enhanced streetscape improve connectivity, enabling Lindsay to physically and visually integrate with the existing neighborhoods. This fosters a connected Hilltop community while strengthening Lindsay's neighborhood identity and sense of place. Housing Alternative 2 is projected to add 419 net new housing units and a total of 436 housing units to the Subarea, significantly expanding the housing stock compared to Alternative 1. This added capacity would support the City's housing targets and help accommodate anticipated population growth. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 54 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form The alternative introduces a broader mix of housing types including single-family homes, townhomes, and multifamily homes, which offer greater housing choice for residents across a range of income levels, life stages, and household sizes. Alternative 2 supports key community goals related to housing affordability and accessibility. Noise Development under Alternative 2 would likely include more residential development than Alternative 1. This may result in noise over longer construction periods and following construction, a modest increase in noise from typical residential activity. These increases are expected to remain within levels typical of urban residential environments and are not anticipated to create significant adverse impacts. More people would live near the airport, but the airport's flight guidance suggests avoiding impacts to sensitive noise areas, including residential zones. Guidance could be clarified to explicitly include the Lindsay Subarea and a Noise Abatement Area. 3.1 .3 Mitigation Strategies Incorporated Plan Features The Subarea Plan includes a range of strategies to enhance the feasibility of residential development and encourage a high quality urban form. These measures include: • Development regulations to reduce barriers to desired housing types and support a diverse mix of ownership and rental options. See Exhibit 3.1-10. • Design standards for livability and wellbeing with a focus of people-oriented development (e.g., pedestrian -friendly streetscape, "eyes on the street" approach). • Investment in streetscape and roadway infrastructure to enhance the functionality, resilience, and visual appeal of the public realm. Exhibit 3.1-10. 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 housing,Single-family houses, cottage or townhouses Maximum Height 35 feet Building Setbacks Front- minimum: 10 feet* Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 55 Chapter 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form 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 strongly encouraged. When drive aisles are present, parking must be accessed from the drive aisle. Otherwise,front-loaded parking is allowed. Impervious Coverage Refer to setback and stormwater manual for initial development. For redevelopment, impervious surface area may not increase by more than 10%. Apartments, mixed use,or small commercial Maximum height 50 feet Building Setbacks Front- minimum: 5 feet* Side- minimum: 5 feet Rear: 10 feet Parking Orientation 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. 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 Design Standards supplement the Arlington Development Design Standards, which provide citywide baseline guidance to ensure consistent, high-quality building design. The Lindsay Design Standards reinforce the community's vision and ensure that new development meets desired design outcomes within the Subarea. Recommended changes are noted in Exhibit 3.1-11. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ■ Volume I ■ November 2025 56 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form Exhibit 3.1-11. Lindsay Design Standards Overview SubareaF Citywide Development Design Standards . . 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 Lots and 20.76.110 Required Trees Along Dedicated Streets Transition Between Occupied Spaces and Street Buffering Private Spaces O Public to Private Space 20.46.080 Walls and Transitions Fences Neighborhood Character Creating Streetscape Compatibility Orienting the Building to the Street O Orienting to Public Spaces Compatibility within Emerging Centers I/ Adjacent Properties Retaining Privacy and Solar Access O Solar Access Parking Adjacent to Residences O Parking Lots Location Chapter 20.72 Parking, 20.76.130 Shade Trees in Parking Areas, and 20.76.110 Required Trees Along Dedicated Streets Siting Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS - Volume I - November 2025 57 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form DevelopmentCitywide Design . . Codes Creating Usable Open Space O Residential Open Space 20.44.032 Subarea Plans and 20.52.030 Residential Usable Open Space Siting Parking Areas O Parking Lots Location Chapter 20.72 Parking, Vehicular Entrances and 20.76.130 Shade Trees in 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 Q Parking Lots Location Chapter 20.72 Parking, Complexes 20.76.130 Shade Trees in Parking Areas, and 20.76.1 10 Required Trees Along Dedicated Streets Architecture Character Consideration of Site Conditions Unifying Design Concept Compatibility with Neighborhoods Character and Massing Articulation and Modulation Architectural Scale Rooflines Architecture Elements 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 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 58 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Land Use and Urban Form • Recommend to incorporate the Lindsay Subarea within the Noise Abatement Area mapped on the Arlington Municipal Airport's Traffic Patterns Map to encourage flight paths to avoid impacts on Lindsay. • AMC 20.76.090 Special Screening Requirements for SR 531 (172nd St NE), which requires a 30-foot-wide landscape screen is not applied to the Lindsay Subarea. Instead, SR 531 (172nd St NE) street design include a buffer and design elements (e.g., trees, shrubs, and residential fences) consistent with Complete Streets, Lindsay Design Standards, and planned improvements. These features are intended to reduce the perception of traffic noise and actual noise levels by slowing vehicles and blocking some sound. Regulations and Commitments State and local laws require new development to meet minimum standards for safety, compatibility, and alignment with adopted infrastructure plans. Applicable regulations are summarized below. Development Regulations and Design Standards • Title 20 of the Arlington Municipal Code establishes zoning and development regulations that govern building design, site planning, and strategies to minimize land use conflicts. Proposed changes are noted in Exhibit 3.1-10. • Arlington's Engineering Standards regulate street design unless otherwise adjusted within the Lindsay Street Design Standards. • The Arlington Development Design Standards provide citywide baseline guidance to ensure consistent, high-quality building design, and are modified by the Lindsay Design Standards as noted in Exhibit 3.1-11. • See 3.2.3 Natural Environment Mitigation Strategies for environmental regulations that impact land use and development. • As required by GMA (RCW 36.70A.106), the City must submit proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and updated regulations for review and comment by the State prior to final adoption. Noise Regulations • AMC 20.44.210, pursuant to WAC 173-60, prohibits "annoying or disruptive" noise outside of the use and regulates the maximum permissible noise level within residential zones, including the underlying zone RULC. • AMC Chapter 9 — Peace, Morals and Safety and AMC Chapter 7 — Nuisances provides additional guidelines regarding allowable noise, violations, and exemptions. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Natural Environment AMC Chapter 20.76 Screening and Trees provides guidance for additional strategies to minimize noise. Other Potential Mitigation Measures Potential mitigation measures include: • To achieve a greater variety of housing types more quickly, the City might consider incentivizing townhouse and multifamily types in earlier development phases. • To encourage a walkable community and provide nearby amenities within Hilltop neighborhoods, the City might consider incentivizing small commercial use(s) within Lindsay. 3.1 .4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Alternative 1 No Action fails to align with adopted growth targets under the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. This is a significant adverse impact unless the City is able to accommodate growth elsewhere. Under Alternative 2 Proposal, with implementation of the planned improvements in the study area and proposed mitigation measures, there would be no significant and unavoidable land use and urban form impacts related solely to the proposal. No noise created by uses in the Lindsay subarea would be considered a significant adverse impact, though clarifying that the airport's Noise Abatement Area includes Lindsay would reduce the chances of noise impacts on Arlington's planned residential areas. Natural Environment 7 - 1 Affected Environment Earth and Water Quality Earth. Topography in the Subarea is rolling, with variable slopes ranging from 1 to 45 percent. The greatest slopes are associated with ravines situated on the western portion of Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Natural Environment the Subarea. The NRCS soil survey map identify soils within the Subarea as Tokul gravelly loam; however, pockets of siltier soils have been identified in areas coinciding with wetland and streams. The Subarea has no history or indications of unstable soils. Wetlands and streams. Soundview Consultants (SVC) completed a formal site investigation of the approximately 32.28-acre Lindsay's Pending Project Area (referred to as the "PPA") in December of 2022 and April of 2024 and identified and delineated four wetlands (Wetlands A-D) and one stream (Stream Z) within the PPA, and identified one wetland (Wetland 1) offsite within 300 feet of the PPA (see Exhibit 3.2-1 ). The results of the assessment are documented in Appendix B Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report for Lindsay Annexation dated June 21, 2024 (SVC, 2024a). Following the formal site investigations within the PPA, SVC completed a desktop study to identify additional potential habitat in the Subarea, including the Future Development Area (referred to as the "FDA"). The desktop study included reviewing online critical area maps and resources, prior studies, topographic maps, and LiDAR imagery to identify potential wetlands, streams, and other fish and wildlife conservation areas. The results of the desktop study preliminarily identified six additional wetlands (Wetlands 2-8) on or within 300 feet of the Subarea, as well as two additional streams (Streams 1 and 2) within the Subarea. The desktop analysis is documented in Appendix C. Exhibit 3.2-1 identifies the wetlands and streams within and near Lindsay. Exhibit 3.2-1. Wetlands and Streams i i 4 i .=.-.-4 j pi 33 .NR -xs , .... •1 •_�} ', YTS: I L, s •�'" Total F Offsite Total ••••••Ditch F Blocks a Stream Wetland u 9 D17. ent Area •,.� Onsite 0 Culvert Total N __ Pending Stream Wetland Project Area Source: Soundview,2024 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS Volume I November 2025 61 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Natural Environment Coordination with Tulalip Tribe Biologists has determined that the feature identified as "Stream 1" within the FDA serves as headwaters to Edgecomb Creek. For this analysis, Stream 1 is referred to as "Edgecomb Creek". Stream Z is an unnamed tributary to Edgecomb Creek and will continue to be referred to as "Stream Z" for the purposes of this document. Stream 2 appears to drain to Tex Lake offsite to the north and then continue north where it eventually outlets to Portage Creek, a tributary to the Stillaguamish River. Many of the wetlands within the Subarea are situated in degraded landscapes and have been impacted by prior land clearing, mowing, and the encroachment of non-native invasive species. Edgecomb Creek flows through a forested corridor. However, the areas adjacent to Stream Z and Stream 2 appear to be similarly degraded, mowed and/or utilized for agriculture, and lacking native riparian vegetation along much of their lengths within the Subarea. Plants and Animals Upland vegetation throughout the Subarea consists predominantly of pasture grasses with smaller forested and scrub-shrub patches/corridors. Vegetation within the open field areas is largely dominated by creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), common velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and non-native invasive reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Vegetation within the forested/scrub-shrub areas consists of a mix deciduous and coniferous canopy largely dominated by western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), red alder (Alnus rubra), and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), with an understory dominated by osoberry (Oemlaria cerasiformis), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), and non- native invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). Wetland vegetation throughout the Subarea appears to consist of a mix of emergent and forested/scrub-shrub areas. Wetlands within the disturbed/degraded pastures onsite are largely dominated by soft rush (Juncus effusus) and non-native invasive reed canarygrass, while wetlands within the undeveloped patches of forest/shrub areas are dominated by western red cedar, red alder, salmonberry, skunk cabbage (Lysticium americanum), youth- on-age (Tolmiea menziesii), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), creeping buttercup, water horsetail (Equisetum arvense), slough sedge (Carex obnupta), and non-native invasive reed canarygrass. Animals present throughout the Subarea likely consist of typical urban wildlife species including deer, squirrels, crows, songbirds, and other small birds and mammals, as well as aquatic species associated with the identified wetlands and streams throughout the FDA. The reach of Edgecomb Creek identified within the Subarea is not identified on the DNR Stream Typing map, Snohomish County Streams map, or WDFW and NWIFC-SWIFD. However, onsite investigations completed by SVC and the Tulalip Tribe on parcel 31052600100800 located at the northwest corner of the Subarea identified a natural Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Natural Environment defined stream channel within the large ravine that runs from south to north through the western area of the Subarea. These observations combined with additional online desktop assessment confirmed that this reach of channel is the natural headwaters of Edgecomb Creek. Significant improvements have been made to Edgecomb Creek downgradient of the Subarea, including extensive channel relocation and enhancement and stream crossing upgrades meant to improve fish accessibility to the upgradient portions of the stream. The portion of Edgecomb Creek within the Subarea is considered a Type F (fish-habitat-ESA) water due to its physical characteristics, including a channel width of more than 2 feet wide on average and gentle slope. One manmade fish passage barrier was identified on parcel 31052600100300, and could potentially be removed as part of a project-specific mitigation plan to allow for fish passage upgradient to the south. The majority of the Stream Z reach and Stream 2 have been identified as Type Ns (non-fish habitat, seasonal) waters that do not support fish presence. Natural slope barriers as well as several culverts, some within the study area, currently create total fish passage barriers, precluding fish access to the upper reaches of these streams. A large approximately 200- foot-long elevated culvert is present beneath the gravel machine yard on parcel 31052600100800, which prevents upstream fish passage within Stream Z. Additionally, it is likely that if the 200-foot long culvert were to be removed, a natural fish passage barrier would likely still be present due to the slope and gradient within the channel of Stream Z throughout this portion of the stream. Additionally, upgradient of the large 200-foot-long culvert and Wetland 8, there is a steep approximately 40-foot long vegetated slope with no bed or bank that would prevent fish passage upgradient. Stream Z does transition to Type F (fish-habitat) waters on the northwest corner of the Subarea downgradient of the large culvert on parcel 31052600100800. Additionally, Wetland 4 located outside of the Subarea adjacent to Edgecomb Creek may provide suitable off channel habitat for salmonids during periods of high flows. 3.2.2 potential Impacts Impacts Common to All Under both alternatives, new development will occur within the Subarea. New impacts are anticipated to be universal regardless if the alternative includes increased residential densities and impervious surfaces throughout the Subarea. Additionally, both development plans will likely require road improvements including the expansion of 79t" Ave NE. Earth and Water Quality Under both alternatives, new development will require grading and increases in impervious surfaces that will affect existing topography and water quality. Areas of rolling topography Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Natural Environment will be filled/leveled; however, development activities are generally anticipated to avoid areas potentially containing steep slopes defined/regulated under AMC 20.93.600. Increased runoff and pollutants associated with new impervious surfaces and increased residential density throughout the Subarea will be offset through stormwater infrastructure designed to filter stormwater runoff and maintain existing site drainage patterns and hydrology. 6PPD is a chemical used in the fabrication of automobile tires. As tires wear on the road and in parking lots, they leave micro deposits and small chunks of tire material behind. When 6PPD is exposed to ozone and suspended/dissolved in stormwater it transforms into 6PPD-q, which in 2020 was identified as the chemical responsible for pre-spawn coho salmon mortality events in urban streams. The coho pre-spawn urban runoff associated mortality was known previously as URMS (Urban Runoff Mortality Syndrome) and has been documented since the 1990's throughout the Puget Sound basin in urban and rural areas with direct discharge of transportation system runoff. Since the discovery of the chemical responsible and its effects in 2020, research has been conducted showing that other species of salmonids such as ESA listed Steelhead and Chinook salmon are also sensitive to 6PPD-q, however toxicity thresholds appear to be much lower in coho than other salmonids studied to date. Long term low level or repeated sublethal exposure effects have yet to be evaluated, however preliminary results from toxicity threshold testing show sublethal exposures still result in neurological damage in surviving individuals in both juveniles and adults. Plants and Animals Under both alternatives, new development will require land clearing and the loss of vegetation and habitat within the Subarea. Both alternatives will primarily result in the loss of open field areas degraded due to prior land clearing, ongoing maintenance, and the encroachment of non-native invasive species. Clearing in areas dominated by intact native forest habitat is anticipated to be minor. Alternative 2 Proposal may require additional land clearing and the loss of habitat within vegetated wetland and stream buffers throughout the site due to the extent of encumbrance by critical areas onsite. These impacts will be minimized through the implementation of vegetated corridors and/or minimization measures described in AMC 20.93.830(a) Table 20.93-5 required to implement wetland buffers described in AMC 20.93-4, buffer averaging described in AMC 20.93.320 to reduce wetland and stream buffers at select locations while avoiding the loss of protective buffer area onsite, and by limiting development in buffers to those allowed uses described in AMC 20.93.720 and 20.93.820 to the greatest extent feasible. If impacts beyond what can be accommodated through these allowances are required, they will be treated as permanent buffer impacts or indirect wetland impacts and mitigated as described in Section 0 below. Both alternatives will result in some level of environmental enhancement due to the requirement to enhance degraded wetland buffers per AMC 20.93.830. It is anticipated that Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Natural Environment an existing culvert conveying Stream Z under 791" Ave NE will be upgraded to a spanning crossing design as part of required frontage improvements. While this reach of the channel is not accessible to fish due to a slope barrier downgradient, and a large approximately 200- long elevated culvert, the spanning crossing, the replacement of the existing culvert with a spanning crossing will ultimately improve the overall channel habitat and hydrology. Minimization measures and, where required, protected corridors connecting wetlands to other specified habitats will be incorporated into future development designs to utilize standard buffer widths described in AMC 20.93.830 Table 20.93-4. Furthermore, AMC 20.93.290 requires the establishment of protected critical areas tracts and easements containing critical areas and associated buffers. These measures will result in improved habitat for wildlife and the establishment of protected movement corridors for wildlife. Alternative 1 : No Action Earth and Water Quality Under Alternative 1 No Action, fill and grading activities are anticipated to create level ground for development. Exact quantities for earthwork have not been calculated, but it is presumed these quantities would be substantially smaller in scale than what is proposed under the Alternative 2 Proposal. Additionally, under Alternative 1, impervious surfaces will increase throughout the Subarea, resulting in subsequent increases in runoff and pollutants. In general, development activities will be situated away from areas potentially defined/regulated as steep slopes under AMC 20.93.600. Alternative 1 is expected to retain identified wetlands and streams in their existing condition and adhere to critical area buffers described in AMC 20.93. AMC 20.93.830 describes requirements for prescribed wetland buffers, which may include the enhancement of degraded/unvegetated buffers, and in some cases the incorporation of minimization measures in development design and the establishment of a protected, 100-foot-wide vegetated corridor between wetlands and specified habitats. Per AMC 20.93.830(a)(4), if existing wetland buffers are degraded, increased buffer widths may be utilized in lieu of buffer enhancement. AMC 20.93.730 describes requirements for prescribed stream buffers, which includes the protection of existing native vegetation and the development of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Facilities (TESC) Plan to protect stream and stream buffer functions. In addition to adhering to required buffers, as a general condition of development AMC 20.93.290 requires the establishment of critical areas easements or tracts dedicated to the City to protect environmentally critical areas. The greatest limitations to environmental improvements under Alternative 1 are that (1) low density development will occur over a 20-year period, (2) stream buffers will likely not be enhanced due to there being no requirement to enhance stream buffers under AMC Chapter 20.93, (3) the man made total fish passage barrier located within Edgecomb Creek on Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 65 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Natural Environment parcel 31052600100300 will likely not be removed, (4) stream channel restoration within the degraded Stream Z will likely not occur due to their being no requirement under AMC Chapter 20.93, (5) wetlands will likely not be enhanced due to there being no requirement for wetland enhancement under AMC Chapter 20.93, and (6) environmental enhancements and protections will be implemented slowly over 20-year period. Further, AMC 20.93.730 does not include requirements for stream buffer enhancement, and it is presumed that Alternative 1 will not provide additional improvements beyond what is required in the City's code as all stream buffer requirements will be met. In general, increased runoff and pollutants associated with increases in impervious surfaces and residential use of the Subarea will be offset through the implementation of stormwater infrastructure designed to collect and treat runoff before dispersing to buffers in order to maintain existing site drainage patterns and hydrology. Additionally, wetland buffer enhancement actions will provide increase plant densities which will provide additional structure to filter pollutants and sediments from runoff entering the identified streams. However, under Alternative 1 it is expected that enhancement measures will be implemented slowly over time and be smaller in scale than what will be achieved under Alternative 2. Plants and Animals Alternative 1 may require impacts to existing plant communities and habitat in order to accommodate development. Some environmental improvements are anticipated under Alternative 1, as degraded wetland buffers may require enhancement under AMC 20.93.830, and AMC 20.93.290 requires the establishment of critical areas easements or tracts to protect environmentally critical areas as a condition of development, which will in turn establish protected wildlife movement corridors. However, as noted above, AMC Chapter 20.93does not require the enhancement of degraded stream buffers, stream channel restoration, removal of manmade fish passage barriers, or wetland enhancement. No enhancement of habitat areas outside of wetland buffers is assumed or required under Alternative 1. The establishment of contiguous critical area easements or tracts will occur under Alternative 1. Alternative 1 is also anticipated to allow the existing residential development to stay in place. Several of these developments appear to be located within wetland and/or stream buffers, indicating non-conforming land uses. Residential structures and impervious surfaces located in close proximity to these critical areas can all have degrading effects on these features. Furthermore, the current landscape within many of the critical areas, their buffer, and the adjacent uplands are degraded by mowing, agricultural land uses, and non- native species. These factors all contribute to degraded water quality and habitat. The current residences utilize onsite septic drain fields which could also have adverse effects on water quality of nearby waters or wetlands. Proposed new development under Alternative 1 would connect into municipal sewer systems, which is potentially Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Natural Environment unachievable in areas of the Subarea due to the topography onsite and costs associated with construction of tying into the municipal sewer. However, under this alternative, the development throughout the Subarea will occur slowly over a 20-year period, allowing these ongoing land uses to continue degrading these habitats in the meantime. Alternative 2: Proposal, Preferred Alternative Earth and Water Quality Alternative 2 Proposal includes the development of approximately 305 single family homes, 87 townhomes, and 44 multifamily homes and associated infrastructure including required frontage improvements and site access, landscaping, open space and recreational areas, utilities, and stormwater management facilities in order to meet the goals of the GMA and City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan. Snohomish County's growth targets for the City of Arlington, as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, identify significant increases expected for Arlington employment, population, and housing units between 2020 and 2044. The identified growth targets anticipate a population increase of 15,088 people, an additional 14,462 jobs created, and the construction of 7,913 new housing units between 2020 and 2044. Alternative 2 significantly supports these growth targets through the creation of 436 additional homes in close proximity to areas of increasing employment opportunities, while also providing a net lift in the ecological functions and value to the wetlands and streams identified throughout the Subarea. To create level ground for development, fill and grading activities and increases in impervious surfaces are anticipated. The Subarea is approximately 87 acres in size, and approximately 69 acres will be disturbed by earthwork, including approximately 4.5 acres of wetland creation and mitigation alone for the Lindsay's Pending Project Area . Over the course of several years, preliminary analyses estimate up to 80,000 cubic yards of surface soil will be stripped and repurposed for landscaping throughout the site. Structural cuts and fills will move approximately 90,000 cubic yards of materials and be balanced such that there are no imports or exports. Approximately 35 percent of the Subarea will be covered by impervious surfaces. Wetlands and streams are distributed throughout the Subarea, and impacts, including wetland fill, will be necessary and unavoidable to facilitate continued efficient neighborhood growth and to accommodate lot layouts and required infrastructure. Preliminary site plan drawings for the Subarea require the complete fill of Wetlands D and 3, and the partial fill of Wetlands A and C. The proposed wetland fill would result in the complete loss of water quality functions associated with these areas and indirect impacts to wetland areas adjacent to partial fill as these areas will transition to function as buffer. Additionally, a combination of buffer averaging and reduction and permanent and temporary buffer impacts are anticipated in the buffer areas associated with both wetlands and Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Natural Environment streams throughout the Subarea. Wetland buffers described in AMC 20.93.820(a) Table 20.93-4 require the establishment of a 100-foot-wide vegetated corridor for wetland that score six or more points for habitat functions and/or minimization measures outlined in AMC 20.93.820(a) Table 20.93-5 in accordance with AMC 20.93.820(a)(1). Buffer averaging pursuant to AMC 20.93.320 may also be utilized to reduce wetland and stream buffers while avoiding the loss of buffer area onsite. If additional buffer impacts cannot be avoided through buffer reduction and averaging measure, impacts will be treated as permanent buffer impacts or indirect wetland impacts and mitigated as described in Section 0 below. To the greatest extent feasible, permanent buffer impacts will be limited to allowed uses in wetlands and streams/associated buffers described in AMC 20.93.720 and 20.93.820. Furthermore, increases in impervious surfaces and residential capacity throughout the Subarea will increase runoff and pollutants in the landscape. Additionally, a bridge may be needed in the southwest Future Development Area to cross the Edgecomb Creek headwaters. These impacts will be offset through a combination of onsite and offsite wetland mitigation, onsite buffer creation, enhancement, and restoration, and the implementation of stormwater management facilities that will collect and treat new runoff prior to dispersing to critical area buffers to maintain existing water quality and quantity. Overall, mitigation measures are anticipated to be designed to achieve a net lift in ecological functions onsite and on a watershed scale. See Plants and Animals n ns ne,e, development is largely proposed within shrubs,the feetprint of areas previously irnpaGted by histeriG land Glearing, rnowing, and the to less of open field habitat and inGreased noise during GenstruGtien. SpeGies that rely on these open fiPid h;;h*t;;ts are typically disturbance-telerant species fe,ind mere -whanized areas, and that are Gapable of adapting to human land uses. GenstruGtien neise will Iarge4y term, the proposed development will improve habitat by planting d 0 sturbed/deg Faded are and groundGevers (See SeGtien 0 for further details), and GonneGted habitat Gerridors will will provide safe movement for Ional w ddlifo Alternative 2 wd! remove existing nen-conforming land uses within GritiGal areas and/or th buffer-q t-.h-;;t may be resulting in degraded water quality or h-;;-h6t.;-;t f-unetions within thee wetlands and streams within and downgradient of theSubarea. Termination of - - agricultural land uses, transition frern ensite septic drain field-q to municipal sewer, and 6 s antiGipated to result in an overall improvement to water quality leaving the site GempareGl te Gurrent Genditions. improved surfaGe water quality leaving the site subsequent4y imnrnves salmnnAi hahitat in r(W.Aingradient reanhes of E dgenomh Greet Mitigation Strategies for more information. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 68 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Natural Environment Additionally, under Alternative 2, all degraded stream buffers have the potential to be fully enhanced and or restored through the removal and control of non-native invasive species and the installation of native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers which will significantly improve riparian habitat, increase shading of the stream channels, and help to improve water quality onsite and downgradient of the Subarea. Stream buffer enhancement is not required under AMC Chapter 20-93, and the potential implementation of stream buffer enhancement under Alternative 2 is a significant benefit of Alternative 2 in comparison to Alternative 1. Plants and Animals Alternative 2 will primarily result in the loss of open field/pasture areas dominated by grasses and forbs, and degraded due to the encroachment of non-native invasive species found throughout the surrounding landscape. Some tree and shrub removal will occur; however, these habitat areas largely exist in corridors containing/connecting identified wetlands and streams that will be retained and protected in established NGPAs to protect these areas from future development and fragmentation. As new development is largely proposed within the footprint of areas previously impacted by historic land clearing, mowing, and the encroachment of non-native invasive species, impacts to local wildlife will likely be limited to loss of open field habitat and increased noise during construction. Species that rely on these open field habitats are typically disturbance-tolerant species found in more urbanized areas, and that are capable of adapting to human land uses. Construction noise will largely dissuade wildlife from utilizing habitat for the duration of construction. However, in the long term, the proposed development will improve habitat by planting disturbed/degraded areas within critical areas and associated buffers with a dense assortment of native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers (See Section 0 for further details), and connected habitat corridors will be placed in NGPAs to protect these areas from future development. These retained corridors will provide safe movement for local wildlife. Alternative 2 will remove existing non-conforming land uses within critical areas and/or their buffers that may be resulting in degraded water quality or habitat functions within the wetlands and streams within and downgradient of the Subarea. Termination of the agricultural land uses, transition from onsite septic drain fields to municipal sewer, and proper collection and treatment of stormwater associated with the proposed development is anticipated to result in an overall improvement to water quality leaving the site compared to current conditions. Improved surface water quality leaving the site subsequently improves salmonid habitat in downgradient reaches of Edgecomb Creek. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Natural Environment 3.2.1 Mitigation Strategies Incorporated Plan Features Several features will be incorporated into the development design for the Subarea in order to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas from the proposed development. In general, the proposed development will be designed to avoid and minimize critical area impacts to the greatest extent feasible, in accordance with mitigation sequencing required under AMC 20.93, by adhering to the stream and wetland buffer requirements specified in AMC 20.93 (See the Regulations and Commitments section below for further details) and utilizing buffer averaging (AMC 20.93.320) to limit the degree of permanent buffer impacts throughout the site. Standards for wetland buffers described in AMC 20.93.830 require minimization measures specified in AMC Table 20.93-5 and the enhancement of degraded wetland buffers which will be incorporated into project designs. Stream buffer requirements in AMC 20.93.730 do not require buffer enhancements, but do require the retention of native plant communities, which will also be incorporated. Under Alternative 2, degraded stream buffers have the potential to be fully enhanced and or restored through the removal and control of non-native invasive species and the installation of native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers which will significantly improve riparian habitat, increase shading of the stream channels, and improve water quality onsite and downgradient of the Subarea. If impacts cannot be avoided and/or minimized, mitigation measures described in the Other Potential Mitigation Measures section below will be incorporated. The use of mitigation banks or in lieu fee (ILF) programs for impacts within the same watershed is preferred by both WSDOE and USACE, as they are associated with larger scale systems and can provide an even greater improvement to the watershed as a whole. The site is located within the service area for the 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 site is not located within the service area of any approved ILF programs. Therefore, potential mitigation options for any potential impacts include either permittee responsible onsite in-kind, permittee responsible onsite out-of-kind, permittee responsible offsite in-kind, permittee responsible offsite out-of-kind, or mitigation banks. As the site is degraded, there is the potential for mitigation to occur onsite. The type of onsite mitigation will be dependent upon the type and extent of impacts proposed, the likelihood of success, and coordination with the local, state, federal, and tribal agencies. It is unlikely that the site has the spatial capabilities to support mitigation for all proposed impacts, and as such, purchase of credits from a mitigation bank for the remaining deficit is reasonable and acceptable. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 70 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Natural Environment In its existing state, the subarea is largely degraded by mowing, agricultural land uses including farm animals, and a relatively heavy presence of non-native invasive species. These conditions are prevalent in both uplands as well as critical areas and their associated buffers. If no development is proposed, the existing conditions will be retained as they currently are as enhancement of wetland buffers is only required when associated with a proposed development in their vicinity. As a result, Alternative 1 would ultimately likely result in the bulk of wetlands and streams remaining degraded, functioning below their ecological potential, as only buffer enhancement is required for wetland buffers utilizing reduced buffers; while stream buffers and the wetlands themselves do not require enhancement under AMC 20-93. Conversely, as any form of development would require enhancement of degraded wetland buffers at a minimum, the final condition for any of the potential impact and mitigation strategies associated with Alternative 2 results in either net zero loss or overall lift in ecological function. Any combination of these strategies could be applied in order to avoid, minimize, rectify, and compensate for potential impacts. Exhibit 3.2-2 below outlines the various code allowances for proposed development with the associated mitigation requirements. The table outlines the AMC 20-93 code allowances for wetland and stream buffer modifications, temporary and permanent buffer impacts, and buffer mitigation options. Additionally, the table outlines the AMC 20-93 code allowances for temporary and permanent wetland impacts, and the allowed mitigation options to offset impacts to critical areas and associated buffers as outlined within AMC 20-93. Exhibit 3.2-2. AMC 20-93 Code Allowances with Associated Mitigation Requirements Code Mitigation RequirementS3 Mitigation Proposed Condition' Allowance' Sequencing' Options" Natural Buffer Avoid Retain natural None Buffers remain degraded Retention buffer condition required. AMC 20.93.330 Standard Buffer Avoid Increase buffer None Buffer width increased, but Requirements width required remains degraded AMC Implement Enhancement Avoid and/or limit impacts to 20.93.830(a) mitigation critical areas and their buffers measures and while improving buffer condition improve degraded buffer Buffer Impacts Minimize and Where Restoration Impacted buffers are restored, in (Temporary) rectify disturbed, areas where the buffers are AMC 20.93.330 revegetate currently degraded,this will result in improved conditions Buffer Impacts Minimize and Onsite in-kind, Creation Replace impacted buffer area (Permanent) compensate presumed 1:1 onsite, degraded areas will be replacement Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 71 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Natural Environment Options"Code Mitigation Requirements3 Mitigation Proposed Condition' Allowance' Sequencing2 AMC 20.93.820 improved through enhancement measures. Offsite Mitigation Impacted buffer will be replacement Bank compensated through the purchase of credits from a mitigation bank within the same watershed Buffer Avoid Buffer width Enhancement Average buffer to avoid impacts Averaging reduction up to (if degraded) and improve buffer conditions for AMC 20.93.320 25%, net zero any part of the existing buffer that loss of buffer is degraded area Mitigation Rectify Restore areas Restoration Ensures temporarily impacted Wetland temporarily areas are restored with native Impacts impacted by vegetation, may provide AMC 20.93.840 construction improvement over existing activities degraded condition Compensate Onsite in-kind Creation, Impacted critical area will be replacement restoration, replaced onsite at a higher ratio according to and/or resulting in overall net increase of Table 20.93-7 enhancement that critical area onsite Compensate Offsite Mitigation Impacted critical areas will be replacement Bank compensated through the purchase 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. Based on preliminary site plans for the Subarea, mitigation will be needed to offset two types of impacts: • Direct and indirect wetland impacts associated with the partial fill of such areas and • Indirect impacts to wetlands and streams associated with intrusions into the buffers that cannot be accommodated through buffer averaging. These impacts will likely be offset through a combination of wetland creation, enhancement, and the purchase of mitigation bank credits from the Skykomish Habitat Mitigation Bank (SHMB). Wetland creation and enhancement. Based on preliminary analysis, onsite mitigation is likely limited due to the spatial requirements to provide mitigation at required ratios Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 72 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Natural Environment specified in AMC 20.93.840 Table 20.93-7 and interagency mitigation guidance documents (WSDOE et al., 2021) and associated perimeter buffers. Onsite wetland creation actions coupled with the enhancement of existing degraded wetland areas will improve wetland functions in the immediate landscape consistent with the mitigation preferences of AMC 20.93.840(a) by establishing native forest and scrub-shrub wetland communities in areas currently degraded by prior land clearing and mowing and the encroachment of non-native invasive species. Wetland mitigation bank credits. The purchase of mitigation bank credits to offset any remaining mitigation deficits is consistent with interagency mitigation preferences and will contribute to environmental improvements on a watershed scale. The credits contribute to a large-scale third party responsible mitigation site within the Snohomish River watershed. Avoiding/minimizing wetland and stream buffer impacts. Permanent impacts to buffer areas associated with the identified wetlands and streams will be avoided/minimized to the greatest extent feasible by utilizing buffer averaging measures allowed per AMC 20.93.320. Where applicable, undisturbed vegetated corridors between wetlands and habitats specified in AMC 20.93.830(1)(A) will be maintained for standard buffer widths specified in AMC Table 20.93-4. Buffer enhancement. AMC 20.93.830(4) requires the enhancement of degraded wetland buffers; as such, any degraded wetland buffers identified within the Subarea would be fully restored with an assortment of native trees, shrubs, and groundcover to improve screening and habitat between the wetlands and development. Where permanent wetland and stream buffer impacts are required beyond the standard allowances of AMC Chapter 20.93, mitigation measures may include a combination of buffer creation designed to meet the ratios specified in AMC 20.93. If space is not available onsite to meet required mitigation ratios, permanent buffer impacts may also be compensated through the purchase of credits from the SHMB. Culvert replacement. Preliminary plans for the Subarea generally avoid new/direct stream impacts. However, the project will require frontage improvements and the expansion of 791n Ave NE for site access. Stream Z is currently conveyed beneath 79t" Ave NE through a piped culvert that impedes flow. Any frontage improvements will include upgrading the stream crossing to improve/restore drainage patterns in the landscape. Temporary buffer impacts and restoration. Construction activities such as site grading and the installation of utilities/stormwater infrastructure will likely result in temporary impacts to buffers. All temporary buffer impacts will be fully restored with native plantings once development activities have concluded. Permanent critical areas protection. Finally, as part of the future development plans for the Subarea, all of the remaining wetlands, streams, and associated buffer areas will be placed in a protected NGPA to maintain habitat corridors and prevent future development. The Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Natural Environment NGPA will be marked with critical areas signs and delineated with a split-rail fence to prevent intrusion. Edgecomb Creek crossing. If a road crosses the Edgecomb Creek headwaters in the southwestern area, mitigation measures would be required to maintain drainage patterns and fish passage. Proposed Code Amendments Per AMC 20.44.032.(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". As such, AMC allows for code customized for the specific subarea to be proposed that will provide the community with a predictable design and development pattern. The City will make the following code amendments to support feasible development with a net benefit to ecological functions and values. Wetland buffers flexibility The City of Arlington will apply the following options to the Lindsay Subarea to: • 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. • 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. Rationale. Currently, AMC 20.93 does not have any code mechanisms requiring the enhancement of degraded wetlands that are lacking native tree and shrub cover and that are dominated by non-native invasive species. Thus, the proposed 25-percent buffer reduction allowance that would require wetland enhancement would allow for more flexibility within the Subarea plan design, and would also result in a net ecological lift in the functions and values of the wetlands within the Subarea through wetland enhancement. As many of the wetlands identified within the Lindsay are dominated by herbaceous plants and non-native invasive species, and significantly lack native shrub and tree cover, there would be significant ecological benefit to wetland habitat and water quality functions through allowing for a 25-percent buffer reduction with required wetland enhancement. As currently codified, future development in the Subarea would not be required to enhance wetland areas, and would only be required to enhance wetland buffer areas, which would result in wetland buffers being enhanced but wetland areas not being enhanced. The buffer averaging of reduced buffers would allow for greater flexibility in site plan design to meet City housing goals while also avoiding direct wetland impacts and permanent buffer impacts. The reduced wetland buffer averaging allowance would align with the criteria identified in AMC 20.93.320- Buffer Averaging. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Natural Environment Stream buffers flexibility The City of Arlington will apply the following options to the Lindsay Subarea in the Future Development Area: • 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. • Allow stream buffer averaging of the reduced stream buffers beyond the minimum stream buffer requirements identified in AMC Table 20.93-3. In the Pending Project Area, the buffer of Edgecomb Creek/Stream Z shall be 50 feet, as generally depicted in Appendix G. Rationale. Currently, AMC 20.93 does not allow for any outright stream buffer reductions and does not require stream buffer enhancement. As many of the stream buffer areas onsite are degraded through the presence of non-native invasive species and lack native tree and shrub cover, a 25-percent reduced stream buffer combined with stream buffer enhancement would provide a net ecological lift to the habitat and water quality functions within riparian areas and streams within the Subarea. Buffer averaging (of the reduced buffers) allows for greater flexibility in site plan design. It also aligns with the criteria identified in AMC 20.93.320- Buffer Averaging. Stormwater Management Stormwater facilities for water quality and quantity. Impacts associated with increases in impervious surfaces and the residential capacity of the Subarea will be offset through stormwater facilities preliminarily designed to include several stormwater detention ponds that will collect runoff. Collected runoff will undergo enhanced water quality treatment prior to being dispersed to wetland/stream buffers to maintain existing site drainage patterns and hydrology. The presence of Edgecomb Creek, a stream with documented salmonids, within the sub-area necessitates additional considerations for stormwater treatment, specifically in regard to 6PPD, as enhanced water quality treatment alone is not sufficient to remove 6PPD from stormwater. Based on the current best available science provided by the WSDOE and the Washington Stormwater Center, 6PPD and 6PPDq are removed below toxicity levels or detection levels if biofiltration and infiltration Best Management Practices (BMPs) are applied to stormwater treatment. 6PPD appears to change conformation and bind to biological media similar to other active organic compounds. Given the unknown long-term impact to aquatic species and of particular interest to ESA-listed bull trout, chinook salmon, and steelhead, the WSDOE recommends using BMPs to remove 6PPD and 6PPDq from stormwater. The WSDOE has identified 28 BMPs for flow and treatment control and 9 BMPs for source control with a high Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 75 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Natural Environment treatment potential effectiveness for 6PPD and 6PPDq based on what is currently known about the pollutant. Example BMPs include: • Dispersing stormwater into vegetated wetland/stream buffers, bioswales, or rain gardens for the vegetation and soil to remove the 6PPD and 6PPDq. • Including approved engineered soils within a stormwater pond that bond to 6PPD and 6PPDq and remove the toxin before stormwater leaves the pond. Regulations and Commitments The Subarea will have to be designed to adhere to the regulations established in AMC Chapter 20.93 — Critical Area Ordinance (CAO), as applicable and to the greatest extent feasible in order to protect critical areas and associated buffers identified throughout the site. General allowances for activities in critical areas and associated buffers are specified in AMC 20.93.200. Additional allowances for activities in streams and associated buffers are specified in AMC 20.93.720. Additional allowances for activities in wetlands and associated buffers are provided in AMC 20.93.820. The EIS was drafted in November 2025 prior to the City's planned adoption of an updated CAO. It is acknowledged that future development that is not vested under the CAO in effect as of November 2025 will be required to comply with the future adopted CAO. In the Pending Project Area, the buffer of Edgecomb Creek/Stream Z shall be 50 feet, as generally depicted in Appendix G. In the Future Development Area, all streams will be classified in accordance with the definitions provided in AMC 20.93.700, which has adopted the state stream classification system specified in WAC 222-16-030. Stream buffers will be established and maintained as established herein and in accordance with the requirements of AMC 20.93.730. Where stream and/or stream buffer impacts are necessary and unavoidable, mitigation will be required in accordance with AMC 20.93.740. All wetlands will be classified in accordance with the definitions provided in AMC 20.93.800, which has adopted to current Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby and Yahnke, 2023). Wetland buffers will be established in accordance with the requirements of AMC 20.93.830. Where wetland and/or wetland buffer impacts are necessary and unavoidable, mitigation will be required and provided in accordance with AMC 20.93.840. Impacts to critical areas and associated buffers will require coordination and authorization from the City of Arlington. Additionally, direct and indirect wetland and stream impacts will require coordination and authorization with state and federal agencies. Federal authorizations will likely be applied for under Section 404 of the CWA through a Nationwide Permit, and additional authorizations from WSDOE for Section 401 of the CWA will be obtained through a Water Quality Certification and consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Natural Environment Any in-water work (i.e., culvert replacements) within the identified streams will require coordination and authorization from WDFW by requesting a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). Other Potential Mitigation Measures Several mitigation measures are incorporated in the plan; no additional potential mitigation measures are currently under consideration. 3.2.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Alternative 1 would retain wetlands, streams, and required buffers in their existing conditions and comply with AMC 20.93, with limited improvements beyond current code requirements. Alternative 2 would result in direct and indirect critical areas impacts. The proposed impacts are not anticipated to be considered significant and would be compensated through onsite and offsite mitigation. This includes NGPA designations; onsite wetland creation, enhancement, and restoration; stream channel restoration; fish passage improvements; buffer enhancement; and purchase of credits from the Skykomish Habitat Mitigation Bank. Additionally, stormwater facilities would be designed to collect and treat runoff to maintain existing water quality. Collectively, these measures are expected to achieve a net lift in ecological functions onsite and at a watershed scale, ensuring that no significant adverse impacts to wetlands, streams, or associated buffers would occur. Therefore, neither alternative is anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts to the natural environment. However, Alternative 2 does provide a significant amount of mitigation both as compensation for potential impacts as well as voluntary improvements that are anticipated to provide an overall net lift in ecological benefits of the site. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 77 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Transportation 3 .3 Transportation This chapter provides an assessment of current transportation conditions and the potential transportation-related impacts of the development alternatives for the Lindsay subarea. 3.3.1 Affected Environment This section describes existing transportation conditions and key facilities near the Lindsay Subarea. Information is provided regarding the non-motorized facilities, transit service and facilities, traffic volumes, and traffic operations in the study area. The study area defined for this analysis includes the SR 531 (172nd St NE) corridor from 67th Ave to SR 9 and the SR 9/204th St NE intersection: 1. 67th Ave NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) 2. 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) 3. SR 9/204th St NE 4. SR 9/SR 531 (172nd St NE) A map of the subarea location and study area intersections is shown on Exhibit 3.3-1. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 78 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Transportation Exhibit 3.3-1. Subarea Location and Study Intersections Locations Al 204T ST NE 3 �G J 'Py Pa CEMETERY RD l N40 czm 01, P 1 W m 2 W Q W Uj SR 531(172ND ST NE) 2 - - 4 I --- -_L LEGEND OStudy Intersection Source:Transpo Group,2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS Volume I November 2025 79 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Transportation Non-Motorized Facilities There are currently no sidewalks or bicycle facilities along SR 531 (172nd St NE) between 67th Ave and SR 9. The Centennial Trail runs along the eastern side of 671h Ave and is approximately 23 miles long connecting the Cities of Snohomish, Lake Stevens, and Arlington. The path is a 10-foot wide paved trail used for walking, bicycling, hiking, and horseback riding. The SR 531 Trail (671h 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. Transit Transit service in the study area is provided by Community Transit with service primarily along SR 531 (172nd St NE) and Smokey Point Boulevard. The nearest bus stop to the project is located at Smokey Point Boulevard/ SR 531 (172nd St 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. Roadway Network The key roadways serving the Lindsay Subarea are described below. SR 531 (172nd St NE) is an east-west highway of regional significance that runs along the Lindsay Subarea frontage connecting 1-5 to the west and SR 9 to the east. It is primarily a two-lane roadway between 67th Ave NE and SR 9 with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. No parking is allowed and no pedestrian or bicycle facilities are currently provided east of 671h Ave NE. 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 671h 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 671h 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. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Transportation 204t" St NE is an east-west roadway arterial located north of the Lindsay Subarea. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 20 mph east of SR 9 and 35 mph west of SR 9, with a predominantly two-lane cross section. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. No bike lanes are available. 67t" Ave NE is a north-south minor arterial located west of the Lindsay Subarea. The roadway generally has a posted speed limit of 35 mph and a predominately three-lane cross section. Sidewalks are provided along the east side of the roadway and no parking is allowed. The Centennial Trail runs along the east side of 67t" Ave NE, providing bicycle and additional pedestrian facilities. 80t" Dr NE is a north-south local roadway located directly north of the Lindsay Subarea. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 25 mph and a two-lane cross-section. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway; however, no bike lanes are available. Parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway. SR 9 is a north-south highway located east of the Lindsay Subarea connecting Lake McMurray to the north and Snohomish to the south. It is a two-lane facility with a posted speed limit of 45 mph near the Lindsay Subarea. Access to the Lindsay Subarea from SR 9 is provided via an at-grade intersection with SR 531 (172nd St NE). There are no sidewalks, bicycle facilities, or parking along SR 9. Traffic Volumes Existing weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes were collected in June 2024 and November 2024. The weekday PM peak hour (one hour between 4 and 6 p.m.) is typically used by the City in evaluating transportation system needs as it represents the highest travel activity experienced during the day. Existing traffic counts are provided in Appendix D. Weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes along SR 531 (172nd St NE) were less than 800 vehicles in either direction. Volumes along SR 9 near SR 531 (172nd St NE) were less than 700 vehicles in either direction during the weekday PM peak hour. Volumes along 67t" Ave NE near SR 531 (172nd St NE) were less than 550 vehicles in either direction during the weekday PM peak hour. The local roadway of 80t" Dr NE had volumes of less than 100 vehicles in either direction. Higher volumes along SR 531 (172nd St NE) are consistent with the State Route functional class designation whereas lesser volumes along 67t" Ave NE and 801" Dr NE are representative of the classification as an arterial and local roadway, respectively. Existing (2025) PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibit 3.3-2. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Transportation Exhibit 3.3-2. Existing (2025) PM Peak Hour Volumes O67th Ave NE 801h Dr NE SR 531(172nd St NE) OSR 531(172nd St NE) 210 155 80 (45)30 (20)5 260,# !45 (10)60_) !{10)10 � 480+ w305 (270)480 r{470)355 55-t 65 �dP 45 95 _ 20 200 4TH ST NE 0, OSR 9 SR 9 - ZZ 204th St NE 4 SR 531(172nd St NE) �Q 295 370 J16� J130 � 155� 1155 95! k20 355 r235 95 y �60 120-) i160 280 i 1 Q5 �11 155 , l f 10 to 315 395 - EPG�-�F��o pFt LLI N I W Q Z W = (Y Z m i4i, > co SR 531(172ND LE NE) 2 I I ( o LEGEND OStudy Intersection X Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Source:Transpo Group,2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS Volume I November 2025 82 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Transportation Traffic Operations Performance measures were identified for determining traffic operations including intersection delay-based level of service (LOS) at the 3 study intersections. Intersection LOS For signalized locations, LOS is measured in average delay per vehicle and is reported for the intersections as a whole. At side-street stop-controlled intersections LOS is measured in average delay per vehicle during the peak hour of traffic and is reported for the worst operating approach of the intersection. Traffic operations for an intersection can be described alphabetically with a range of levels of service (LOS A through F), with LOS A indicating free-flowing traffic and LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. Appendix E contains a detailed explanation of LOS criteria and definitions. City of Arlington study intersections traffic operations were evaluated based on the procedures identified in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 7th Edition and using the Synchro 12 software program. Sidra 9 and the WSDOT Sidra Policy and Settings parameters were used to evaluate operations at roundabout controlled intersections. Signal timing splits and offsets were optimized for all future conditions. Exhibit 3.3-3 summarizes the study intersections existing operations. The adopted standard at all of the study intersections is LOS D. Detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix F. As shown in Exhibit 3.3-3, all intersections operate at LOS D or better, meeting the current LOS standards. Exhibit 3.3-3. Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary Delay'Intersection Jurisdiction LOS Traffic LOS'Standard Control 1. 67th Ave NE/SR 531 (172nd WSDOT D Signal D 47 St NE) 2. 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St WSDOT D Two Way C 20 SIB NE) Stop 3. SR 9/204th St NE WSDOT D Signal C 33 - 4. SR 9/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D Round- A 7 - about Source:Transpo Group,2025. 1. Level of Service (A— F) as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB,7th Edition) 2. Average delay per vehicle in seconds 3. Worst movement reported for unsignalized two-way stop-controlled intersections. NB = Northbound,SIB = Southbound,WB =Westbound. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 83 ■ Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Transportation Traffic Safety Exhibit 3.3-4 summarizes the most recent 5-year collision history at the study intersections and roadway segments based on data obtained from the WSDOT. The data was reviewed to understand if there are any existing traffic safety issues within the study area. Exhibit 3.3-4. Five Year Collision Summary — 2019 to 2023 Location Traffic 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Annual Collisions Control Average per MEW Intersections 1. 67th Ave Signal 8 4 8 2 5 27 5.40 0.74 NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) 2. 80th Dr Two- 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.20 0.06 NE/SR 531 Way (172nd St NE) Stop 3. SR 9/204th Signal 6 5 4 6 2 23 4.60 0.58 St NE 4. SR 9/SR 531 Round- 2 2 3 2 0 9 1.80 0.30 (172nd St NE) about 1. Collisions per million entering vehicles Study intersections with a collision rate greater than one collision per million entering vehicles (MEV) should be considered for further review to determine if a safety issue may exist. As shown on Exhibit 3.3-4, all study intersections have collisions per MEVs less than one. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 84 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Transportation 3.* 'I 'Dotential Impp, The transportation impacts of the No Action and Action Alternative are described in this section. The study intersections are within Arlington and WSDOT jurisdictions. The LOS standards (and thresholds of significance) for the study area are described as follows: • City of Arlington LOS Standards. The City of Arlington has adopted LOS D for arterials and collectors. In addition, the LOS D standard applies to local roads that primarily serve its central business district or industrial areas. The City of Arlington further recognizes and adopts the most current LOS standard along state highways. • WSDOT. LOS D for highways of statewide significance (HSS) facilities in urban areas. Impacts Common to All The following conditions and impacts are common to all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. Planned Improvements Several transportation improvement projects are currently planned in and around the study area. Key projects are discussed below. • SR 531 (172nd St NE) Widening, Phase 1 Widening of SR 531 (172nd St NE) from 43rd Ave NE to 591" Avenue NE to a four-lane facility with two travel lanes in each direction is listed in the WSDOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The improvement project would install roundabouts at the 51 st Ave NE and 59t" Ave NE intersections along SR 531 (172nd St NE). The project is completely funded by WSDOT with construction beginning in 2025 and completed in 2026. • SR 531 (172nd St NE) Widening, Phase 2 Widening of SR 531 (172nd St NE) between 59t" Ave NE and SR 9 to a four-lane facility with two travel lanes in each direction is listed in the WSDOT STIR In addition, there will be a roundabout constructed at 67t" Ave NE and SR 531 (172nd St NE). The timing of this widening project is anticipated to be completed before 2044, such that this improvement was assumed in the future analysis. In addition, non-motorized improvements would be made along the SR 531(172nd St NE) corridor including a multi-use trail along the north side of the roadway in the study area. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 85 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Transportation Non-Motorized Facilities The future non-motorized system within the study area is consistent across alternatives. The planned improvement section above describes non-motorized improvements that would occur as new roadways are constructed. The study area will be well connected with sidewalks and bicycle facilities. In addition, future roadway improvements would provide additional connectivity. The network of sidewalks, bike facilities and multimodal trails access to and from as well as within the study area encourages trip making via walking and biking for commuter or other purposes. Traffic Safety Traffic generated by the alternatives results in a proportionate increase in the probability of collisions. It is unlikely that the project traffic would significantly change safety issues in the study area. Traffic Forecasts Future (2044) weekday PM peak hour traffic forecasts were developed consistently for Alternatives using the City of Arlington travel demand model. The land use (outside of the Lindsay Subarea) and transportation system assumptions are the same for all Alternatives. The Lindsay Subarea land use and quantities were adjusted within the City's travel demand model for each Alternative. The City's travel demand model is used for the Lindsay Subarea trip distribution and assignment to the study area. Future 2044 forecasts are developed by adding intersection volume growth identified between the models existing and future years. Adjustments are made to the 2044 background traffic volumes for balancing. This methodology is an industry standard practice for post-processing raw travel demand model results into forecast traffic volumes. Forecast traffic volumes for all Alternatives are provided in Appendix F. Alternative 1 : No Action Volume Forecasts Alternative 1 No Action volume forecasts for the Lindsay Subarea are based on the land use and jobs projections consistent with the Arlington Comprehensive Plan for traffic analysis zones (TAZs) 423, 424, and 441 . (See Exhibit 3.1-5. Lindsay Subarea Full TAZs Map.) Volumes for Alternative 1 were developed using the Arlington travel demand model trip generation, trip distribution and assignment. Exhibit 3.3-5 provides a summary of the traffic volume forecasts for Alternative 1 No Action Alternative's weekday PM peak hour trip generation (for the Lindsay Subarea full TAZs) estimated using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) rates. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS - Volume I • November 2025 86 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Transportation Exhibit 3.3-5. 2044 Lindsay Subarea Full TAZs Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Alternative 1 No Action In Out Total Retail (LUC 822) 74 74 148 Restaurant(LUC 932) 44 19 63 Single Family Homes(LUC 210) ' 64 37 101 Office(LUC 710) 13 65 78 Total 195 195 390 Source:Arlington Comprehensive Plan 1 The current RULC zoning for Lindsay only allows for the development of low-density single-family homes. As shown in Exhibit 3.3-5, a total of 390 weekday PM peak hour trips are anticipated to be generated under Alternative 1. The general distribution of the Lindsay Subarea traffic is anticipated to be: 13 percent to/from the north via SR 9 16 percent to/from 2041" Str NE via SR 9 9 percent to/from Eaglefield Dr east of and via SR 9 5 percent to/from the east via SR 531 (172nd St NE) 35 percent to/from the south via SR 9 6 percent to/from neighborhoods north of and via SR 531 (172nd St NE) 5 percent to/from 67t" Ave NE via SR 531 (172nd St NE) 11 percent to/from the west via SR 531 (172nd St NE) The total Alternative 1 volumes (2044 forecasts plus Alternative 1 trips) are shown on Exhibit 3.3-6. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS - Volume I - November 2025 87 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Transportation Exhibit 3.3-6. 2044 Alternative 1 PM Peak Hour Volumes OSR Ave 72 80t(DSR 31 NE (1 SR 531(172nd St NE) SR 531(172nd St NE) 200 380! 1 �-?= 10 t10 1,040--f- f5_5 1,195--w -e-760 P 200 i f130 ro i 65 1 1275 350 204TH sT NE 3 - �G OSR9 SR9 ZZ 204th St NE OR 531(172nd St NE) F ZG 260 285 "1100 115 j 211 170! 4-180 140! 1230 - - 595 +485 630 �380 140't i180 425i `135 150 131 15 3� I I - 435 570 G�-�F�O pig p W D 2 W I Q 2 W 2 Q. 2 i0 D F' Q SR 531(172ND ST NE) � mill co 4 r 0 LEGEND -T---------L - z Stud Intersection \ 0 y I X Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic volumes Source:Transpo Group,2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS Volume I • November 2025 88 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Transportation Traffic Operations As discussed previously, traffic operations were evaluated based on intersection delay within the local study area defined for this project. Signal timing splits and offsets were optimized for future 2044 operations. Exhibit 3.3-7 provides a summary of the intersection operations. Detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix F. Exhibit 3.3-7. 2044 Alternative 1 Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary DelayIntersection Jurisdiction LOS Traffic LOS'Standard Control 2 3 or 1. 67th Ave NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D Round- B 11.5 0.70 about 2. 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D TWSCS E 45.3 SBL 3. SR 9/204th Str NE WSDOT D Signal F 107.4 - 4. SR 9/SR 531 (172nd Str NE) WSDOT D Round- B 11.0 0.68 about Source:Transpo Group,2025. 1. Level of Service (A— F) as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB,7th Edition) 2. Average delay per vehicle in seconds 3. Worst movement reported for unsignalized two-way stop-controlled intersections. NB = Northbound,SIB = Southbound,WB = Westbound. 4. Volume to capacity(V/C) ratio for roundabout controlled intersections. 5. TWSC — Two way stop controlled intersection As shown in Exhibit 3.3-7, all study intersections operate at LOS D or better with planned improvements except for the SR 9/2041" St NE intersection and 801" Dr NE/SR 531 intersection. Alternative 2: Proposal, Preferred Alternative Volume Forecasts The traffic analysis for Alternative 2 Proposal reflects a reduction in city-wide growth as compared to forecasts and environmental review conducted for the City comprehensive plan. In addition, the land use density targeted for the Lindsay subarea has been reallocated from TAZs 423, 424, and 441 and concentrated within this area. Exhibit 3.3-8. 2044 Alternative 2- Lindsay Subarea Plan Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation provides a summary of the weekday PM peak hour trip generation, which was estimated using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) rates. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 89 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Transportation Exhibit 3.3-8. 2044 Alternative 2- Lindsay Subarea Plan Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use In Out Total Apartments(LUC 220) 15 9 24 Single-Family Detached Housing 186 110 296 (LUC 210) Single-Family Attached Housing (LUC 30 21 51 215) Total Trips* 231 140 371 *See analysis regarding addition of up to 10.000 square feet of commercial below. Note: LUC = ITE Land Use Code. Source:Transpo Group,2020. As shown in Exhibit 3.3-8, Alternative 2 is anticipated to generate approximately 371 weekday PM peak hour vehicle trips. The general travel patterns for Alternative 2 are anticipated to be similar to Alternative 1. The total Alternative 2 volumes (2044 forecasts plus Alternative 2 trips) are shown on Exhibit 3.3-9. While not included in the draft site plan, up to 10,000 square feet of retail could develop under Alternative 2. The EIS has analyzed 371 trips regardless of whether they are residential or commercial in origin. A future project that includes commercial could provide a traffic study to show no additional impacts are caused by the project. or that the trips generated do not cause the trip generation in the Planned Action Area (i.e., the Lindsay Subarea) to exceed 371 trips. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual rates for retail below 40,000 square feet (land use code 822), 10,000 square feet of retail would generate approximately 652 daily trips, including 78 trips during the PM peak hour. A portion of retail trips generated are pass-by trips, which reflect traffic already on streets in the vicinity of the PAO that would visit the commercial components of the project while on the way to its final destination. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the pass-by rates for the retail use would be 40 percent. After accounting for pass-by trips. 10,000 square feet of retail would generate approximately 392 new daily trips, including 46 new trips during the PM peak hour. Should the commercial component, which would generate 46 new PM peak hour trips, be added to the 371 trips analyzed, for a total of 417 PM peak hour trips, the trips generated by the Lindsay Subarea would increase by 12% and the traffic in the site vicinity would increase by 2%. As such, if commercial trips are added to the EIS trips analyzed. a 2% increase in traffic is not expected to cause significant adverse impacts. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS - Volume I - November 2025 90 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Transportation Exhibit 3.3-9. 2044 Alternative 2 PM Peak Hour Volumes O67th Ave NE 80th Dr NE SR 531(172nd St NE) OSR 531(172nd St NE) _ - 185 165 52 45 20 , 335 26 70_rJ L!10 1,032--a- f710 1,165--a- f801 P 2701 f 126 9-t f 129 300 204TH ST NE 3 �G ( 2ASR9 SR9 1 ZZ th St NE @SR 531(172nd St NE) L F— '110 255 285 — rJ 105 65 143 215 180�� ��170 129!� `►�205 — - - -- 52l r410 507 r402 G 143 163 524 50 423 535 \ N p �-� ► Q W K. W S� W F- 0 2 SR 531(172ND ST NE) 2 _ LEGEND ----L z O Study Intersection 2 x Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Source:Transpo Group,2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS Volume I • November 2025 91 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Transportation Planned Improvements As part of the development of the Lindsay Subarea, access will be provided on a new south leg of the 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) intersection. To accommodate other planned improvements along SR 531 (172nd St NE) and provide operations that meet LOS standards, a 2-lane roundabout will be installed and was assumed in the future analysis. Two additional accesses would be provided along SR 531 (172nd St NE). A full aGGe would be prc_)v4r_IP_r_I 1A.fP-St of t"-rr n , a aA right-in/right-out only access would be provided east of 80th Dr NE. A full access intersection would be provided at 79th Ave NE (west of 80th Dr NE) until construction of the SR 531 (172nd St NE) Widening, Phase 2 project, during which it would be converted to a right-in/right-out access. Traffic Operations As discussed previously, traffic operations were evaluated based on intersection delay for intersections in the study area. Signal timing splits and offsets were optimized for future 2044 operations. Exhibit 3.3-10 provides a summary of the intersection operations. Detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix F. Exhibit 3.3-10. 2044 Alternative 2 - Proposal (Lindsay Subarea Plan) Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary and Comparison Intersection Jurisdiction LOS Traff ic LOS' D- Standard Control or 2044 Alternative 2: Proposal 1. 67th Ave NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D Round- B 10.7 0.73 about 2. 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D Round- A 6.9 0.84 about 3. SR 9/204th St NE WSDOT D Signal F 90.0 - 4. SR 9/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D Round- B 10.8 0.69 about 2044 Alternative 1 : No Action 1. 67th Ave NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D Round- B 11.5 0.70 about 2. 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D TWSCS E 45.3 SBL 3. SR 9/204th St NE WSDOT D Signal F 107.4 - 4. SR 9/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D Round- B 11.0 0.68 about Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS Volume I • November 2025 92 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Transportation Source:Transpo Group,2025 1. Level of Service (A— F) as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB,7th Edition) 2. Average delay per vehicle in seconds 3. Worst movement reported for unsignalized two-way stop-controlled intersections. NB = Northbound,SB = Southbound,WB = Westbound. 4. Volume to capacity(V/C) ratio for roundabout controlled intersections. 5. TWSC — Two way stop controlled intersection As shown in Exhibit 3.3-10, all study intersections operate at LOS D or better with planned improvements except for the SR 9/204th St NE intersection. Intersection delays under the Alternative 2 are forecast to be lower than Alternative 21. In addition to the offsite study intersections, two additional proposed site accesses on SR 531 (172nd St NE) were evaluated. The western access, which is proposed to provide full access, is forecast to operate at LOS D with a northbound delay of 34.9 seconds. The eastern access, which is proposed to provide right-in/right-out access only, is forecast to operate at LOS D with a northbound delay of 25.7 seconds. Alternative 2 traffic volumes and traffic operations impacts would be less than or similar to those described for Alternative 1, which is consistent with the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. Given the similar transportation impacts of all the Alternatives, section 3.3.3 Mitigation Strategies shows similar measures are recommended for all Alternatives. 3.3.3 Mitigation Jzrazegieb This Section presents mitigation measures that would offset or reduce potential transportation impacts of the Alternatives. The impacts of the alternatives are similar, which results in similar mitigation measures. Mitigation measures include physical improvements to intersections and roadways to facilitate vehicular traffic. Intersection and Roadway Improvements As part of the development of the Lindsay Subarea, access will be provided on a new south leg of the 80t" Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) intersection. To accommodate other planned improvements along SR 531 (172nd St NE) and provide operations that meet LOS standards, a 2-lane roundabout will be installed. No new off-site impacts have been identified due to the shifting of density into the subarea. Development in the subarea will contribute to funding City-wide improvement projects defined through the comprehensive plan. Improvements will be funded through the payment of transportation impact fees. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Transportation Incorporated Plan Features All alternatives would include frontage improvements following City and State design standards including sidewalk, curb and gutter. Regulations and Commitments Transportation Impact Fees Mitigation will be collected in the form of transportation impact fees. The City of Arlington has a traffic impact fee program. Impact fees will be determined at a project level when permit applications are filed. 3.3.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts With implementation of the planned improvements in the study area and proposed mitigation measures, there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts related solely to the proposed alternatives. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 94 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Public Services 3 .4 Public Services 3.4.1 Affected Environment This section describes current conditions for parks, schools, police, and fire/emergency services. See Exhibit 3.4-1 for the location of parks, schools, police and fire facilities in the city and near Lindsay. Exhibit 3.4-1. Public Services in Arlington /l cna� Haller Park Presiderits Post Middle Elementary School Schooll Eagle Creek Old To., Elementary School Haller Middle School • 530 Kent'Prairie ortage Crer. Elemenatry School vildlife Reseiv. High Clover Park WE Evan, Arlington -port Park High Mail r Pioneer School BillyQuake Elementary Arlington Memorial School Municipal Park T,i k � Airport maul- orial .� "nlmv Z —I Z^ I orest /cal Trail Pari v / �Woodway Wedgewo� t Park Lai _ 1 I — I 00000� I I 0 r UI�.L°JCLI�I / O0 0.25 0.5 Miles I I I Parks A�Police Station 1 mile radius Trails Fire Station 46 Lindsay Subarea Schools Fire Station 48 Arlington Source: City of Arlington, MAKERS,2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS Volume I November 2025 95 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Public Services 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 3.4-1 for park locations. Exhibit 3.4-2. Parks and Trails within 1 mile of Lindsay Parks Location Acreage Ownership Description 8213 15 acre' Arlington School playground, multipurpose hall, Elementary Eaglefield School District and athletic field, adjacent to wooded and Open Dr riparian habitat with natural trails and Space exhibits Forest Trail 18005 2 acre Arlington Park with picnic tables, Park Oxford Dr play area, and sport court Wedgewood 17510 2.5 acre Arlington Wooded park land with picnic tables &Woodway Gleneagle and play area Park Blvd Whitehawk Tot Whitehawk 0.09 acre HOA Minipark with playground Lot Dr Crossing at 172"dAve 2.48 acre HOA Wooded minipark with two tennis Edgecomb NE courts Creek 1 Crossing at 73rd Dr NE 0.29 acre HOA Minipark with playground and Edgecomb basketball court Creek 2 Playworld Park 174th PI NE 0.30 acre' HOA Minipark with playground and basketball court Eagle Heights 179th PI NE 0.35 acre' HOA Minipark with playground, basketball Park court, and picnic shelter Gleneagle 7619 E 138.2 acre Private Opened in 1993 with driving range, a Golf 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. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I November 2025 96 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Public Services 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 HOAs, 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. Based on this feedback and an assessment of existing facilities, the PRMP recommends conceptual projects focused on expanding trail and park capacity. For more information about the proposed SR 531(172nd St NE) and SR 9 Trail, refer to 3.3.1 Transportation Affected Environment. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Public Services Exhibit 3.4-3. PRMP Planned Improvements Description 531/172nd St NE Trail Extend Airport Trail east on 172"d St NE to SR-9; 1.7 miles SR-9 Trail Develop trail on SR-9 from Centennial Trail south to SR 531/172"1 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. 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. 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 2.3.2, the fourth element of the AMC 20.44.032 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 within the Subarea Area must amount to 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. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS - Volume I - November 2025 98 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Public Services 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 3.4-4. 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 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 3.4-5. Public School Serving the City of Arlington School Building Area 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 36' 9072 Hailer Middle School 86,002 31' 612 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 99 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Public Services School . . 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 'includes 150 added seats for the replacement and expansion of Post Middle School,which is expected to be complete in 2028. 3Includes 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. 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 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. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Public Services 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 3.4-1) For emergency and medical services, the City of Arlington relies on Skagit Regional Health and Cascade Valley Hospital. 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. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 101 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Public Services 3.4.2 potential Impacts Thresholds of significance include: • Parks: Meet PRMP goal for any residential area to be within a 5-minute walk (1/4 mile) of a park, trail, playground, community center, or other recreation facility as measured by actual walking routes on trails, paths, sidewalks, or other routes. • Schools, Police, Fire/EMS: Increase in demand for service/facilities that cause a decline in levels of service beyond planned capacity. Impacts Common to All Parks Each alternative would generate new housing units, and depending on the type and intensity of development, increase the demand for additional parks and green spaces. Under both alternatives, usable open space would be required with residential development. Schools The number of housing units added under each alternative are expected to drive population growth and a rise in school-aged children. The District determined the student-to-population ratio is 15.75%. This rate is then applied to the net population increase under each alternative to estimate the number of new students generated. Exhibit 3.4-6. New Students by Alternative r-Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposal Lindsay 40 198 Source: MAKERS, 2025. The projected increase in students could place pressure on existing school facilities and resources at the elementary level where deficits are expected by 2028. According to the Arlington Public Schools 2024 Facilities Plan, the elementary level capacity is -129 students by 2029, which may not accommodate growth in Lindsay if Arlington as a whole grows as projected. If planned construction does not address needs and interim strategies such as portable classrooms are not available, the District could make scheduling, instructional model, grade configuration, class size, and school calendar changes to accommodate growth. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Public Services Police Arlington's Police Department employed 37 officers in 2024, which represents 1.8 officers per 1,000 population. Applying the current level of service ratio to the net increase in population under the alternatives, additional officers may be needed to serve the new growth if maintaining the same ratio. Exhibit 3.4-7. New Officers Required to Maintain Current Ratio ProposalOfficers Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Lindsay 0.5 2.3 Source: MAKERS, 2024. Under both alternatives, the City would implement its Arlington Police Department's 2024 Strategic Plan, which outlines several goals, including increasing patrol officer capacity to enhance coverage and improve response times and additional support staff to meet the operational demands. Fire/Emergency Services According to the North County Fire & EMS 2019-2044 Strategic Plan, the agency "provide[s] service to 25,000 people over 110 square miles with more than 70 emergency personnel." This produces an existing level of service of 2.8 firefighters per 1,000 population. Applying that rate to the net increase in population for each alternative, additional firefighters to maintain that ratio is estimated in Exhibit 3.4-8. Exhibit 3.4-8. New Firefighters Required to Maintain Current Ratio Proposalhters' Alternative 1: No Actiorl rAlternative 2: Lindsay 0.7 3.5 Source: MAKERS, 2024. With an increase in residents and total population, there would be a corresponding rise in the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. The North County Fire & EMS Strategic Plan outlines the planned investments to increase capacity through additional staffing, training, and equipment to ensure adequate response times and maintain service levels expected by the community. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 103 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Public Services Alternative 1 : No Action Parks Alternative 1 No Action would result in the lowest increase in demand for publicly accessible parks and open space facilities. Development would be required to provide usable open space for the residents' use. If 25 or more units are developed in one project, mini-park(s) would also be required. With small, disconnected, piecemeal projects spread over the area, a connected and cohesive park and trail system is unlikely. Usable open space, though an important amenity for the residents, may not be publicly accessible. Existing parks and open spaces, particularly in the Gleneagle and Hilltop neighborhoods, may experience localized increases in use. Schools Under Alternative 1, the Subarea would experience the fewest new housing units among the alternatives, resulting in the lowest student generation, about 40 students. Existing school facilities, including elementary, middle, and high schools, have sufficient capacity to accommodate the modest increase in students associated with this alternative. Police Alternative 1 results in a moderate population increase in the Subarea, which requires an additional 0.5 or 1 officer to meet population demand. Existing and planned increases in police staffing levels are expected to adequately meet service needs without the requirement for significant expansion of facilities or personnel. Fire/Emergency Services Alternative 1 No Action would produce the lowest demand for fire and emergency services, requiring 0.7 or 1 firefighter to meet population demand. The limited scale of growth under this scenario suggests that the current staffing and facility levels of fire departments and emergency responders would be sufficient to serve the Subarea, with minimal need for additional resources or infrastructure. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 104 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Public Services Alternative 2: Proposal, Preferred Alternative Parks Alternative 2 would generate the highest demand for new park and open space facilities. The proposal exceeds the AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans minimum requirement by dedicating 12% of the gross site area to parks and recreation, surpassing the 10% standard. This alternative would enhance recreational opportunities through a planned, connected trail and park network, improving access to green space and recreation. It also includes roughly 2-acre open space areas that could be dedicated to the City. Schools Alternative 2 is projected to generate the highest number of new housing units, likely leading to an increase in the school-age population, an estimated 198 new students. The long-term capacity of local schools may be insufficient to accommodate the increase in the number of students, particularly at the elementary levels, though some capacity may be available at the middle school and high school level. Additional planning and potential expansion of school facilities would likely be required to serve the anticipated growth. Police Alternative 2 projected housing and population growth would increase demand for police services. To maintain current level of service, 2.3 or 3 additional officers would be needed. Planning for phased increases in staffing and resources would help meet future needs and maintain public safety. Fire/Emergency Services With an increase in housing stock and population, service calls are expected to rise. To maintain the current level of service, an estimated 3.5 or 4 additional firefighters would likely be needed. Fire Stations 46 and 48 are likely to experience the most significant rise in service demand. Planned street infrastructure is designed to support emergency access, with accommodations for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. New buildings incorporate fire-resistant materials, such as concrete patios and fiber cement siding, to enhance fire safety. Additionally, new street connections within the development will create a more connected street network, which will improve emergency response times and enhance service delivery, not only within Lindsay but also for adjacent rural residential areas in Snohomish County. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 105 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Public Services 3.4.3 Mitigation Strategies Incorporated Plan Features Existing staffing levels and facility capacity for parks, schools, police, and fire/emergency services are anticipated to adequately serve the population growth projected under both alternatives with minimal needs for additional resources and infrastructure improvements. As a result, no policies specific to these services are proposed in the Subarea Plan. However, the Lindsay Subarea Plan includes policies and strategies that align with broader City initiative per AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans at improving access to parks and enhancing transportation infrastructure which improve service delivery and response time and efficient connections to schools and parks. Regulations and Commitments AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans (applicable to Alternative 2) and AMC 20.52.030 - Residential usable open space and AMC 20.52.010 — Residential mini-parks (applicable to Alternative 1) require parks as a part of new residential development. More detail is included in the Parks existing regulations section. The City and other agencies have developed plans that are regularly updated and coordinated to meet the expected growth of the community. These plans include: • Parks and Recreation Master Plan • Transportation Master Plan • Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan • Arlington Police Department Strategic Plan • North County Fire & EMS Strategic Plan Other Potential Mitigation Measures • The City could consider adding additional police officers and staff to maintain the current level of service consistent with growth. • As development occurs, the Fire District could reassess their plans to ensure adequate fire/emergency services staff and equipment are located close enough to Lindsay to maintain adequate response times. • The City could consider requiring a mitigation agreement at the time a development application is submitted to address additional staffing needs and needed capital investments at stations serving the study area (e.g., stations, ladder trucks, or other). Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Public Services • The City could condition Planned Action proposals during development review to develop protocols for fire aid and emergency medical services with the Fire District. • The City and developers could explore WUI-appropriate building and landscape strategies for an urban area, such as home hardening (i.e., fire-resistant buildings and plants) and urban-appropriate defensible space. • The City could coordinate with tribes and other agencies to facilitate wildfire suppression efforts through vegetation management. 3.4.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Population growth will increase the demand for public services including schools, police, fire, and emergency services. Development would occur in phases in Lindsay and incrementally over the 20-year planning period citywide, and would be addressed in regular capital planning. Each service provider in conjunction with the City could evaluate levels of service and funding sources to balance expected growth; if funding falls short, there may need to be an adjustment to levels of service or growth as part of the Growth Management Act. With regular coordination, capital planning, and implementation of the proposed parks and open space improvements in the study area (or by providing required usable open space under Alternative 1), no significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 107 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Utilities 3 .5 Utilities 3.r% '1 Affected Environment 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. 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 801" 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. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 108 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Utilities Exhibit 3.5-1. Existing offsite infrastructure and optional routes 1. SSMH 111 � "'on 1 Element ry l School GI agle L -08 ` - � o 1= r— I PV ravity Flow I Lindsey I Subarea 3" DI Force Main - ■ LS-08 Lift Station Source: City of Arlington, Land Technologies, 2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I November 2025 109 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Utilities 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 79th Ave NE. It is in the 520 pressure zone and flows from the water storage tank located east of SR 9,just east of 91st 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 85th Ave NE and 80th Ave NE and into Gleneagle on the west side of the 79th Ave NE utility corridor. There is no water main along SR 531 (172nd St NE) west of 791h Ave NE; pipes "spiderweb" through Gleneagle before returning to SR 531 (172nd St NE). Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 110 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Utilities Exhibit 3.5-2. Offsite water system _ A Lindsey16"DI Water Main - Subare 12" DI Water Main Water Tank Existing 16" DI Water Main - -—Existing 12" DI Water Main • Existing Existing Hydrants Lindsey Full Subarea Source: City of Arlinaton. 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 79t" 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. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Utilities 3.5.' Potential Impacts Threshold of Significance: Increased demand for drinking water, firefighting water flow, wastewater, and other utilities (power/gas/cable) beyond the capacity of existing and planned systems. Impacts Common to All Sewer Under both alternatives, the addition of homes (and potentially businesses) would increase flows into the sewer system from the Lindsay Subarea, through the Gleneagle and Hilltop neighborhoods to the Sewer Treatment Plant. The routing could take one of two paths to reach SSMH-111, as illustrated in Exhibit 3.5-1 Arlington's sewage treatment plan has sufficient capacity to serve the additional homes anticipated in Lindsay, however, offsite infrastructure upgrades to the sewer mains and lift stations may be needed. Water Under both alternatives, growth would increase water demand, both for home use and for fighting fires. According to the City of Arlington's reported water use data, the entire subarea will require an average of approximately 85,000 gallons of water per day. The City of Arlington, when considering planned improvements, has sufficient capacity in their system to support added water consumption from new development. Offsite infrastructure upgrades will depend on water system modeling. Dry Utilities Under both alternatives, growth would increase demand on power, gas, cable, and Waste Management. Dry utility providers, including Snohomish County PUD, Puget Sound Energy (natural gas), and Ziply (cable) have indicated that service is available to the subarea. Existing infrastructure is located along SR 531 (172nd St NE), ensuring accessibility for future development. Utility Installation Most new utility infrastructure would be installed along or under the future road alignments. As a result, the environmental impacts of utility construction would largely overlap with impacts from clearing and grading for these roads. Utilities located within road alignments Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 112 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Utilitie- would not add significant impacts beyond those already accounted for in the road construction. In the eastern portion of the Subarea, short sewer 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. Alternative 1 : No Action Under Alternative 1 No Action, demand for water, sewer, and dry utilities would increase modestly. Existing sewer system and dry utilities capacity is expected to accommodate Alternative 1's level of growth. However, the water system may need upgrades. In addition, given the piecemeal and less compact development pattern likely under Alternative 1, utilities systems would be less efficient in terms of amount of pipe or line infrastructure constructed per home. Alternative 2: Proposal, Preferred Alternative Onsite water and sewer. Under Alternative 2, the onsite system would be designed to accommodate anticipated water needs and sewer flows, cross Edgecomb Creek and enter its buffer areas where necessary without impacting water flow or quality, and connect to the existing offsite systems. The system would be designed for efficiency, maximizing homes served by infrastructure lines more than Alternative 1. Offsite sewer. Under Alternative 2 Proposal, growth would increase demand for sewer capacity. Preliminary estimates indicate an increase in peak flows of approximately 306.8 gallons per minute (GPM) or 0.614 cubic feet per second (cfs). Lindsay would be developed in phases, and each project would include new connections to the existing sewer system, adding flows along two routes. Arlington's sewage treatment plant has the capacity to accommodate these additional flows. However, the existing sewer main and lift station system that connects Lindsay to the treatment plant may need upgrades, especially for the additional flows expected for the full Subarea. Offsite water. Alternative 2's greater level of growth would increase the demand on water and fire flows more than Alternative 1. Development will be required to ensure adequate water service including proper water pressure. Dry utilities. With continued coordination with dry utilities service providers, no impacts are anticipated. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Utilities 3.5.1 Mitigation Strategies Incorporated Plan Features Onsite sewer capacity. Onsite sewer systems will be designed and constructed with the capacity to accommodate anticipated demand. Utilities in Edgecomb Creek and/or wetland/stream buffers. Utilities outside of roadways will be designed and constructed to avoid and mitigate any impacts to wetlands and streams. These will be evaluated during project review. Power undergrounding. Any improvements to SR 531 (172nd St NE) will underground electric and communication lines. Likewise, all new utilities throughout Lindsay will be underground. Regulations and Commitments Plans and regulations adopted at the time development permits are submitted will be applicable, such as: 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Under this set of regulations, the City maintains measures to protect and improve runoff conditions in relation to the receiving waters. City of Arlington Municipal Code Title 13 — Water and Sewers City of Arlington Municipal Code Title 21 — Cable Systems Regulations City of Arlington Municipal Code Title 6 — Health and Sanitation City of Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 20.93 — Critical Areas Ordinance Snohomish County Code Snohomish County Drainage Manual 2021 Stormwater Management Program Plan 2025 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Update—Book 8: Capital Facilities and Utilities Supporting Analysis (November 2024) Electric vehicle (EV)-related regulations in AMC 20.114.415, WAC 51-50-0429, RCW 19.27.540, and RCW 46.08.185 Arlington Water Systems Plan (2024) The Capital Improvement Plan includes the following City-funded improvements: 13 Project SM27 — Primary Interceptor (67t" Ave Trunkline) Improvements (Phase 1 & 2), horizon year 2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 3 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES I Utilitie- 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 3.5-3. Arlington Capital Projects near Lindsay Subarea Layers t t Arlington City Limits i 0` Transportation CIP Projects rdyie Gott Coum ` - = PHASE a' ,1 Construction e .: � 1----------, .. ' Design z 1 Planning 5 1 I m T 1 Completed ` � I 1 L� 1 1 1 1 1 i i M Utility Projects 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 PHASE ------------------- 1 J Construction I 1 Design —_-1 McPherson Ftl — Planning 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 Other Potential Mitigation Measures The City could consider studying and updating its funding plan for water and sewer upgrades to prepare for growth. 3.5.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Though existing water and sewer systems may be deficient in serving growth in the Lindsay Subarea, and potential impacts cannot be assessed until the City's updated system modeling is available, continued capital facilities planning and coordination and construction of planned improvements are expected to result in no significant adverse impacts. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action DEIS • Volume I • November 2025 116 Chapter 4 1 CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATION I Introduction 4. 1 Introduction Corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIS are listed in this section and tracked with underlines (added text) and strikethrough- (deleted text) in the prior chapters. Throughout the document, mentions of Alternative 2 Proposal have been updated to note that Alternative 2 is the "Preferred Alternative." Additionally, all references to this document as the "Draft EIS" have been removed and replaced simply with "EIS". f'ha ter 1 Summary� Page 2: Added Introduction section to describe the organization of the Final EIS. Page 4: Replaced study area map to reflect expanded Pending Project Area. The full Lindsay Subarea remains the same. 4.3 Chapter 2 Proposal & o ltp rn atives Page 18: Replaced study area map to reflect expanded Pending Project Area. The full Lindsay Subarea remains the same. Page 29: Added Alternative 2 Proposal, Preferred Alternative Map to clarify that the Pending Project Area's site plan is likely to be developed in the near future with a similar land use layout, and that the Future Development Area has greater flexibility in its layout provided it follows the Lindsay Subarea Plan. Page 30: Clarified that the Lindsay Subarea-wide site plan is an example illustrating general layout and circulation but would likely need updates to meet critical area buffer requirements in the Future Development Area. Page 31: Updated the Expected Housing Units chart because expanding the Pending Project Area resulted in greater units in the Pending Project Area and fewer units in the Future Development Area. Clarified that the distribution of housing types is an example that meets the Subarea Plan intent, but that additional housing types (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, stacked flats), even if not explicitly mentioned, would also be allowed. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 Chapter 4 1 CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATION I Chapter 3 Affected Environment,Impacts&Mitigation 4.4 Chapter 3 Affected Environment, Impacts & Mitigation 4.4.1 Section 3.1 Land Use and Urban Form No corrections or clarifications. 4.4.2 `ction 3.2 Natural Environment Page 68: Corrected cross-reference to the Plants and Animals section so that the cross- reference includes the heading and not the full paragraph text. Page 75: Updated stream buffer mitigation measures to address the Pending Project Area and Future Development Area distinctly. =ction 1 .3 Transportation Page 90: Updated the trip generation analysis to include 10,000 square feet of commercial uses in addition to the residential already analyzed under Alternative 2. Given the small change (2% increase) to traffic, the traffic operations analysis was not revised. Page 92: Updated the access information that would be provided along SR 531 (172nd St NE) as part of Lindsay's development. 4.4.4 Section 3.4 Public Services No corrections or clarifications. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 118 Chapter 4 1 CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATION I Appendices 'Z=ction 3.5 Utilities No corrections or clarifications. Appendicec Appendix H: Added updated Pending Project Area site plan and mitigation. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 119 Chapter 5 1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES COMMENTS AND ESPONSES Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 120 Chapter 5 1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES I Introduction 5 . 1 Introduction This chapter includes the responses to public comments received on the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS was issued on September 26, 2025, and included a 30-day comment period, which ended on October 27, 2025. The City received 6 emailed comments during the Draft EIS comment period. Appendix G Comment Letters includes all comments received. As shown in Exhibit 5.2-1, responses are provided for each comment and are intended to provide clarification and refinement of information presented in the EIS, and if needed, correct or update information in the EIS. See Chapter 4 for revisions and additions to the DEIS integrated in the Final EIS. Exhibit 5.2-1. Responses to Individual Comments No Comment Responses 1 Tamela Smart Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1a Thank you for contacting the State Historic Preservation Thank you for your comments; comments noted. Officer(SHPO)and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation(DAHP)with documentation regarding the above referenced project.An Archaeological survey was completed on the eastern portion of the Lindsay Subarea Plan project area and no protected cultural resources were encountered.We concur with the results and recommendations provided in the survey report.We recommend that the project proceed as planned with an Inadvertent Discovery Plan on-site and followed should cultural resources or human remains be encountered. We appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes and other parties that you receive as you consult on this project. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review.Should the project scope of work and/or location change significantly, please contact DAHP for further review 2 Kelli Price Washington State Department of Ecology 2a Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on Thank you for your comments; comments noted. the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for the Lindsay Subarea Plan. Based on review of the documents associated with this project,the Department of Ecology (Ecology)has the following comments: We support the goals and objectives for the Natural Environment stated in the Lindsay Subarea Plan. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS - Volume I - November 2025 121 Chapter 5 1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES I Introduction No Comment Responses Specifically,we support: ■ Protecting and enhancing wetlands,critical areas,and their buffers to maintain ecosystem services. Restoring the health of Edgecomb Creek and its tributaries. ■ Protecting fish and wildlife habitat in the subarea. ■ Preserving the Native Growth Protection Area(NGPA) and critical areas and their associated buffers. ■ Implementing a wetland mitigation plan to protect the wooded wetland. Partnering with the Tulalip Tribes to restore fish passage and ecological functions in Edgecomb Creek. 2b The wetlands delineated on this property would be Thank you for your comments; comments noted. waters of the state subject to the applicable requirements of state law(see RCW 90.48 and WAC 173.201A)and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act(33 USC§1341)and 40 CFR Section 121.2. If any direct wetland impacts are proposed,the applicant shall obtain all necessary state and federal authorizations prior to beginning any ground-disturbing activities or vegetation removal.To obtain state and federal authorization,you should provide: ■ Ajurisdictional determination from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers stating which delineated wetlands on the property are under federal jurisdiction. ■ A Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application(JARPA) form for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands submitted to Ecology at ecyrefedpermits@ecy.wa.gov. ■ For any non-federally regulated wetlands that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not take jurisdiction for, submit a JARPA to Ecology at ecyrefedpermits@ecy.wa.gov so we can issue an Administrative Order. A mitigation plan for unavoidable wetland impacts following the standards in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State-Part 1:Agency Policies and Guidance(Ecology Publication#21-06-003). 3 Dawn Anderson Washington State Department of Transportation 3a I sent it to our hydraulic team,and they noted that there Thank you for your comments. No stormwater was not an accompanying hydraulic memo so they will from the project site will be routed to or within need confirmation that the runoff will not affect WSDOT the WSDOT right-of-way(SR 531).All stormwater right of way. generated from the WSDOT right-of-way that currently drains toward the Lindsay Subarea will be managed along the existing drainage pathways or on the Lindsay site.With planned SR 531 improvements,the City and WSDOT will design stormwater infrastructure to manage drainage within the right-of-way or easements, according to the Western Washington Stormwater Manual. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 122 Chapter 5 1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES I Introduction No Comment Responses 3b The other comment was from our traffic group,"a new The Preferred Alternative's Planned intersection at 79th Ave NE should be prohibited due to Improvements(see page 92)and Subarea Plan spacing to roundabout at 80th Drive NE, if this have been updated to note that prior to SR 531 intersection is allowed it should be RIRO." planned improvements,the 79th Ave NE intersection may include full access. However, when SR 531 is improved with the roundabout at 8011 Dr NE,the 79th Ave NE access must convert to right-in-right-out only. �_Liz Voytas Department of Fish and Wildlif 4a The attached SEPA states,"ravine steep slopes, may Only the parcels east of 79th Ave NE within the meet the definition of a Landslide Hazard Area."Please Pending Project Area have been fully assessed on ensure erosion BMPs will be utilized and specify what the ground for critical areas and steep slopes.The BMPs will be used in sensitive areas(WAC 220-660-110). culvert and natural fish passage barrier on parcels 31052600100800 and 31052600100300 have been assessed by SVC and Tulalip Tribe biologists to aid in determining the stream typing of Stream Z. All parcels west of 79th Ave NE—the Future Development Area—have only been assessed from adjacent roads and/or online resources. These parcels will be assessed at a later date once developers are assessing potential development opportunities. Steep slope setbacks will be implemented for lots and houses adjacent to steep slopes.All appropriate best management practices(BMPs) such as temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC)measures consisting of silt fencing, seeding of disturbed soils will be implemented during construction.We have updated the subarea plan strategy NE-14 to explicitly mention erosion control. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS Volume I November 2025 123 Chapter 5 1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES I Introduction No Comment Responses 4b The attached SEPA states that Edgecomb creek does The headwaters of Edgecomb Creek located on not support fish life.The Subarea Plan Volume 1 states parcels 31052600101400,31052600101500, "Edgecomb Creek provides suitable fish habitat for 31052600100300,and 31052600100800 on the important salmonid species,such as the Coho Salmon western area—the Future Development Area—is and Bull Trout,and an existing fish barrier could be considered to be a Type F fish bearing stream removed." throughout the stream's entire reach within the ■According to PHS mapping, Edgecomb Creek flows Lindsay Subarea. However,Stream Z located on into The Middle Fork Quilceda Creek which houses the northcentral and eastern portion of the multiple salmonid and other fish.This is critical habitat Lindsay Subarea is considered a Type Ns stream for fish and should be protected(WAC 220-660-100)* due to a natural fish passage barrier on parcel ■ Removal of fish passage barriers is recommended to 31052600100300 where there is a steep slope add to the mitigation plan. with no defined bed or bank that precludes fish ■The manmade dam inhibiting fish passage at the head passage.Additionally,there is a large, of the river is scheduled to be removed in the summer approximately 260-foot long elevated culvert that of 2026.This will allow fish passage further up the prevents fish passage upstream on parcel creek and should be accounted for when considering 31052600100800,and communication with the buffer widths and future development in the vicinity. owner of parcel 31052600100800 indicated that they have no intentions of removing the 260-foot long culvert as it would require them to shut down their entire forest road construction and maintenance business.The 260-foot culvert and the natural fish passage barrier upgradient have been assessed by SVC and Tulalip Tribe biologists in the field,which led to the Type Ns determination for Stream Z upgradient of the large 260-foot culvert. The current culvert that transports Stream Z under 791h Ave NE is planned to be removed and replaced with a bottomless box culvert.Other culverts are anticipated to be removed and replaced as development occurs within the Lindsay Subarea. It is greatto hearthatthe manmade dam inhibiting fish passage on the upper reach of Edgecomb Creek on parcel 31052600100300 is planned to be removed in 2026. 4c The Subarea Plan notes that there are invasive plant Intensive invasive plant removal and control, species on site. Himalayan blackberries,Scotch broom, along with the installation of native plantings is Canada thistle are noted. planned to be implemented within any mitigation ■ We recommend adding invasive species removal to areas within the Lindsay Subarea(see Subarea the mitigation plan. Plan strategies NE-2, NE-3,and NE-7 that include direction to remove invasive species). Details on specific mitigation proposals and invasive plant control will be specified in conceptual and final mitigation plans for each proposed development as the Lindsay Subarea is built out over time. For example,the Pending Project Area parcels on the eastern portion of the site have proposed a robust mitigation plan that involves creating approximately 1.25 acres of wetland, and enhancing and restoring all the wetland and stream buffer areas located within the proposed development.All future development proposals will also be required to submit and implement mitigation plans. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS Volume I November 2025 124 Chapter 5 1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES I Introduction No Comment Responses Individuals 5 Annet Gamble-Olson 5a I am objecting to another huge development being Thank you for your comments.The planned allowed in Arlington that has insufficient roads and transportation system,as analyzed in section 3.3 services before the houses are put in. Transportation, is adequate for the level of growth planned in Lindsay. In addition,the proposed parks,trails,and street network in Lindsay would improve access and connectivity to parks and services for a greater proportion of Arlington residents. Public services, including parks,schools, police, fire/emergency services,and utilities, are expected to accommodate Lindsay's projected growth with continued service provider-City coordination,capital planning,and implementation of proposed improvements(see sections 3.4 Public Services and 3.5 Utilities). Project-level permitting will continue to be conditioned on adequate utility capacity,guided by updated City modeling(see section 3.5.2 Utilities, Potential Impacts). 5b I need more information about where this development Thank you for your interest.All notice is going in and how it will affect me at[address requirements have been and will continue to be redacted] satisfied.The commenter has also been made a party of record. In addition,the commenter was provided a link to the City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Plan website for the subarea plan and additional project documents. 6 Shannon Oquist 6a I am writing to express my concern regarding a notice Thank you for your comments.The City of we received about an environmental impact and a Arlington is required to plan for projected proposed growth plan.There are already environmental population growth,and Arlington's growth trends impacts to the continued building in and around show that additional development is needed to Arlington.Wildlife is running out of places to live,and house the growing population(see the things like trees and shrubbery are disappearing to Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Forecasts). build apartments and commercial buildings that are Though there are some vacancies in Arlington, sitting empty.Any amount of building also poses risk to these are due to unique circumstances or typical ground water,and air pollution when trees are removed. vacancy rates for a healthy market and do not indicate a lack of need for homes. The proposed neighborhood development and associated environmental mitigation and restoration that will occur are anticipated to achieve a net lift in ecological functions and values within the Lindsay Subarea.Wildlife corridors will be preserved and enhanced within the riparian management zones adjacent to the streams within the Subarea.Currently,the stream corridors and wetlands onsite are largely degraded due to historic cattle grazing and ongoing mowing which has prevented native trees and shrubs from establishing in many of the riparian zones and wetlands within the Subarea. Future development will result in planting and Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS Volume I November 2025 125 Chapter 5 1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES I Introduction No Comment Responses maintaining the riparian corridors,wetlands and associated buffers with native trees and shrubs which will significantly improve ecological functions and habitat diversity within these natural areas.The anticipated mitigation and ecological restoration within the Subarea are anticipated to create additional wetland area, improve water quality within the streams through native plantings and removing failing septic systems, and to enhance degraded wildlife corridors. 6b This does not even take into consideration the traffic Refer to Gamble-Olson comment 5a regarding impacts that such building is having on the citizens of traffic impacts. Arlington. 6c As a tax paying citizen in the city of Arlington, I would Refer to Oquist comment 6a regarding wildlife, like to express my opposition to any further building. trees,and habitat. The Eagle Heights Neighborhood only has a few small wooded areas as is, please leave them alone Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 126 Chapter 6 1 ACRONYMS &REFERENCES I Introduction 6 AC ONYMS & REFERENCES Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 127 Chapter 6 1 ACRONYMS &REFERENCES I Acronyms 6. 1 Acronyms AMC = Arlington Municipal Code CPP = Snohomish Countywide Planning Policies DNR = Department of Natural Resource EV = Electric vehicle ESA = Endangered Species Act FDA = Future Development Area NCRS = Natural Resource Conservation Service NGPA = Native Growth Protection Area NWIFC = Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission PSRC = Puget Sound Regional Council PPA = Pending Project Area PUD = Snohomish County Public Utility District SWIFD = Statewide Washington Integrated Fis Distribution USACE = U.S Amry Corps of Engineers WDFW = Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WSDOE = Washington Department of Ecology WSDOT = Washington Department of Transportation 6.2 References Hruby and Yahnke. 2023. Washington State Wetland Rating System https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/2306009.pdf National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition:A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS • Volume I • November 2025 City of Arlington I Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Final Environmental Impact Volume - Appendices Gt`t Y N November 2025 Appendices Volume 11 Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS • Volume 11 • November 2025 2 List of Appendices A Scoping Notice & Comment Summary B Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report for Lindsay Annexation C Master Planned Neighborhood District — Subarea Review Assessment D Existing Traffic Counts E LOS Definitions F LOS Worksheets G Updated Pending Project Area Site Plan and Mitigation H Comment Letters Volume 11 Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS • Volume 11 • November 2025 3 A ScopingNotice & Comment Summary Volume 11 Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS• Volume 11• November 2025 A-1 Notice of Application, Community Neighborhood Meeting, SEPA Determination of Significance, and Request for Comments on Scope of Environmental ' ♦ Impact Statement Lindsay Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS Permit Number: PLN #1315 Date of Issuance: March 18, 2025 Date of Publication: March 20, 2025 Date of Application: February 10, 2025 Date of Complete Application: March 10, 2025 Lead Agency: City of Arlington Agency Contact: Amy Rusko, Deputy Director, arusko@arlingtonwa.gov, (360) 403-3551 Applicant: MJS Investors, Inc Description of proposal: The City of Arlington, jointly with MJS Investors, is conducting a community planning process to develop a vision, plan, and implementation strategies for the Lindsay Subarea. This planning process will lay the groundwork for continued, coordinated, and efficient growth of the neighborhood. The final product is an adopted Lindsay Subarea Plan, which will be incorporated in the City's development code, and Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) to facilitate development that meets community goals. The subarea plan is being developed for consistency with the Growth Management Act, countywide planning policies, and the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan. The PAO will be developed under RCW 43.21 C.440 and associated SEPA rules in WAC 197-1 1 based on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Future proposals consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance, Subarea Plan, and development regulations would have a streamlined environmental review and permitting process. The Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) will assess two alternatives.The No Action alternative assumes no development within the subarea would occur underthe existing Residential Ultra Low Capacity zoning and development standards. The Action Alternative assumes implementation of Ordinance 2023-016 to accommodate low-to moderate-intensity residential uses, including small-lot detached single-family homes, townhomes, and multi- family housing. This alternative also includes investments in capital infrastructure, transportation improvements, and a comprehensive system of parks, open spaces, and trails within the subarea. Location of proposal:The Lindsay Master Plan Subarea is bounded by 172nd St NE(SR 531) 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, in the Hilltop neighborhood. A-1 Determination:The City of Arlington has determined that this proposal could potentially have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21 C.030 (2)(c) and will be prepared. The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: • 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 Scoping: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS.You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. The method and deadline for giving us your comments are: Send written comments by 5:00pm on Thursday,April 10,2025 to the contact below. Email comments are preferred. Email: arusko@arlingtonwa.gov(Subject: Lindsay Subarea NOA and EIS Scoping Comments) Mail: City of Arlington Attn: Amy Rusko, Community and Economic Development Deputy Director 18204 591h Avenue NE Arlington,WA, 98233 Community Meeting: As part of the community planning process and to meet the Planned Action community meeting provisions in RCW 43.21C.440(3)(b), the City is holding a public neighborhood meeting on April 7, 2025 at Putnam Hall in the Community and Economic Development Office (18204 591h Avenue NE,Arlington,WA 98223),from 5:00pm to 6:00pm, with a presentation at 5:15pm. If you are in need of special accommodations for the meeting, please contact the City of Arlington at 360-403-3551. For more information, please see the City of Arlington project website: https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/892/Lindsay-Subarea-Plan. Permits and Documents Required: Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay Subarea Plan, EIS, and Planned Action Ordinance; Pending Project Area permits required (following subarea plan approval): Land Use, Civil, and Building Responsible Official: Marc Hayes, Community and Economic Development Director, City of Arlington, mhayes@arlingtonwa.gov, 360-403-3457 3/18/2025 Signature Date Appeal Process An agency or person may appeal the City's procedural compliance with WAC 197-11. The appeal shall meet the requirements of AMC 20.98.210, AMC 20.20, and AMC 20.24. The appeal period commences on the date of publication of notice. Any appeal to the Hearing Examiner must be addressed to the City Hearing Examiner, accompanied by an application, written findings,a filing fee(plus the actual cost of the Hearing Examiner),and be filed in writing at the City of Arlington, Community and Economic Development Department, 18204 59" Avenue NE,Arlington,WA 98223. A-2 City of Arlington I Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 Public Neighborhood Meeting 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 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 « a ff u Y Y A-3 City of Arlington I Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 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-4 City of Arlington I Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 Survey Response Images Visioning Question 1. I'm interested in the Lindsay Subarea because (Select all that apply) I'm interested in the Lindsay Subarea because(Select all that apply) % 24 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% Start the preswttation to see lice content.For xseen shoo soft—,sharp the antire xreen.(wt help at ptift—nyapp % Question 2. What makes the Hilltop Area (including the Lindday Subarea) special? (Select your top 3) 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% r�■ %art the presantation to sw Uw content.For sawrt share soRware,share the wttie xreen.Gat help at polle—Vapp % A-5 City of Arlington I Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 Question 3. What do you value most about living or working in your community? (Enter one word responses) o p Join by Web PollEv.com/makers350 Join by Text Send makers350 and your message to 22333 0 What do you value most about living or working in your community?(Enter one word responses) 19 space seclusion entradvanacemen outdoor r U r. at[peaceful peacefulness 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) What are you interested in seeing as this part of Arlington develops? (Select all that %�229 apply) Homes 21% Businesses(corner store,bakery/cafe,gym,etc.) 7% Parks and open space 34', Trails 28% Other Start thn pravxrtation to s..Irvv mntrnt.for urem sham wltwam,sham thn mhrr r�r.m.(t halp at potkv .c pp A-6 City of Arlington I Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 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? � f 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 g630 like to see? (Select all that apply) Single family homes 47% Attached dwelling units(ADUs) 7% Duplexes,townhomes,or other attached home style 27% Multifamily homes(garden apartments,flats,etc.) 0% Mix of home types 17% Other - 3% ■■ %sit Ow piviomb on to sm SwcentwR Forsaw Owe so4wwo,0owtheet:o u—n.C tIwIpatpo0sV—V&pp ■■ A-7 City of Arlington I Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 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 &22 to see multifamily homes? (Select up to 2 options) Close to 172nd St 36'?M Away from 172nd St 3615u Mix throughout Does not matter to me 0°:U Other gqr, Start 0.p—tatio.to sw li--tent.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�.e,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-8 City of Arlington I Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 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 e 17 locations) r . _ . � . _ 172NDSTNE_ 171st St NE , Z IW - - e • �• �- RoadC °y0 • a., ' Roed C � IRoad M Load%-'1� _----- Rod -Rea3fi • '` I I Road N '- R IG r Fib" Parks Road O \ Open Space • Easement L . _ ' — ' — — - — _ _ _ 16.$THS7NE� --•- 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) e29 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 mNapp A-9 City of Arlington I Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 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? ■ ■ 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-10 City of Arlington I Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 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-11 B Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report for Lindsay Annexation Volume 11 Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS • Volume 11 • November 2025 B-1 WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT LINDSAY ANNEXATION JUNE 2024 Soundview �7 Consultants Environmental Assessment Planning+Land Use Solutions B-2 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-3 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-4 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-5 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-6 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-7 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-8 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-9 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 sSubject i t Property Location ,�. 44 t v aiY ^��.6 �^' ���s •'_ 1�� 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-10 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-11 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-12 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-13 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-14 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-15 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-16 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-17 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-18 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-19 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-20 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-21 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-22 (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-23 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-24 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-25 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-26 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-27 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-28 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-29 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-30 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-31 Appendix A Existing Conditions Map 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-32 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-33 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-34 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-35 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 91011 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 RenesiYr(`drsMrHa 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-36 Appendix B3 - DNR Stream Typing Map 1' •�' Subject Property t jt• — Location ` w +r►�a LI -�%Ih ow ��� �`'� '�a �.'r • • �, =- ,�"' � . aye• • , l ♦�� A. Alk me mp 4/22/2024,9:58 35 AM 1:7,500 235 410 940 i', 0 Subject Area Type N, Np, Ns DNR- Stream Typing -Watercourses (DNR) 70 iao zso m Type F sound, ew,•ltanb 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-37 Appendix B4 — WDFW and NWIFC-SWIFD w ram' y . • y %► ,, 'y 1 j Subject Property " '� ; t'r• i Location r • ' . _ f` A 1�r Sol - w Vol low •• t:. i. do 4 .. `. A. '/ �• 4/22/2024, 10 07 29 AM 1:7.500 Subject Area Pink Salmon(Odd Year)Streams Cohn Streams 235 470 1. �n Bull Trout Gradient Accessible — Documented Spawning 70 140 280 m Presumed Presence Winter Steelhead Streams Fall Chinook Streams Gradient Accessible Gradient Accessible >quaNIMM �iorw 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-38 Appendix B5 — Snohomish County Stream and Wetland Inventory Map • s. • �. .✓j •. �.-. s1. • j 1� • �t r . � ir Subject Property i 'rL>♦► t � Location T W 60,100.1- 04 �. Y ► Ow � T N tt 7 � OFF VA 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-39 Appendix B6 — USFWS NWI Map oe Subject Property Location -a N� 0�-..j, ir � ti1•� mow' . '- [ .ram- • ' ��__ • �•• • '�1'; L , 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-40 Appendix B7 - WDFW PHS Map • � ;ex.: A-- Subject Property -' Location t fit 0 o t. - IL a • oft • r� r � + le '!fit-�•� Apr kI- -- , , t S < Vk 64 Ilk list% t: low -s► go r ae ' ' A Ir 4 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-41 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-42 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-43 Appendix C Data Forms 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-44 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-45 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-46 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-47 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-48 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-49 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-50 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-51 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-52 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-53 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-54 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-55 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-56 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-57 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-58 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-59 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-60 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-61 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-62 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-63 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-64 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-65 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-66 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-67 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-68 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-69 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-70 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-71 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-72 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-73 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-74 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-75 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-76 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-77 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-78 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-79 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-80 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-81 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-82 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-83 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-84 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-85 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-86 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-87 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-88 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-89 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-90 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-91 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-92 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-93 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-94 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-95 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-96 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-97 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-98 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-99 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-100 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-101 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-102 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-103 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-104 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-105 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-106 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-107 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-108 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-109 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-110 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-111 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-112 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-113 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-114 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-115 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-116 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-117 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-118 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-119 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-120 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 g = 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-121 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-122 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-123 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-124 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-125 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-126 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-127 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-128 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-129 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-130 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-131 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-132 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-133 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-134 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-135 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-136 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-137 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 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 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-138 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-139 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 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-140 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-141 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-142 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-143 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-144 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-145 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-146 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-147 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-148 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-149 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-150 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-151 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 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-152 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-153 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-154 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-155 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-156 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-157 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-158 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-159 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-160 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-161 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-162 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-163 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-164 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-165 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-166 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-167 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-168 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-169 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-170 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-171 Appendix E Wetland Rating Maps 2419.0002-Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland&Fish&Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21,2024 B-172 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-173 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-174 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-175 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-176 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 . 7 B-177 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 Ell B-178 303(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 :If,] B-179 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-180 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-181 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-182 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-183 C Conceptual Mitigation Plan Volume 11 Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS • Volume 11 • 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 Existing Traffic Counts Volume 11 Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS• Volume 11 • November 2025 D-1 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 D-2 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 2PedsB!cycle HVMU-Turnft Thru Ri ht Peds Bic cle HV U-TurnZThru Peds Bic cle HV U-Turn Left Thru Ri ht 4:00 PM-5:00 PM 0 0 14 0 82 211 1554 199 94 1 0 24 0 0 0 15 0 260 478 56 1992 4:15 PM-5:15 PM 0 0 13 0 82 195 1584 188 103 3 0 22 0 0 0 15 0 267 489 60 1957 4:30 PM-5:30 PM 0 0 11 0 81 190 1581 171 93 3 0 20 0 0 0 14 0 273 514 60 1943 4:45 PM-5:45 PM 0 0 11 0 69 166 1704 155 80 3 0 18 0 0 0 15 0 269 527 61 1883 5:00 PM-6:00 PM 0 0 13 0 64 146 1764 144 72 2 0 14 0 0 0 15 0 266 526 61 1821 4:00 PM-6:00 PM Total: 0 1 0 27 0 146 357 331 1 0 0 8 0 69 343 166 3 0 38 0 102 565 87 0 1 0 30 0 526 1004 117 3813 D-3 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 D-4 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 D-5 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 D-6 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 D-7 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 D-8 E LOS Definitions Volume 11 Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS • Volume 11 • November 2025 E-1 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. E-2 F SOS Worksheets Volume 11 Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS • Volume 11 • November 2025 F-1 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 F-2 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 F-3 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 F-4 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 NEME I 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 F-5 SITE LAYOUT Site: 29 [29. 172nd Street NE167th Avenue NE—Added Short Lane (Site Folder: Future 2044 Plan)] Future(2044)PM Peak Hour Plan Improvement Site Category: (None) Roundabout Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data.They are not design drawings. W Z • Q %O JN 172nd St NE T ~ 70 ------ ~L — — _ 1► F 96 V 29 96 ~� T• --- 70 — — — — — 172nd St NE � r w z CD L_ n �O 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 Created:Monday,September 22,2025 4:31:05 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\EIS\From TE\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 F-6 MOVEMENT SUMMARY 8 Site: 29 [29. 172nd Street NE/67th Avenue NE-Added Short Lane (Site Folder: Future 2044 Plan)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version:9.1.3.210 Future(2044)PM Peak Hour Plan Improvement 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 74 1.0 74 1.0 0.701 14.9 LOS B 5.1 128.4 0.88 0.98 1.16 32.5 8 T1 All MCs 442 1.0 442 1.0 0.701 9.6 LOS A 5.1 128.4 0.88 0.98 1.16 33.1 18 R2 All MCs 384 1.0 384 1.0 0.663 10.8 LOS B 4.1 104.5 0.85 0.99 1.11 32.3 Approach 900 1.0 900 1.0 0.701 10.6 LOS B 5.1 128.4 0.86 0.99 1.14 32.7 East: 172nd St NE 1 L2 All MCs 205 4.0 205 4.0 0.588 19.0 LOS B 5.5 141.9 0.94 0.90 1.20 30.0 6 T1 All MCs 679 4.0 679 4.0 0.588 12.2 LOS B 6.2 160.8 0.95 0.87 1.18 31.9 16 R2 All MCs 21 4.0 21 4.0 0.588 11.5 LOS B 6.2 160.8 0.96 0.85 1.18 32.2 Approach 905 4.0 905 4.0 0.588 13.7 LOS B 6.2 160.8 0.95 0.87 1.19 31.5 North:67th Ave NE 7 L2 All MCs 111 2.0 111 2.0 0.696 14.4 LOS B 4.6 115.7 0.82 0.95 1.05 32.5 4 T1 All MCs 242 2.0 242 2.0 0.696 9.1 LOS A 4.6 115.7 0.82 0.95 1.05 33.1 14 R2 All MCs 132 2.0 132 2.0 0.696 9.2 LOS A 4.6 115.7 0.82 0.95 1.05 32.8 Approach 484 2.0 484 2.0 0.696 10.3 LOS B 4.6 115.7 0.82 0.95 1.05 32.9 West: 172nd St NE 5 L2 All MCs 279 2.0 279 2.0 0.654 16.2 LOS B 6.8 173.0 0.87 0.85 1.11 31.2 2 T1 All MCs 911 2.0 911 2.0 0.654 9.9 LOS A 7.3 186.2 0.87 0.81 1.07 32.9 12 R2 All MCs 137 2.0 137 2.0 0.654 9.3 LOS A 7.3 186.2 0.87 0.79 1.05 33.2 Approach 1326 2.0 1326 2.0 0.654 11.2 LOS B 7.3 186.2 0.87 0.82 1.07 32.6 All Vehicles 3616 2.3 3616 2.3 0.701 11.5 LOS B 7.3 186.2 0.88 0.89 1.11 32.4 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(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 1 Copyright©2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation:THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence:NETWORK/1 PC I Processed:Monday,March 25,2024 2:11:46 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\EIS\From TE\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 F-7 HCM 7th TWSC Lindsay Subarea EIS 98: SR-531 & 80th Drive Future(2044)No Action Alternative PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay,slveh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ) tt tT r Traffic Vol,vehlh 10 1195 760 10 20 45 Future Vol,veh/h 10 1195 760 10 20 45 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length 0 - 0 0 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 11 1299 826 11 22 49 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 837 0 0 1503 418 Stage 1 - - - 832 - Stage 2 - - 671 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 793 - 112 583 Stage 1 - - 388 - Stage 2 - - 469 - Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 793 111 583 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 111 - Stage 1 - 382 - Stage 2 469 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay,s/v 0.08 0 22.05 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLnl SBLn2 Capacity(veh/h) 793 - 111 583 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 0.196 0.084 HCM Control Delay(s/veh) 9.6 45.3 11.7 HCM Lane LOS A E B HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 0.7 0.3 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report F-8 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Arlington Transportation Master Plan 16: SR-9 & 204th St NE Future(2044)Weekday PM Peak Hour Plan Improvements 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) 175 580 165 160 405 185 160 440 275 110 285 95 Future Volume(veh/h) 175 580 165 160 405 185 160 440 275 110 285 95 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 0.94 1.00 0.97 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 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1826 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 184 611 174 168 426 195 168 463 289 116 300 100 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,% 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 Cap,veh/h 201 523 418 141 468 386 192 403 251 102 593 503 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.37 0.39 0.06 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow,veh/h 1767 1856 1485 1781 1870 1544 1781 1077 672 1739 1826 1547 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 184 611 174 168 426 195 168 0 752 116 300 100 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1767 1856 1485 1781 1870 1544 1781 0 1749 1739 1826 1547 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.0 40.9 13.8 11.5 32.1 15.7 13.5 0.0 54.3 8.5 19.3 6.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 15.0 40.9 13.8 11.5 32.1 15.7 13.5 0.0 54.3 8.5 19.3 6.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 201 523 418 141 468 386 192 0 654 102 593 503 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 1.17 0.42 1.19 0.91 0.51 0.88 0.00 1.15 1.14 0.51 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 201 523 418 141 468 386 239 0 661 102 593 503 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 63.7 52.2 42.4 66.9 52.9 46.7 63.8 0.0 44.9 68.4 39.6 35.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 40.9 95.1 0.8 136.1 22.1 1.3 24.6 0.0 84.1 131.7 1.0 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 9.0 32.8 5.2 10.6 18.0 6.2 7.5 0.0 38.5 7.5 8.9 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 104.6 147.3 43.2 203.0 75.0 48.0 88.4 0.0 129.0 200.0 40.6 35.6 LnGrp LOS F F D F E D F F F D D Approach Vol,veh/h 969 789 920 516 Approach Delay,s/veh 120.5 95.6 121.6 75.5 Approach LOS F F F E Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 14.0 64.4 17.0 49.8 21.1 57.3 21.6 45.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.5 7.1 5.5 *5.9 5.5 7.1 5.1 5.9 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 8.5 57.9 11.5 *44 19.5 46.9 16.5 38.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+ll),s 10.5 56.3 13.5 43.9 15.5 22.3 17.0 35.1 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.1 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay,s/veh 107.4 HCM 7th LOS F 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 F-9 SITE LAYOUT Site: 31 [31. SR 9/SR 531 (Site Folder: Future 2044 Plan)] Future(2044)PM Peak Hour Plan Improvement Site Category: (None) Roundabout Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data.They are not design drawings. a I I aC N I I N I SR 531 100 _ L — — — — — - � 100 �'31 100 100 SR 531 L I I I I rn m 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:Monday,September 22,2025 4:31:59 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\EIS\From TE\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 F-10 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 31 [31. SR 9/SR 531 (Site Folder: Future 2044 Plan)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version:9.1.3.210 Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Plan Improvement 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 3u U All MCs 5 5.0 5 5.0 0.681 19.4 LOS B 5.4 140.8 0.87 0.97 1.17 30.3 3 L2 All MCs 387 5.0 387 5.0 0.681 16.9 LOS B 5.4 140.8 0.87 0.97 1.17 30.3 8 T1 All MCs 567 5.0 567 5.0 0.681 10.0 LOS B 5.9 153.9 0.88 0.91 1.15 33.1 18 R2 All MCs 77 5.0 77 5.0 0.681 9.9 LOS A 5.9 153.9 0.88 0.91 1.14 33.1 Approach 1036 5.0 1036 5.0 0.681 12.6 LOS B 5.9 153.9 0.87 0.93 1.15 32.0 East:SR 531 1 L2 All MCs 139 3.0 139 3.0 0.663 15.4 LOS B 5.0 127.6 0.88 0.96 1.14 32.2 6 T1 All MCs 371 3.0 371 3.0 0.663 9.6 LOS A 5.0 127.6 0.88 0.96 1.14 32.9 16 R2 All MCs 77 3.0 77 3.0 0.156 8.1 LOS A 0.7 16.9 0.71 0.81 0.71 33.9 Approach 588 3.0 588 3.0 0.663 10.7 LOS B 5.0 127.6 0.85 0.94 1.08 32.8 North:SR 9 7u U All MCs 5 2.0 5 2.0 0.449 20.4 LOS C 3.3 83.7 0.88 0.86 1.01 30.3 7 L2 All MCs 175 2.0 175 2.0 0.449 17.9 LOS B 3.3 83.7 0.88 0.86 1.01 30.3 4 T1 All MCs 299 2.0 299 2.0 0.449 11.1 LOS B 3.6 91.3 0.89 0.82 1.00 32.4 14 R2 All MCs 113 2.0 113 2.0 0.449 10.8 LOS B 3.6 91.3 0.90 0.80 0.99 32.8 Approach 593 2.0 593 2.0 0.449 13.1 LOS B 3.6 91.3 0.89 0.83 1.00 31.8 West:SR 531 - 5u U All MCs 5 1.0 5 1.0 0.629 15.5 LOS B 4.9 122.6 0.74 0.77 0.88 32.9 5 L2 All MCs 175 1.0 175 1.0 0.629 13.0 LOS B 4.9 122.6 0.74 0.77 0.88 32.9 2 T1 All MCs 490 1.0 490 1.0 0.629 7.2 LOS A 4.9 122.6 0.74 0.77 0.88 33.5 12 R2 All MCs 351 1.0 351 1.0 0.422 6.8 LOS A 2.3 56.8 0.65 0.72 0.69 34.5 Approach 1021 1.0 1021 1.0 0.629 8.1 LOS A 4.9 122.6 0.71 0.75 0.81 33.7 All Vehicles 3237 2.8 3237 2.8 0.681 11.0 LOS B 5.9 153.9 0.82 0.86 1.01 32.6 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:Monday,March 25,2024 2:18:00 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\EIS\From TE\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 F-11 SITE LAYOUT Site: 29 [29. 172nd Street NE/67th Avenue NE—Added Short Lane (Site Folder: Lindsay Subarea Plan)] Future(2044)PM Peak Hour Plan Improvement Site Category: (None) Roundabout Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data.They are not design drawings. W Z • Q %O JN 172nd St NE T ~ 70 ------ ~L — — _ 1► F 96 V_ 29 96 ~� T• --- 70 — — — — — 172nd St NE � r w z CD L_ n �O 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 Created:Thursday,May 22,2025 2:27:34 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\EIS\EIS Offsite.sip9 F-12 MOVEMENT SUMMARY 8 Site: 29 [29. 172nd Street NE/67th Avenue NE-Added Short Lane (Site Folder: Lindsay Subarea Plan)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Future(2044)PM Peak Hour Plan Improvement 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 89 1.0 89 1.0 0.631 15.5 LOS B 4.3 109.0 0.89 0.98 1.13 32.1 8 T1 All MCs 316 1.0 316 1.0 0.631 10.3 LOS B 4.3 109.0 0.89 0.98 1.13 32.7 18 R2 All MCs 273 1.0 273 1.0 0.559 11.1 LOS B 3.2 79.8 0.84 0.97 1.04 32.2 Approach 678 1.0 678 1.0 0.631 11.3 LOS B 4.3 109.0 0.87 0.98 1.10 32.4 East: 172nd St NE 1 L2 All MCs 133 4.0 133 4.0 0.552 17.6 LOS B 4.8 124.5 0.89 0.86 1.11 30.9 6 T1 All MCs 747 4.0 747 4.0 0.552 11.1 LOS B 5.4 138.6 0.90 0.82 1.08 32.5 16 R2 All MCs 27 4.0 27 4.0 0.552 10.3 LOS B 5.4 138.6 0.91 0.80 1.07 32.8 Approach 907 4.0 907 4.0 0.552 12.0 LOS B 5.4 138.6 0.90 0.83 1.08 32.3 North:67th Ave NE 7 L2 All MCs 55 2.0 55 2.0 0.603 13.5 LOS B 3.5 87.9 0.76 0.88 0.93 33.0 4 T1 All MCs 195 2.0 195 2.0 0.603 8.2 LOS A 3.5 87.9 0.76 0.88 0.93 33.6 14 R2 All MCs 174 2.0 174 2.0 0.603 8.3 LOS A 3.5 87.9 0.76 0.88 0.93 33.3 Approach 423 2.0 423 2.0 0.603 8.9 LOS A 3.5 87.9 0.76 0.88 0.93 33.4 West: 172nd St NE 5 L2 All MCs 353 2.0 353 2.0 0.734 15.2 LOS B 9.0 228.6 0.85 0.80 1.05 31.7 2 T1 All MCs 1086 2.0 1086 2.0 0.734 9.0 LOS A 9.3 235.2 0.83 0.77 1.00 33.2 12 R2 All MCs 284 2.0 284 2.0 0.734 8.4 LOS A 9.3 235.2 0.82 0.75 0.97 33.5 Approach 1723 2.0 1723 2.0 0.734 10.2 LOS B 9.3 235.2 0.84 0.77 1.01 32.9 All Vehicles 3732 2.3 3732 2.3 0.734 10.7 LOS B 9.3 235.2 0.85 0.83 1.03 32.7 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 1 Copyright©2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation:THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence:NETWORK/1 PC I Processed:Thursday,May 22,2025 2:26:46 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\EIS\EIS Offsite.sip9 F-13 SITE LAYOUT 8 Site: 4 [SR 531/80th Dr NE -2 lane option - Lindsay Subarea Plan (Site Folder: EIS Lindsay Subarea Plan)] 2044 Horizon Year Site Category: (None) Roundabout Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data.They are not design drawings. W Z O O JN SR 531 • r SR S31 •.•• z 0 Q SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 1 Copyright©2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd 1 sidrasolutions.com Organisation:THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence:NETWORK/1 PC I Created:Thursday,May 22,2025 2:12:11 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\EIS\EIS 80th and SR 531.sip9 F-14 MOVEMENT SUMMARY 8 Site: 4 [SR 531/80th Dr NE -2 lane option - Lindsay Subarea Plan (Site Folder: EIS Lindsay Subarea Plan)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version:9.1.3.210 2044 Horizon Year 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: Project Driveway 3 L2 All MCs 6 0.0 6 0.0 0.222 17.0 LOS B 1.4 34.0 0.89 0.85 0.89 31.0 8 T1 All MCs 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.222 13.1 LOS B 1.4 34.0 0.89 0.85 0.89 31.5 18 R2 All MCs 78 0.0 78 0.0 0.222 12.8 LOS B 1.4 34.0 0.89 0.85 0.89 31.2 Approach 85 0.0 85 0.0 0.222 13.1 LOS B 1.4 34.0 0.89 0.85 0.89 31.2 East:SR 531 1 L2 All MCs 129 1.0 129 1.0 0.126 8.9 LOS A 0.6 15.1 0.10 0.64 0.10 32.9 6 T1 All MCs 801 1.0 801 1.0 0.536 5.0 LOS A 4.5 113.7 0.14 0.44 0.14 35.2 16 R2 All MCs 10 1.0 10 1.0 0.536 5.2 LOS A 4.5 113.7 0.14 0.44 0.14 34.7 Approach 940 1.0 940 1.0 0.536 5.5 LOS A 4.5 113.7 0.14 0.47 0.14 34.8 North:80th Dr NE 7 L2 All MCs 20 0.0 20 0.0 0.088 12.1 LOS B 0.3 8.5 0.56 0.75 0.56 32.8 4 T1 All MCs 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.088 8.2 LOS A 0.3 8.5 0.56 0.75 0.56 33.4 14 R2 All MCs 45 0.0 45 0.0 0.088 7.9 LOS A 0.3 8.5 0.56 0.75 0.56 33.1 Approach 66 0.0 66 0.0 0.088 9.2 LOS A 0.3 8.5 0.56 0.75 0.56 33.0 West:SR 531 5 L2 All MCs 10 0.0 10 0.0 0.011 9.7 LOS A 0.0 1.2 0.31 0.62 0.31 32.5 2 T1 All MCs 1165 0.0 1165 0.0 0.842 7.4 LOS A 12.6 316.1 0.77 0.59 0.79 33.4 12 R2 All MCs 9 0.0 9 0.0 0.842 7.5 LOS A 12.6 316.1 0.77 0.59 0.79 33.0 Approach 1184 0.0 1184 0.0 0.842 7.4 LOS A 12.6 316.1 0.76 0.59 0.79 33.4 All Vehicles 2275 0.4 2275 0.4 0.842 6.9 LOS A 12.6 316.1 0.50 0.55 0.51 33.9 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 1 Copyright©2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation:THE TRANSPO GROUP I Licence:NETWORK/1 PC I Processed:Thursday,May 22,2025 2:12:19 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\EIS\EIS 80th and SR 531.sip9 F-15 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Lindsay Subarea EIS 16: SR-9 & 204th St NE Future(2044)Lindsay Subarea Plan 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) 180 520 143 163 410 170 106 423 276 65 255 105 Future Volume(veh/h) 180 520 143 163 410 170 106 423 276 65 255 105 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 0.94 1.00 0.97 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 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1826 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 189 547 151 172 432 179 112 445 291 68 268 111 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,% 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 Cap,veh/h 206 515 412 168 483 399 135 399 261 75 631 535 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.38 0.40 0.04 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow,veh/h 1767 1856 1484 1781 1870 1545 1781 1056 690 1739 1826 1547 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 189 547 151 172 432 179 112 0 736 68 268 111 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1767 1856 1484 1781 1870 1545 1781 0 1746 1739 1826 1547 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.4 40.3 11.9 13.7 32.3 14.1 9.0 0.0 54.9 5.7 16.3 7.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 15.4 40.3 11.9 13.7 32.3 14.1 9.0 0.0 54.9 5.7 16.3 7.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 206 515 412 168 483 399 135 0 660 75 631 535 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 1.06 0.37 1.02 0.89 0.45 0.83 0.00 1.12 0.90 0.42 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 206 515 412 168 483 399 200 0 668 75 631 535 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 63.5 52.4 42.2 65.7 51.9 45.2 66.2 0.0 44.6 69.1 36.4 33.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 40.8 57.1 0.7 75.6 19.0 1.0 16.7 0.0 71.1 70.8 0.6 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 9.3 26.9 4.5 9.8 17.7 5.6 4.7 0.0 36.5 4.0 7.5 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 104.3 109.6 42.8 141.4 70.9 46.1 82.9 0.0 115.6 140.0 37.1 33.7 LnGrp LOS F F D F E D F F F D C Approach Vol,veh/h 887 783 848 447 Approach Delay,s/veh 97.1 80.7 111.3 51.9 Approach LOS F F F D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 11.8 65.0 19.2 49.2 16.5 60.3 22.0 46.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.5 7.1 5.5 *5.9 5.5 7.1 5.1 5.9 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 6.3 58.5 13.7 *43 16.3 48.5 16.9 39.7 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 7.7 56.9 15.7 43.3 11.0 19.3 17.4 35.3 Green Ext Time(p-c),s 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.0 0.0 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay,s/veh 90.0 HCM 7th LOS F 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 F-16 SITE LAYOUT Site: 31 [31. SR 9/SR 531 (Site Folder: Lindsay Subarea Plan)] Future(2044)PM Peak Hour Plan Improvement Site Category: (None) Roundabout Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data.They are not design drawings. a I I W to I I N SR 531 100 - l 100 �' 31 100 T- S 100 SR 531 rn I m 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:Thursday,May 22,2025 2:30:17 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\EIS\EIS Offsite.sip9 F-17 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 31 [31. SR 9/SR 531 (Site Folder: Lindsay Subarea Plan)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version:9.1.3.210 Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Plan Improvement 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 3u U All MCs 5 5.0 5 5.0 0.685 19.5 LOS B 5.3 138.9 0.86 0.98 1.17 30.0 3 L2 All MCs 455 5.0 455 5.0 0.685 17.0 LOS B 5.3 138.9 0.86 0.98 1.17 30.0 8 T1 All MCs 552 5.0 552 5.0 0.685 9.8 LOS A 5.8 151.9 0.87 0.91 1.14 33.5 18 R2 All MCs 36 5.0 36 5.0 0.685 9.9 LOS A 5.8 151.9 0.87 0.91 1.14 33.2 Approach 1047 5.0 1047 5.0 0.685 13.0 LOS B 5.8 151.9 0.87 0.94 1.15 31.8 East:SR 531 1 L2 All MCs 52 3.0 52 3.0 0.604 14.4 LOS B 4.1 105.8 0.85 0.88 1.05 32.7 6 T1 All MCs 414 3.0 414 3.0 0.604 8.6 LOS A 4.1 105.8 0.85 0.88 1.05 33.4 16 R2 All MCs 211 3.0 211 3.0 0.382 8.4 LOS A 1.9 47.9 0.76 0.86 0.83 33.8 Approach 677 3.0 677 3.0 0.604 9.0 LOS A 4.1 105.8 0.82 0.88 0.98 33.5 North:SR 9 7u U All MCs 5 2.0 5 2.0 0.506 22.0 LOS C 4.0 101.7 0.90 0.90 1.11 29.6 7 L2 All MCs 216 2.0 216 2.0 0.506 19.5 LOS B 4.0 101.7 0.90 0.90 1.11 29.6 4 T1 All MCs 294 2.0 294 2.0 0.506 12.7 LOS B 4.4 112.4 0.92 0.86 1.11 31.7 14 R2 All MCs 147 2.0 147 2.0 0.506 12.3 LOS B 4.4 112.4 0.92 0.85 1.11 32.0 Approach 663 2.0 663 2.0 0.506 14.9 LOS B 4.4 112.4 0.91 0.87 1.11 31.0 West:SR 531 A 5u U All MCs 5 1.0 5 1.0 0.607 15.1 LOS B 4.6 114.7 0.72 0.71 0.83 33.1 5 L2 All MCs 128 1.0 128 1.0 0.607 12.6 LOS B 4.6 114.7 0.72 0.71 0.83 33.1 2 T1 All MCs 523 1.0 523 1.0 0.607 6.8 LOS A 4.6 114.7 0.72 0.71 0.83 33.7 12 R2 All MCs 540 1.0 540 1.0 0.590 7.4 LOS A 4.1 104.2 0.72 0.77 0.84 34.3 Approach 1196 1.0 1196 1.0 0.607 7.7 LOS A 4.6 114.7 0.72 0.74 0.83 33.9 All Vehicles 3584 2.7 3584 2.7 0.685 10.8 LOS B 5.8 151.9 0.82 0.85 1.01 32.6 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:Thursday,May 22,2025 2:30:20 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00-Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\EIS\EIS Offsite.sip9 F-18 HCM 7th TWSC Lindsay Subarea EIS 5: West Access (79th Ave NE) & SR 531 (172nd St NE) Future(2044)Lindsay Subarea Plan PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay,slveh 0.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� t Traffic Vol,vehlh 1179 9 51 846 25 11 Future Vol,veh/h 1179 9 51 846 25 11 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 1282 10 55 920 27 12 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1291 0 2317 1286 Stage 1 - - - - 1286 - Stage 2 - - 1030 - 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 537 - 42 201 Stage 1 - - 259 - Stage 2 - - 344 - Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 537 37 201 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 145 - Stage 1 - 259 - Stage 2 309 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay,s/v 0 0.71 34.93 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(veh/h) 159 - 537 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.246 0.103 - HCM Control Delay(s/veh) 34.9 12.5 - HCM Lane LOS D B - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.9 0.3 - Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report F-19 HCM 7th TWSC Lindsay Subarea EIS 6: East Access & SR 531 (172nd St NE) Future(2044)Lindsay Subarea Plan PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay,slveh 0.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� t r Traffic Vol,vehlh 1185 33 0 820 0 20 Future Vol,veh/h 1185 33 0 820 0 20 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 1288 36 0 891 0 22 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1306 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 0 195 Stage 1 0 0 - Stage 2 0 0 - Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 195 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay,s/v 0 0 25.72 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity(veh/h) 195 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.111 HCM Control Delay(s/veh) 25.7 HCM Lane LOS D HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.4 - Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report F-20 G Updated PendingProJ'ect Area Site Plan and Mitigation Volume 11 Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS • Volume 11 • November 2025 G-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 H Comment Letters Volume 11 Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS • Volume 11 • November 2025 H-1 dah Comment 1 protect the post,shape the future Allyson Brooks Ph.D.,Director State Historic Preservation Officer �j September 29, 2025 Amy Rusko Community & Economic Development Director City of Arlington In future correspondence please refer to: Project Tracking Code: 2025-09-06243 Property: City of Arlington_Lindsay Subarea Plan-PLN #1315 Re: Archaeology - Concur with Survey Dear Amy Rusko: Thank you for contacting the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) with documentation regarding the above referenced project. An Archaeological survey was completed on the eastern portion of the Lindsay Subarea Plan project area and no protected cultural resources were encountered. We concur with the results and recommendations provided in the survey report. We recommend that the project proceed as planned with an Inadvertent Discovery Plan on-site and followed should cultural resources or human remains be encountered. We appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes and other parties that you receive as you consult on this project. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review. Should the project scope of work and/or location change significantly, please contact DAHP for further review. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ToieA Svtt Tamela Smart, M.A. Local Government Archaeologist (360) 628-2755 Tamela.Smart@dahp.wa.gov H-2 STATE o State of Washington • Department of Archaeology& Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 Q _ www.dahp.wa.gov �H� Its �� STA' Off, Comment 2 y 0 'L 1889� STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Region Office PO Box 330316, Shoreline, WA 98133-9716 • 206-594-0000 October 27, 2025 Amy Rusko, Community & Economic Development Director Community & Economic Development Department City of Arlington 18204 591" Ave NE Arlington, WA 98223 Re: Lindsay Subarea Plan File# PLN #1315, Ecology SEPA# 202504000 Dear Amy Rusko: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Lindsay Subarea Plan. Based on review of the documents associated with this project, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) has the following comments: We support the goals and objectives for the Natural Environment stated in the Lindsay Subarea Plan. Specifically, we support: 1. Protecting and enhancing wetlands, critical areas, and their buffers to maintain ecosystem services. 2. Restoring the health of Edgecomb Creek and its tributaries. 3. Protecting fish and wildlife habitat in the subarea. 4. Preserving the Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) and critical areas and their associated buffers. 5. Implementing a wetland mitigation plan to protect the wooded wetland. 6. Partnering with the Tulalip Tribes to restore fish passage and ecological functions in Edgecomb Creek. The wetlands delineated on this property would be waters of the state subject to the applicable requirements of state law (see RCW 90.48 and WAC 173.201A) and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC §1341) and 40 CFR Section 121.2. If any direct wetland impacts are proposed, the applicant shall obtain all necessary state and federal authorizations prior to H-3 Amy Rusko October 27, 2025 Page 2 beginning any ground-disturbing activities or vegetation removal. To obtain state and federal authorization, you should provide: • A jurisdictional determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stating which delineated wetlands on the property are under federal jurisdiction. • A Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (DARPA) form for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands submitted to Ecology at ecyrefedpermits@ecy.wa.gov. • For any non-federally regulated wetlands that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not take jurisdiction for, submit a JARPA to Ecology at ecyrefedpermits@ecy.wa.gov so we can issue an Administrative Order. • A mitigation plan for unavoidable wetland impacts following the standards in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State— Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Ecology Publication #21-06-003). Thank you for considering these comments from Ecology. If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please contact Doug Gresham from the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program at (425) 429-1846 or by email at doug.gresham@ecy.wa.gov. Sincerely, � �5 e Kelli Price SEPA Coordinator Sent by email: Amy Rusko, arusko@arlingtonwa.gov ecc: Doug Gresham, Ecology H-4 Comment 3 From: Amy Rusko To: Rachel Miller; Rob Risinoer Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]City of Arlington-Notice of Draft EIS-Lindsay Subarea Plan-PLN#1315 Date: Friday,November 14,2025 10:13:38 AM Attachments: imaoe001.ona Below are the comments from WSDOT. Sincerely, -AMti'P—rnSko e Amy Rusko,AICP,CNU-A Community&Economic Development Director 18204 59th Ave NE,Arlington,WA 98223 0:360-403-3550 aruskoParlingtonwa.gov I www.arlingtonwa.gov Note:Emails and attachments sent to and from the City of Arlington are public records and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act. From: Anderson, Dawn <dawn.anderson@wsdot.wa.gov> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 9:26 AM To: Amy Rusko<arusko@arlingtonwa.gov> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] City of Arlington - Notice of Draft EIS- Lindsay Subarea Plan-PLN #1315 This message is from an External Sender This message came from outside the City of Arlington Hi Amy, I sent it to our hydraulic team,and they noted that there was not an accompanying hydraulic memo so they will need confirmation that the runoff will not affect WSDOT right of way.The other comment was from our traffic group, "a new intersection at 79th Ave NE should be prohibited due to spacing to roundabout at 80th Drive NE, if this intersection is allowed it should be RIRO." Thank you, Dawn M. Anderson Washington State Dept. of Transportation Development Services Engineer Snohomish County 206-945-2328 Cell 206-440-4712 Office H-5 Dawn.anderson&wsdot.wa.gov Comment 4 STATF x � y y� tes9 �o State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 4 Region 4 information: 16018 Mill Creek Blvd,Mill Creek,WA 98012 1 phone:(425)-775-1311 November 12, 2025 City of Arlington Amy Rusko City of Arlington 238 North Olympic Avenue Arlington, WA 98223 Dear Amy Rusko, Thank you for the opportunity to comment the Lindsay Subarea Plan. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is dedicated to preserving,protecting, and perpetuating the state's fish, wildlife, and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities. In recognition of our responsibilities, we submit the following comments for The Lindsay Subarea Plan. Other comments may be offered in the future. Fish and Wildlife Resources and Recommendations: - The attached SEPA states, "ravine steep slopes, may meet the definition of a Landslide Hazard Area."Please ensure erosion BMPs will be utilized and specify what BMPs will be used in sensitive areas (WAC 220-660-110). - The attached SEPA states that Edgecomb creek does not support fish life. The Subarea Plan Volume 1 states "Edgecomb Creek provides suitable fish habitat for important salmonid species, such as the Coho Salmon and Bull Trout, and an existing fish barrier could be removed." o According to PHS mapping, Edgecomb Creek flows into The Middle Fork Quilceda Creek which houses multiple salmonid and other fish. This is critical habitat for fish and should be protected(WAC 220-660-100). o Removal of fish passage barriers is recommended to add to the mitigation plan. o The manmade dam inhibiting fish passage at the head of the river is scheduled to be removed in the summer of 2026. This will allow fish passage further up the creek and should be accounted for when considering buffer widths and future development in the vicinity. H-6 Page 2 - The Subarea Plan notes that there are invasive plant species on site. Himalayan blackberries, Scotch broom, Canada thistle are noted. o We recommend adding invasive species removal to the mitigation plan. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife provides our comments and recommendations in keeping with our legislative mandate to preserve,protect, and perpetuate fish and wildlife and their habitats - a mission we can only accomplish in partnership with local governments. If you have any questions or concerns,please feel free to contact me or the local habitat biologist, Ryan Shaw Ryan.ShawC&,,dfw.wa.gov. Sincerely, Liz Voytas (they/them) Habitat Biologist, Habitat Division Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Region 4, Central District Liz.Voytas6'Mfw.wa.gov 206-707-5434 H-7 Comment 5 From: Amy Rusko To: "ANNETT GAMBLE-OLSON" Subject: RE: Lindsay subarea plan Date: Thursday,October 16,2025 9:54:00 AM Attachments: imaoe001.ma Annett, I have added you to the Party of Record list for the project.This is a subarea plan and a development application is required after the subarea plan is complete.You can find all documents related to the Lindsay Subarea Plan on a dedicated page on the city's website. Lindsay Subarea Plan I Arlington,WA The subarea plan documents are also published on the city's public notice page,though you will need to scroll down the page to find the content, as this page has all public notices the city has issued. Public Notices/Public Hearings I Arlington,WA Sincerely, Vnti-P-(ASko 0 Amy Rusko,AICP,CNU-A Community&Economic Development Director 18204 59th Ave NE,Arlington,WA 98223 0: 360-403-3550 aruskoParlingtonwa.gov I www.arlingtonwa.gov Note:Emails and attachments sent to and from the City of Arlington are public records and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act. From: ANNETT GAMBLE-OLSON <olsOnfam55@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 1:38 PM To: Amy Rusko <arusko@arlingtonwa.gov> Subject: Lindsay subarea plan H-8 This message is from an External Sender This message came from outside the City of Arlington I am objecting to another huge development being allowed in Arlington that has insufficient roads and services before the houses are put in. I need more information about where this development is going in and how it will affect me at 17209 123rd Ave NE,Arlington,WA 98223 Please put me on the mailing list for updates also. Sincerely, Annett Gamble-Olson 17209 123rd Ave NE, Arlington,WA 98223 Sent from AOL on Android H-9 Comment 6 From: Amy Rusko To: "Shannon Writer" Subject: RE:growth development plan Date: Thursday,October 16,2025 9:54:00 AM Attachments: imaoe001.ona Shannon, Your comments have been received and will be reviewed.You have been added as a Party of Record for the Lindsay Subarea Plan. Sincerely, f�trn���tskv Amy Rusko,AICP,CNU-A Community&Economic Development Director 18204 59th Ave NE,Arlington,WA 98223 0: 360-403-3550 arusko(@arlingtonwa.gpv I www.arlingtonwa.gov Note:Emails and attachments sent to and from the City of Arlington are public records and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act. From: Shannon Writer<shannonwriter76@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 7, 2025 7:32 PM To: Amy Rusko<arusko@arlingtonwa.gov> Subject: growth development plan This message is from an External Sender This message came from outside the City of Arlington Hello, I am writing to express my concern regarding a notice we received about an environmental impact and a proposed growth plan.There are already environmental impacts to the continued building in and around Arlington.Wildlife is running out of places to live, and things like trees and shrubbery are disappearing to build apartments and commercial buildings that are sitting empty.Any amount of building also poses risk to ground water, and air pollution when trees[qrgp removed. This does not even take into consideration the traffic impacts that such building is having on the citizens of Arlington. As a tax paying citizen in the city of Arlington, I would like to express my opposition to any further building.The Eagle Heights Neighborhood only has a few small wooded areas as is, please leave them alone. Sincerely, Shannon Oquist H-11