Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-26 Council Meeting Packet SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the ADA coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 711 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Don Vanney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Mayor Don Vanney – Wendy APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS Mayor’s Volunteer Award presented to Randy Nobach Mayor Don Vanney PROCLAMATIONS PUBLIC COMMENT For members of the public who wish to speak to the Council about any matter not on the Public Hearing portion of the meeting. Please limit remarks to three minutes. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Michele Blythe 1. Minutes of the January 20 and 26, 2026 Council meetings and ATTACHMENT A January 23, 2026 Council Retreat and Orientation 2. Accounts Payable ATTACHMENT B 3. Ordinance Amending Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 2.52 ATTACHMENT C Planning Commission 4. Ordinance Repealing Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 2.104 ATTACHMENT D Design Review Board PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS 1. Planning Commission Appointments ATTACHMENT E Staff Presentation: Amy Rusko Council Liaison: Leisha Nobach 2. Ordinance Approving Lindsay Subarea Plan and Establishing a Planned Action ATTACHMENT F Staff Presentation: Amy Rusko Council Liaison: Heather Watland Arlington City Council Meeting Monday, February 2, 2026 at 6:00 pm City Council Chambers – 110 E 3rd Street SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the ADA coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 711 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. 3. Construction Funding Agreement with the Public Works Board ATTACHMENT G Staff Presentation: Jim Kelly Council Liaison: Nathan Senff 4. Title VI Language Access Plan (LAP) ATTACHMENT H Staff Presentation: Jim Kelly Council Liaison: Tim Abrahamson COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS INFORMATION/ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS MAYOR’S REPORT EXECUTIVE SESSION RECONVENE ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem Michele Blythe / Mayor Don Vanney DRAFT Page 1 of 5 Council Chambers 110 East 3rd Street Tuesday, January 20, 2026 Councilmembers Present: Heather Watland, Rob Toyer, Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam, Michele Blythe, Nathan Senff, Tim Abrahamson, and Leisha Nobach. Council Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Mayor Don Vanney, Paul Ellis, Sarah Lopez, Shawn Friang, Jim Kelly, Kris Wallace, Jonathan Ventura, Seth Kinney, Shelby Burke, City Attorney Oskar Rey, Chelsea Brewer, and Wendy Van Der Meersche. Also Known to be Present: Kathy Vanney, Randy Nobach, Kim Casteel, Stephanie Abrahamson, Tyler Rumple, Savannah Lopez, LeAnne Koliha, Ronda Murphy, and Ruth Caesar. Mayor Don Vanney called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call followed. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Michele Blythe moved to approve the agenda as presented. Councilmember Rob Toyer seconded the motion, which passed with a unanimous vote. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. PROCLAMATION Councilmember Heather Watland read the America 250 proclamation. PUBLIC COMMENT Tyler Rumple, Arlington, provided comments. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Michele Blythe moved, and Councilmember Leisha Nobach seconded the motion to approve the Consent Agenda that was unanimously carried: 1. Minutes of the January 5 and January 12, 2026 Council meetings 2. Accounts Payable: Approval of EFT Payments and Claims Checks #114988 through #115069, dated December 16, 2025 through December 30, 2025 in the amount of $1,558,823.30; Approval of EFT Payments and Claims Checks #115070 through #115080, dated January 1, 2026, through January 5, 2026 in the amount of $1,351,641.15; Approval of Payroll EFT Payments and Check #30479 through Minutes of the Arlington City Council Meeting Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting January 20, 2026 Page 2 of 5 #30482 dated December 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025, in the amount of $1,750,319.99. 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative Services Agreement PUBLIC HEARING None. NEW BUSINESS Renewal of Agreement with the Stilly Valley Center for Senior Services City Administrator Paul Ellis requested Council approve the agreement renewal with the Stilly Valley Center for senior services. The City has had a long-standing agreement with the Stilly Valley Center to provide services to seniors. These services center on nutrition and wellness. This is a renewal of that agreement and will renew each year thereafter. Councilmember Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam moved, and Councilmember Michele Blythe seconded the motion to approve the renewal of the agreement with the Stilly Valley Center for senior services and authorized the Mayor to sign the agreement. The motion passed unanimously. Professional Services Agreement with Bridge Coordination Services, LLC, for Domestic Violence Coordinator Services City Administrator Paul Ellis requested Council to approve a renewal of a Professional Services Agreement with Bridge Coordination Services, LLC, for Domestic Violence Coordinator Services provided through the assignment of a Domestic Violence Coordinator to the Arlington Police Department on a part-time basis (Not to exceed 20 hours per week. The Domestic Violence Coordinator is responsible for the coordination of violence related cases between the victim, the Police Department, the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and courts of jurisdiction. The City and Bridge Coordination Services, LLC, entered into an interlocal agreement in December 2024 that expired at the end of December 2025. Councilmember Rob Toyer moved, and Councilmember Tim Abrahamson seconded the motion to approve the Professional Services Agreement with Bridge Coordination Services, LLC, and authorized the Mayor to sign it. The motion passed unanimously. Professional Services Agreement Renewal with Strategies 360 City Administrator Paul Ellis requested Council approve the renewal agreement with Strategies 360. The contract extension describes the work to be done by Strategies 360 at the state and federal level from January 1 through December 31, 2026. Strategies 360 has been working on our behalf in Olympia and Washington, D.C. to address some of our immediate and long-term transportation improvement goals, as well as assist us in economic development and other areas. The continuation of the contract ensures that our best interests are represented in the decision-making processes of the Washington State Legislature, the Washington State Department of Transportation, the United States Congress, as well as Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting January 20, 2026 Page 3 of 5 other state and federal agencies. The City has budgeted $36,000 annually for the 2026 budget. The City has been a direct client of Strategies 360 since Fall 2012. Prior to that, the City was a client through participation in the SR9 Coalition. Councilmember Heather Watland moved, and Councilmember Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam seconded the motion to approve the contract extension with Strategies 360 for Lobbying Services for 2026 and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract extension. The motion passed unanimously. Ordinance Amending the Consumer Price Index Increases in the Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 13.12 Pertaining to Utility Rates Public Works Director Jim Kelly requested Council approve an Ordinance Amending the Consumer Price Index Increases in the Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 13.12 Pertaining to Utility Rates. The ordinance amends Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) 13.12 allowing the city to use the August 2025 CPI-U rate to calculate the 2026 mandatory water, sewer, and stormwater utility rate increases. AMC 13.12.040 mandates that the water, sewer, and stormwater utility rates be increased annually by the October reported percentage increase of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue area. October 2025 data values are not available due to the 2025 government lapse in appropriations. Staff have calculated the increases based on the most current rates available which are for August 2025 with a CPI of 2.8%. Councilmember Nathan Senff moved, and Councilmember Michele Blythe seconded the motion to approve the ordinance implementing the scheduled CPI increase of 2.8% to the water, sewer, and stormwater utility rates for 2026 based on August 2025 CPI-U data and authorize the Mayor to sign the ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. Grant Agreement with the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board for Island Crossing Roundabout Project Public Works Director Jim Kelly requested Council approve a Grant Agreement with the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board for Island Crossing Roundabout Project. The City of Arlington has been seeking funding for several years to improve the SR 530 and Smokey Point Boulevard Intersection. The City of Arlington, the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, and Snohomish County have worked on an intersection roundabout design over the past four years. Installation of a Roundabout at this location will improve freight and vehicle movement and safety throughout the corridor, as well as add safe pedestrian walkways, and intersection improvements. SR 530 is a critical vehicle and freight corridor connecting north Arlington, Oso, Darrington and northeast Snohomish County to Interstate 5 (I-5). Staff applied for funding through the Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting January 20, 2026 Page 4 of 5 Transportation Improvement Board in 2025 and the City of Arlington has been awarded $4,461,608 for this project. Staff are now requesting authorization for the mayor to sign the grant agreement. Councilmember Tim Abrahamson moved, and Councilmember Rob Toyer seconded the motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the grant agreement with the Transportation Improvement Board for the Island Crossing Roundabout. The motion passed unanimously. Selection of Mayor Pro Tem City Administrator Paul Ellis requested Council select a Mayor Pro Tem for 2026-2028. The City Council is to select a Mayor Pro Tem every two years. The Council Rules of Procedure state as follows: Selecting Mayor Pro Tem and Alternate Mayor Pro Tem: The Mayor Pro Tem will be selected by a majority vote of the Councilmembers at the second meeting in January in even years or when there is a vacancy. In selecting the Mayor Pro Tem, the Council will be guided by the following principles: • To preserve continuity in the office, Mayor Pro Tem shall generally serve for a term of two (2) years. • The Mayor Pro Tem should have served as a Council member for at least two (2) years before appointment to the office of Mayor Pro Tem. • In general, the appointment of Mayor Pro Tem will be to the eligible Council members who have served the longest in office. The Alternate Mayor Pro Tem will be the Council member who most recently served as Mayor Pro Tem. Previous Mayors Pro Tem: Bea Randall (2000-2002), Oliver Smith (2002-2004) Sally Lien (2004-2007), Marilyn Oertle (2008-2009), Steve Baker (2010-2011), Marilyn Oertle (2012-2013), Chris Raezer (2014-2015), Debora Nelson (2016-2017), Marilyn Oertle (2018-2019), Jesica Stickles (2020-August 2021), Jan Schuette (September 2021-2024), Michele Blythe (2024-2026) Councilmember Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam moved, and Councilmember Leisha Nobach seconded the motion to select Michele Blythe as the City’s Mayor Pro Tem for 2026-2028. The motion passed unanimously. COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS Councilmembers Michele Blythe and Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam spoke about their visits to senior facilities and thanked Commander Mike Gilbert for his participation in speaking with senior citizens. ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS None. Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting January 20, 2026 Page 5 of 5 MAYOR’S REPORT Mayor Vanney stated that Councilmember Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam was elected to serve in an at-large position on Snohomish County Housing and Community Development Policy Advisory Board, and Councilmember Tim Abrahamson was elected to the Snohomish Health Department Board of Health. CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Oskar Rey announced the need for a closed session to review Collective Bargaining Agreement [RCW 42.30.140(4) to begin at 6:22 p.m. and last for 10 minutes until 6:32 p.m. Council was dismissed at 6:22 p.m. Council reconvened at 6:32 p.m. and continued with the final agenda item of New Business. Approval of the 2026-2028 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Arlington and AFSCME Local 2849 The City and Arlington City Employees, Local 2849 of the Washington State Council of County and City Employees, Council 2, AFSCME negotiated a successor collective bargaining agreement to be effective January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2028. Changes to the Collective Bargaining Agreement include some housekeeping and language updates, in addition to cost-of-living increases. Negotiations started in July 2025 and concluded in December 2025. Meetings and discussions were collaborative and fruitful. The teams met monthly working through issues and progressing through contract requests from both sides. The latest Collective Bargaining Agreement expired December 31, 2025. The proposed agreement will take effect January 1, 2026. Mayor Pro Tem Michele Blythe moved, and Councilmember Leisha Nobach seconded the motion to approve the AFSCME 2026-2028 Collective Bargaining Agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 6:33 _________________________________________ Don E. Vanney, Mayor DRAFT Page 1 of 2 Council Chambers 110 East 3rd Street Friday, January 23, 2026 Councilmembers Present: Heather Watland, Rob Toyer, Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam, Michele Blythe, Nathan Senff, Tim Abrahamson, and Leisha Nobach. Council Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Mayor Don Vanney, Paul Ellis, Sarah Lopez, Shawn Friang, Bryan Terry, Shelby Burke, Josh Grindy, Jonathan Ventura, Jim Kelly, Amy Rusko, Marty Wray, and Wendy Van Der Meersche. Also Known to be Present: Ann Bennett. City Administrator Paul Ellis welcomed everyone and reviewed the agenda. Council Do’s and Don’ts Training Mr. Ellis introduced WCIA Executive Director Ann Bennett, who led the training. Department Orientation A PowerPoint presentation was conducted as follows: Legal – Oskar Rey, City Attorney (who joined virtually with Teams) Airport – Marty Wray, Director Community and Economic Development – Amy Rusko, Director City Clerk – Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk Community Engagement – Sarah Lopez, Community Engagement Director Finance – Shelby Burke, Director Human Resources – Shawn Friang, Director Information Technology – Bryan Terry, Director Police – Jonathan Ventura, Police Chief Public Works, Utilities and Transportation – Jim Kelly, Director Maintenance and Operations – Josh Grindy, Manager Administration – Paul Ellis, City Administrator Dignity video Mayor Vanney introduced a video with Tim Shriver who discussed speaking with dignity. City Council Retreat and Orientation Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Budget Retreat January 23, 2026 Page 2 of 2 City Council Rules of Procedures City Administrator Paul Ellis led a review and discussion of the current City Council Rules of Procedure. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ITEMS None. ADJOURNMENT With nothing further, the retreat was adjourned at 2:44 p.m. _________________________________________ Don E. Vanney, Mayor DRAFT Page 1 of 4 Council Chambers 110 East 3rd Street Monday, January 26, 2026 Councilmembers Present: Heather Watland, Rob Toyer, Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam, Michele Blythe, Nathan Senff, Tim Abrahamson, and Leisha Nobach. Council Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Mayor Don Vanney, Paul Ellis, Jim Kelly, Kris Wallace, Amy Rusko, Jen Haugen, Ameresia Lawlis, Peter Barrett, and Chelsea Brewer. Also Known to be Present: Kathy Vanney, Randy Nobach, Stephanie Abrahamson, Kim Casteel, and others. Mayor Don Vanney called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm, and the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call followed. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Michele Blythe moved to approve the agenda as presented. Councilmember Leisha Nobach seconded the motion, which passed with a unanimous vote. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. WORKSHOP ITEMS – NO ACTION WAS TAKEN Ordinance Approving Lindsay Subarea Plan and Establishing a Planned Action Community and Economic Development Director Amy Rusko reviewed an ordinance MJS Investors, in partnership with the City of Arlington, initiated the community planning process for the Lindsay Subarea. The process developed a vision, plan, and implementation strategies for the subarea. The process addresses planning elements such as future land use, transportation, environmental stewardship, parks and trails, utilities, and public services. The Lindsay Subarea Plan articulates a long-term vision that reflects the subarea’s unique character, identifies critical infrastructure and service needs, and outlines strategies to advance citywide goals and community priorities. The plan establishes a clear framework to shape the subarea into a peaceful, connected community by cultivating spaces that support well-being and welcome all who call it home. The Planned Action Ordinance was developed under RCW 43.21C.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 will have a streamlined environmental review and permitting process. Minutes of the Arlington City Council Workshop Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Workshop January 26, 2026 Page 2 of 4 The Lindsay Subarea Plan includes development standards that address zoning designations, permissible uses, density and dimensional standards, street design standards, parking standards, landscaping standards, building design, pedestrian access, trails, parks, open space and neighborhood amenities. The City proposes adopting a Lindsay Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance. These documents will provide the groundwork for continued, coordinated, and efficient growth of the neighborhood. The subarea plan was developed for consistency with the Growth Management Act, County-Wide Planning Policies, and the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan. The Lindsay Annexation was completed in 2022 under Ordinance 2022-003, officially bringing Lindsay into the City of Arlington, where it is now one of the neighborhoods within the Hilltop Subarea. In November 2023, Ordinance 2023-016 amended AMC Section 20.44.032 Subarea Plans. This amendment reflected community priorities identified through the 2024 Comprehensive Plan engagement process and emphasizes the importance of coordinated land development through subarea planning. In 2024, MJS Investors, in partnership with the City, initiated the community planning process for the Lindsay Subarea. In December 2025, City Council approved a Development Agreement with MJS, Investors vesting critical area stream buffers and regulations, park requirements, 79th Avenue dedication and creek crossing, utility infrastructure improvements, cost recovery/latecomers’ agreements, phased development, modifications process for the conceptual site plan, and terms of agreement. Discussion followed with Ms. Rusko answering Council questions. Ordinance Amending Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 2.52 Planning Commission Community and Economic Development Director Amy Rusko reviewed an ordinance The proposed amendments to AMC Chapter 2.52 Planning Commission include updates to modernize the commission through regulations that provide order, efficiency and functionality. The regulations of this chapter were implemented 83 years ago, with approximately half the sections updated 31 years ago and additional updates 17 and 10 years ago. This chapter is in desperate need of updates to include current practices and regulations to ensure a modern and functional Planning Commission. Discussion followed with Ms. Rusko answering Council questions. Ordinance Repealing Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 2.104 Design Review Board Community and Economic Development Director Amy Rusko reviewed an ordinance repealing Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 2.104 Design Review Board. The repeal of AMC Chapter 2.104 Design Review Board proposed to remove the chapter in its entirety. The city now has design standards instead of guidelines with the Development Design Standards, Mixed-Use Development Regulations, and in adopted subarea plans. In addition, there are multiple state regulations that limit design review board involvement for certain types of projects. These state laws include RCW 36.70A.030, RCW 36.70A.630, RCW 36.70A.635, RCW 36.70A.815, RCW 36.70B.120, and RCW 58.17.145. Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Workshop January 26, 2026 Page 3 of 4 The City currently utilizes the Planning Commission as the Design Review Board. Recent state regulations and the conversion of design guidelines to design standards in 2018, with updates in 2022 and 2024 have resulted in the development of strong design standards where the Design Review Board does not provide the same oversight that was once necessary to ensure compliance. Discussion followed with Ms. Rusko answering Council questions. Quarterly Community and Economic Development Community and Economic Development Director Amy Rusko reviewed the 4th quarter report. Construction Funding Agreement with the Public Works Board Public Works Director Jim Kelly reviewed the construction funding agreement with the Public Works Board. Staff is requesting authorization to sign Public Works Board Funding agreement for the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Expansion Project. The City of Arlington has been seeking funding for the final phase of a multi-year project to expand the Arlington water treatment filtering capacity to meet its available water rights at Haller South Wellfield. This final phase entails construction of an expansion onto the City’s existing water treatment plant. Staff applied for funding through the Public Works Board in 2025 and the City of Arlington has been selected for a $10,000,000.00 low interest loan for this project. Staff are now requesting authorization for the mayor to sign the funding agreement. Discussion followed with Mr. Kelly answering Council questions. Title VI Language Access Plan (LAP) Public Works Director Jim Kelly reviewed the Title VI Language Access Plan (LAP). Title VI Language Access Plan (LAP) complies with WSDOT Title IV Plan and USDOT Standard Title VI/Non-Discrimination Assurances. Compliance with federal non-discrimination policies and laws are required for the City to receive federal transportation funding. Entities that receive federal financial assistance are required under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d) to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs and activities regardless of race, color, or national origin. Since WSDOT is Arlington’s Certifying Agency, we comply with the WSDOT Title VI Plan. The city is now required as part of this process to have a Language Access Plan in place assuring that we will continue to comply with their Title VI Plan and certify to the federal government that we will comply with the USDOT Standard Title VI/Non-Discrimination Assurances. Discussion followed with Mr. Kelly answering Council questions. Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Workshop January 26, 2026 Page 4 of 4 Utilities and Transportation Quarterly Report Public Works Director Jim Kelly reviewed the 4th quarter report. Monthly Financial Report Finance Director Shelby Burke reviewed the December 2025 Preliminary Close Financial Report. ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF REPORTS None. MAYOR’S REPORT None. COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS Councilmember Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam attended a ribbon cutting for Skookum Brewery’s new ownership. Hubb’s Pizzeria, formerly Hubb’s Pizza and Pasta is reopening under new ownership. The library has great family events. Councilmember Tim Abrahamson did a police ride along with Sgt. Olson’s team and enjoyed the time he spent. Councilmember Michele Blythe thanked Paul Ellis for a great retreat last Friday. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS Councilmembers had nothing to report this evening. PUBLIC COMMENT None. REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Councilmembers discussed and agreed to put items 2 and 3 on the consent agenda for the February 2 Council meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m. _________________________________________ Don E. Vanney, Mayor City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: CA #2 Attachment B COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 2, 2026 Accounts Payable Claims Approval Claims Approval Finance, Shelby Burke, Director 360-403-3423 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: ALTERNATIVES: City of Arlington February 2nd, 2026 Council Meeting Claims Certification: We, the undersigned City Council of the City of Arlington, Washington, do hereby certify that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received and that: Approval of EFT Payments and Claims Checks #115081 through #115166, dated December 31st, 2025 - in the amount of $996,587.50 Approval of EFT Payments and Claims Checks #115167through #115214, dated January 5th , 2026 through January 20th, 2026 - in the amount of $370,770.70 City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill CA #3 Attachment COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 2, 2026 SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.52 Planning Commission ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance and Code Amendment Overview DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community & Economic Development; Amy Rusko, Director EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: commission through regulations that provide order, efficiency and functionality. HISTORY: updated 31 years ago and additional updates 17 and 10 years ago. This chapter is in desperate need of Commission. ALTERNATIVES: Mayor to sign the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON AMENDING CHAPTER 2.52 OF THE ARLINGTON MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City of Arlington has proposed an update to the Planning Commission chapter of the Arlington Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposed amendment at a workshop held on January 26, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed amendment to the municipal code and finds it to be consistent with city and state law and in the best interests of the citizens; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 2.52 is hereby repealed. A new Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 2.52 is hereby adopted to read as set forth on the attached “Exhibit A”. Section 2. Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this ordinance be pre-empted by state or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre-emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 3. Effective Date. The title of this ordinance, which summarizes the contents, shall be published in the official newspaper of the City. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Arlington and APPROVED by the Mayor this 2nd day of February, 2025. CITY OF ARLINGTON Don E. Vanney, Mayor ATTEST: Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Oskar Rey, City Attorney Exhibit A Chapter 2.52 PLANNING COMMISSION Sections: 2.52.010 Establishment of Commission - Purpose 2.52.020 Membership 2.52.030 Commission Organization 2.52.040 Conflict of Interest 2.52.050 Meetings 2.52.060 Reporting Requirements and Biennial Review 2.52.010 Establishment of Commission - Purpose. Pursuant to the authority conferred by RCW Chapter 35A.63, the Arlington Planning Commission (“Commission”) is hereby established to serve in an advisory capacity to the Mayor and City Council on matters relating to land use, comprehensive planning and zoning. The Commission shall have such other powers and duties as enumerated by ordinance and codified in the Arlington Municipal Code. 2.52.020 Membership. (A) Qualifications. Members must meet the following requirements: (1) Be a resident of the City of Arlington, City of Arlington Urban Growth Area; or be a business owner, operator or management level employee, or qualified representative of a business operating in the City limits; (2) Be of voting age; and (3) Has lived or owned a business (if a non-resident) in the City for at least one year. (B) Number of Members. The Commission shall be comprised of five members. (1) The five community members shall represent a cross section of the community from different trades, occupations, activities and geographic areas. (C) Appointment Process. Community members that meet the requirements of §2.52.020(A) shall submit a completed Application for Boards and Commissions to the City Clerk in the City Administration Office. The City Clerk will forward the application to the Commission Staff Liaison for review. An applicant is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. (D) Term of Appointment. (1) The term of appointment for the members of the Planning Commission shall be six years. Each term ends on March 31 of the year of expiration. (2) The City Clerk shall maintain the official term expiration for each position. (3) Members who become non-residents during their term of office shall remain on the Commission no more than 90 days unless they are granted a special project extension by the Mayor and City Council. If the member who represents the business community is no longer employed within the City, or his or her business relocated out of the City, that member shall remain on the Commission no more than 90 days unless they are granted a special project extension by the Mayor and City Council. (E) Resignations. If a Commission member is unable to complete their term of service, a letter of resignation shall be sent to the Commission Staff Liaison and City Clerk indicating the effective date of the resignation. (F) Vacancies. Any appointment to a position vacated other than by the expiration of the term of the appointment shall be to fill only the unexpired portion of said term. (G) Revocation of Appointment. (1) A Commission member may be removed from the position if absent without being excused for three consecutive meetings or six regular meetings in a calendar year. (2) A Commission member may be removed, after a public hearing, by the mayor, with the approval of the City Council, for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. 2.52.030 Commission Organization. Members of the Commission shall elect a chairperson and vice chairperson from their members at the first meeting of the month in April. The Chair and Vice Chair shall serve terms of two years. Members of the commission may serve no more than one two-year term as chair and no more than one two-year term as vice chair during each six year term on the commission. It shall be the duty of the Chair to preside at all meetings. The Vice Chair shall perform this duty in the absence of the Chair. If neither the Chair nor Vice Chair is present, a member chosen by agreement of the attending members shall act as Chair. 2.52.040 Conflict of Interest. (A) No member of the Commission shall be a current employee of the City of Arlington. (B) No member of the Commission shall be a current employee of Snohomish County, State of Washington or other governmental agency, where their job duties directly influence, oversee, or adopt regulations that affect Arlington Municipal Code Title 20 – Zoning and/or related to the development of land use, comprehensive planning or zoning regulations where the city must comply. (C) No member of the Commission shall participate in discussion or vote on any matter involving any client they are serving or any business for which they are the owner, corporate officer or employee. (D) No member of the Commission shall participate in discussion, decision-making, voting, or influencing decisions regarding zoning ordinances, code amendments, or rezoning applications if they or their clients have a direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome. (E) All such interests must be fully disclosed in writing prior to any discussion and the member is required to recuse themselves from any discussion or vote pertaining to such matters. 2.52.050 Meetings. (A) Conduct. The Commission shall hold at least one regular meeting in each month for not less than nine months in each year per RCW 35.63.040. Commission meetings shall be conducted in public sessions and noticed in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA}. (B) Meeting Days and Times. (1) Planning Commission meetings shall be held on the first and third Tuesday of the month (Whenever a meeting falls within a week of a legal holiday as declared in RCW 1.16.050, City Council regular meetings are moved to Tuesday and Planning Commission regular meetings are moved to Thursday. This is applicable for all months, with the exception of September). (i) The first meeting of the month shall be held at Putnam Hall, located at the Community Development and Airport Office building at 18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, Washington. (ii) The second meeting of the month shall be held at City Council Chambers, located at the City Police Station/City Hall Annex at 110 E. 3rd Street, Arlington, Washington. (2) All meetings shall begin at six p.m. (3) All meetings held with the Planning Commission shall follow all procedures as prescribed in the adopted By-Laws and Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised. (4) Special meetings may be held by the Commission subject to notice requirements prescribed by State law. Special meetings may be called by the Chair in conjunction with the Secretary or designated staff, City Council, or Mayor. (5) Meetings may be canceled for lack of agenda items or lack of quorum. (C) By-Laws. The members of the Commission shall adopt bylaws to provide the rules of procedure for conducting business of the Planning Commission. (D) Quorum. A majority of the seated members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. (E) Staff Assistance. The City shall provide assigned staff to support the Commission. The Director of Community and Economic Development or his/her designee will serve as the Secretary to the Commission. The primary role of Secretary and support staff is to represent the City and facilitate communication between the Commission, City Administration, City Council, Mayor, and other City departments. Responsibilities of the Secretary and support staff include: (1) Maintaining a current roster of all members; (2) Ensuring that meeting notifications and recordkeeping are consistent with applicable state laws; (3) Ensuring compliance with applicable laws, such as the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA} and Public Records Act (PRA); (4) Taking roll at regular, special and public hearing meetings; (5) Providing agendas, compiling agenda packets, recording, transcribing, maintaining meeting minutes, forwarding Commission recommendations and/or implementing actions; (6) Providing professional guidance, issue analysis, and recommendations; (7) Assisting with research, report preparation, and correspondence; and (8) Developing the Annual Docket and providing proposed zoning code amendments and/or comprehensive plan amendments per State Laws, conflicting regulations or applications receive by the public. (F) Minutes. Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings shall be emailed to the Commission Chair for signature not more than five business days after the formal approval of such minutes by the Commission. The signature on the meeting minutes shall be completed per the standards set forth by the City of Arlington’s policies and procedures. 2.52.060 Reporting Requirements and Biennial Review. (A) Recommendations to Council. The Commission shall provide written recommendations for City Council for all amendments to Title 20 – Zoning, Comprehensive Plan, Rezones, Zoning Map, Future Land Use Map, Subarea Plans, or other matters before the Commission not more than five business days after the business meeting of such vote for recommendation occurred by the Commission. (B) Reporting Requirements. The Commission shall keep the City of Arlington apprised of its activities and recommendations by submitting an annual written report by the first meeting in January of each year summarizing the activities for the previous year. (C) Biennial Review. The City Council shall review the Planning Commission and the requesting funding allocations during the biennial budget process. AMC Chapter 2.52 – Planning Commission New or Renamed Table of Contents Code Sections: The updated chapter has a new table of contents as shown below. • 2.52.010 Establishment of Commission - Purpose • 2.52.020 Membership • 2.52.030 Commission Organization • 2.52.040 Conflict of Interest • 2.52.050 Meetings • 2.52.060 Reporting Requirements and Biennial Review New Language Sections: • 2.52.010 Establishment of Commission – Purpose o This was rewritten to explain the purpose and legal establishment of the Planning Commission. • 2.52.020 Membership o This section was added to provide all the membership information including Qualifications, Number of Members, Appointment Process, Term of Appointment, Resignations, Vacancies, and Revocation of Appointment. • 2.52.030 Commission Organization o This section was amended to describe the organization of the commission and provides the following updates:  Changed the election of the Chair and Vice Chair from May to April.  Changed the duration of the Chair and Vice-Chair from 3 years to 2 years. This will provide more opportunities for the members to rotate between Chair, Vice-Chair, and members. • 2.52.040 Conflict of Interest o This section provides details on conflicts of interest for the members. • 2.52.050 Meetings o This section describes the meeting information for the commission and includes conduct, meeting days and times (new meeting time of 6 pm), by-laws, quorum, staff assistance and minutes. • 2.52.060 Reporting Requirements and Biennial Review o This section describes the process of written recommendations, reporting and budgeting process. Code Amendment Overview Summary - Amy Rusko, Director Washington State Legislation or Other Requirements Updated Language Sections: • None. The chapter was rewritten with the sections listed in the New Language Section. Removed Language Sections: • Repeal of all current chapter sections. • None specifically but the new chapter follows state regulations. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill CA #4 Attachment COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 2, 2026 SUBJECT: Ordinance Repealing Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.104 Design Review Board ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance and Code Amendment Overview DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community & Economic Development; Amy Rusko, Director EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: city now has design standards instead of guidelines with the Development Design Standards, Mixed-Use Development Regulations, and in adopted subarea plans. In addition, there are multiple state regulations that limit design review board involvement for certain types of projects. These state laws include RCW 36.70A.030, RCW 36.70A.630, RCW 36.70A.635, RCW 36.70A.815, RCW 36.70B.120, and RCW 58.17.145 HISTORY: and the conversion of design guidelines to design standards in 2018, with updates in 2022 and 2024 have resulted in the development of strong design standards where the Design Review Board does not provide the same oversight that was once necessary to ensure compliance. ALTERNATIVES: Mayor to sign the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON REPEALING ARLINGTON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.104 REGARDING DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WHEREAS, the City of Arlington, Washington has the authority to enact laws and regulations within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered repeal of previously adopted Design Review Board, finds it to be consistent with city and state law, and in the best interests of the citizens; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposed repeal at a workshop held on January 26, 2026; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Arlington Municipal Code section 2.104 shall be and hereby is deleted in its entirety. Section 2. Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this ordinance be pre-empted by state or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre-emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 3. Effective Date. The title of this ordinance, which summarizes the contents shall be published in the official newspaper of the City. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Arlington and APPROVED by the Mayor this 2nd day of February, 2026. CITY OF ARLINGTON ____________________________________ Don E. Vanney, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ Oskar Rey, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 New or Renamed Table of Contents Code Sections: • None New Language Sections: • None Updated Language Sections: • None Removed Language Sections: • The entire Chapter of 2.104 is proposed to be repealed. • The reason for this repeal are as follows: o Recent State Laws as described below. o City updates that include the conversion from guidelines to standards in 2018, with updates to the standards and regulations in 2022, 2024 and new proposals in 2026. o City reviews projects under the Development Design Standards, Mixed-Use Development Regulations, and within adopted Subarea Plans. o Planning staff already reviews all developments falling within the Mixed-Use Development Regulations administratively. o Planning staff already reviews approximately half of the development proposed under the Development Design Standards administratively. o Planning staff will review all developments falling within newly adopted Subarea Plans administratively. • RCW 36.70A.030 – provides de�inition of administrative design review and states that public meetings, hearings, or voluntary boards may only be utilized for variance from design review standards. • RCW 36.70A.630 – design review process must have clear and objective development regulations. The design review process must be conducted concurrently, or otherwise logically integrated, with the consolidated review and decision process for project permits set forth in RCW 36.70B.120(3), and no design review process may include more than one public meeting. • RCW 36.70A.635 – requires administrative design review for all middle housing. • RCW 36.70A.815 – provides a list of items the city can no longer regulate, in regard to affordable housing, retro�itting of existing buildings, conversions, and other development. • RCW 36.70B.120 – regulations regarding an integrated and consolidated permit review process. • RCW 58.17.145 – references residential lot splitting and can only utilize administrative design review. Repeal AMC Chapter 2.104 – Design Review Board Code Repeal Overview Summary - Amy Rusko, Director Washington State Legislation or Other Requirements City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill NB #1 Attachment February 2, 2026 Redacted Applications of Drew Bono, Ryley Nelson, Anthony Smith and Trisha Baker Community and Economic Development; Amy Rusko, Director EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: -0-BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: expires March 31, 2028 and Ryley Nelson to fill the vacated term of Tim Abrahamson that expires March 31, 2027. The interview committee is also recommending Anthony Smith to fill the expiring term of Melissa Johnson and Trisha Baker to fill the expiring term of Gayle Roeber. Commissioner Tim Abrahamson and Commissioner Nathan Senff both resigned December 31, 2025 to serve on the Arlington City Council beginning January 2026. Commissioner Melissa Johnson and Commissioner Gayle Roeber have terms that expire April 1, 2026 reappointment. This leaves two terms vacant to be filled beginning February 3, 2026 and two terms to begin April 1, 2026. An interview panel consisting of Councilwoman Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam, Planning Commission Chair Melissa Johnson, Planning Commission Vice Chair Gayle Roeber, Community and Economic Development Director Amy Rusko, Planning Manager Jen Haugen, and Associate Planner Ameresia Lawlis held interviews on January 20, 2026 and January 22, 2026 to fill the two vacant positions and the two expiring terms. Six candidates were contacted and interviewed. From those interviewed Drew Bono, Ryley Nelson, Anthony Smith and Trisha Bakeappointed. The interview panel believes these candidates will provide a valuable contribution to our community based on their interviews and applications. Remand back to staff for additional information. I move to confirm the appointments of Drew Bono and Ryley Nelson to fill the two vacant terms in the Planning Commission, beginning February 2026; and confirm the appointments of Anthony Smith and Trisha Baker to fill the two expiring terms beginning April 2026. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill NB #2 Attachment COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 2, 2026 SUBJECT: Ordinance Approving Lindsay Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance ATTACHMENTS: Overview, Ordinance, Subarea Plan, Final EIS, Hearing Examiner Recommendation, and Staff Report DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community & Economic Development; Amy Rusko, Director EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: MJS Investors, in partnership with the City of Arlington, initiated the community planning process for the Lindsay Subarea. The process developed a vision, plan, and implementation strategies for the subarea. stewardship, parks and trails, utilities, and public services. The Lindsay Subarea Plan articulates a long-term vision that reflects the subarea’s unique character, identifies critical infrastructure and service needs, and outlines strategies to advance citywide goals and community priorities. The plan establishes a clear framework to shape the subarea into a peaceful, connected community by cultivating spaces that support well-being and welcome all who call it home. The Planned Action Ordinance was developed under RCW 43.21C.440 and associated SEPA rules in WAC 197-Planned Action Ordinance, subarea plan, and development regulatienvironmental review and permitting process. The Lindsay Subarea Plan includes development standards that addresses landscaping standards, building design, pedestrian access, trails, parks, open space and neighborhood amenities. The city proposes to adopt an Lindsay Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance. These documents will provide the groundwork for continued, coordinated, and efficient growth of the neighborhood. The subarea plan was developed for consistency with the Growth Management Act, County-Wide Planning Policies, and the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill NB #2 Attachment HISTORY: The Lindsay Annexation was completed in 2022 under Ordinance 2022-003, officially bringing Lindsay into the City of Arlington, where it is now one of the neighborhoods within the Hilltop Subarea. In November 2023, Ordinance 2023-016 amended AMC Section 20.44.032 Subarea Plans. This amendment reflected community priorities identified through the 2024 Comprehensive Plan engagement process and emphasizes the importance of coordinated land development through subarea planning. In 2024, MJS Investors, in partnership with the City, initiated the community planning process for the Lindsay Subarea. In December 2025, City Council approved a Development Agreement with MJS, Investors vesting critical area stream buffers and regulations, park requirements, 79th Avenue dedication and creek crossing, utility infrastructure improvements, cost recovery/latecomers modifications process for the conceptual site plan, and terms of agreement. ALTERNATIVES: Remand to staff for additional information. to sign the ordinance. Page 1 of 3 Subarea Plan Table of Contents and Section Summary: 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose Provides a background of the subarea plan, along with codes and regulations that allow the subarea plan document to be produced. 1.2 Study Area Shows the location of the subarea and de�ines a pending project area and a future development area. 1.3 Existing Conditions Provides the existing conditions of the following elements: Land Use, Development, and Design, Transportation, Parks and Trails, Natural Environment, Utilities & Public Services . 1.4 What We Heard Provides a summary of the public engagement and outreach that was completed. 2 Vision and Plan Concepts 2.1 Vision and Guiding Principles Provides guiding principles built on the vision of Arlington’s Comprehensive Plan. 2.2 Framework Plan Illustrates the vision and key proposals for the Lindsay Subarea, re�lecting the guiding principles outlined in the previous section and how the plan meets AMC 20.44.032. Includes the framework for housing, parks and open space, and transportation. 2.3 Goals and Policies Provides goals and objectives for Development and Design, Transportation, Parks and Trails, Natural Environment, and Utilities. 3 Development and Design Standards 3.1 Context Describes the past development in the Hilltop Subarea, current amenities in the area, and how the subarea bene�its from the proximity of future commercial nodes, schools in the area, and industrial to the west. Explains how these hubs foster and attract residential development. 3.2 Strategies • Land Use Mix and Density • Development Regulations • Design Standards • Airport Noise • Wild�ire Risks Lindsay Subarea Plan Subarea Plan Overview Summary - Amy Rusko, Director Page 2 of 3 4 Transportation 4.1 Context Provides the background area and current use of SR 531 (172nd Street). 4.2 Strategies • SR 531 (172nd St NE) and Roundabout • Right-of-Way Dedication • Street Types and Design 5 Parks and Trails 5.1 Context Provides the background of parks in the general vicinity, with no existing parks in the subarea plan area and how essential it is to expand the parks and recreational opportunities. 5.2 Strategies • Active Green Space • Parks Design • Common Open Space Design • Trails Design • Other Park and Trail Projects 6 Natural Environment 6.1 Context Provides background of the property within the subarea and de�ines streams, wetlands, plants and animals, along with mapping. 6.2 Strategies • Native Growth Protection Areas Enhancement • Wetlands and Streams • Stormwater 7 Utilities 7.1 Context Provides background on the current utilities within the subarea and that the existing residential homes use wells and septic systems. Future development provides water and sewer to the new residential homes. 7.2 Strategies • Water and Sewer • Electric and Communications • Stormwater Page 3 of 3 Appendices: A. Lindsay Scoping Engagement Summary This section provides detailed information from the public engagement that occurred during the course of the development of the subarea plan. B. Existing Conditions Report Provides all background information and current conditions that was analyzed during the development of the subarea plan and includes the Subarea Planning Purpose and Process and Study Area. C. Conceptual Mitigation Plan Detailed analysis of the following items are included. • Land Use, Development, and Design • Pending Project Area Traf�ic Impact Analysis • Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report • Utilities & Public Services D. Updated Pending Project Area Site Plan and Mitigation Shows the Pending Project Site Plan • State Laws, the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Zoning Code enabled city staff and the applicant to develop the Lindsay Subarea Plan. • The Subarea Plan and Planned Action were prepared meeting the following State regulations: o RCW 36.70A o RCW 36.70A.130 o RCW 43.21C.420 o RCW 43.21C.440 o RCW 43.21C.031 o WAC 197-11-164 to 172 Washington State Legislation or Other Requirements City of Arlington Lindsay Planned Action Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XXX AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Arlington, Washington, establishing a Planned Action for the Lindsay Subarea pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act WHEREAS, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and implementing rules provide for the integration of environmental review with land use planning and project review through designation of “Planned Actions” by jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA); and WHEREAS, Section 43.21C.440 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Sections 197-11-164 through 172 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) allow for and govern the adoption and application of a Planned Action designation under SEPA; and WHEREAS, designation of a Planned Action expedites the permitting process for subsequent, implementing projects whose impacts have been previously addressed in a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and thereby encourages desired growth and economic development; and WHEREAS, a subarea of the City consisting of the Lindsay Subarea as depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, has been identified as a planned action area for future redevelopment (Planned Action Area); and WHEREAS, the City held a public hearing on December 16, 2025 before the Hearing Examiner, and the Hearing Examiner considered public comment and recommended approval of the Lindsay Subarea Plan; and WHEREAS, to guide the Lindsay Subarea’s growth and redevelopment within the Planned Action Area, the City is adopting the Lindsay Subarea Plan, including development standards and design guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City desires to designate a Planned Action for the Lindsay Subarea; and WHEREAS, after public participation and coordination with affected parties, the City, as SEPA lead agency, issued the Lindsay Subarea Plan Planned Action Final Environmental Impact Statement dated November 25, 2025 (FEIS), which identifies the impacts and mitigation measures associated with planned development in the Planned Action Area; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted development regulations and ordinances which will help protect the environment; and WHEREAS, the City’s SEPA Rules, set forth in AMC 20.98.020 provide for Planned Actions within the City; and City of Arlington Lindsay Planned Action Page 2 WHEREAS, adopting a Planned Action for the Lindsay Subarea Plan with appropriate standards and procedures will help achieve efficient permit processing and promote environmental quality protection; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arlington finds that adopting this Ordinance and its Exhibits is in the public interest and will advance the public health, safety, and welfare. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Purpose. The City Council declares that the purpose of this Ordinance is to: A. Combine environmental analysis, land use plans, and development regulations together with the mitigation measures in the FEIS to mitigate environmental impacts and process planned action development applications in the Planned Action Area; B. Designate the Lindsay Subarea as a Planned Action Area for purposes of environmental review and permitting of subsequent, implementing projects pursuant to SEPA, RCW 43.21C.440; C. Confirm that the FEIS meets the requirements of a Planned Action EIS pursuant to SEPA; D. Establish criteria and procedures, consistent with state law, that will determine whether subsequent projects within the Planned Action Area qualify as Planned Action Projects; E. Provide clear definition as to what constitutes a Planned Action Project within the Planned Action Area, identify the criteria for Planned Action Project approval, and determine how implementing project applications that qualify as Planned Action Projects will be processed by the City; F. Streamline and expedite the land use permit review process by relying on the FEIS; and G. Apply the City’s development regulations together with the mitigation measures described in the FEIS and this Ordinance to address the impacts of future development contemplated by this Ordinance. SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council finds as follows: A. The procedural and substantive requirements of SEPA (RCW 43.21C) have been complied with. B. The procedural requirements of GMA (RCW 36.70A) have been complied with. C. The proposed action is consistent with the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. D. All necessary public meetings and opportunities for public testimony and comment have been conducted in compliance with State law and the City’s municipal code. E. The regulation of land use and development is subject to the authority and general police power of the City, and the City reserves its powers and authority to appropriately amend, modify, and revise such land use controls in accordance with applicable law. F. An FEIS has been prepared for the Planned Action Area, and the FEIS adequately identifies and addresses any probable significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the type and amount of development planned to occur in the designated Planned Action Area. City of Arlington Lindsay Planned Action Page 3 G. The mitigation measures identified in the FEIS and attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit B, incorporated herein by reference, together with adopted City development regulations, will adequately mitigate any probable significant adverse environmental impacts from development within the Planned Action Area. H. The Lindsay Subarea Plan and FEIS identify the location, type and amount of development that is contemplated by the Planned Action Ordinance. I. Future projects that are implemented consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance will protect the environment, benefit the public, and enhance economic development. J. The City provided opportunities for meaningful public involvement and review in the Subarea Plan and a FEIS processes, including a community meeting consistent with RCW 43.21C.440; considered all comments received; and, as appropriate, modified the proposal or mitigation measures in response to comments. K. Essential public facilities as defined in RCW 36.70A.200 are excluded from the Planned Action as designated herein and are not eligible for review or permitting as Planned Action Projects unless they are accessory to or part of a project that otherwise qualifies as a Planned Action Project. L. The designated Planned Action Area is located entirely within an Urban Growth Area and is smaller than the overall City boundaries. M. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIS will provide for adequate public services and facilities to serve the proposed Planned Action Area. SECTION 3. Procedures and Criteria for Evaluating and Determining Planned Action Projects within Planned Action Area. A. Planned Action Area. This Planned Action designation shall apply to the area shown in Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference. B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action determination for a site-specific project application within the Planned Action Area shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the Planned Action EIS. The mitigation measures contained in Exhibit B of this Ordinance are based upon the findings of the FEIS and shall, along with adopted City regulations, provide the framework that the City will use to apply appropriate conditions on qualifying Planned Action projects within the Planned Action Area. C. Planned Action Projects Designated. Land uses and activities described in the FEIS, subject to the thresholds described in Subsection 3.D and the mitigation measures contained in Exhibit B, are designated Planned Action Projects pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440. A development application for a site-specific project located within the Planned Action Area that meets the criteria in Subsections 3.D and 3.E may be designated a Planned Action Project pursuant to the process in Subsection 3.G. D. Planned Action Qualifications. The following thresholds shall be used to determine if a site-specific development proposed within the Planned Action Area was contemplated as a Planned Action Project and has had its environmental impacts evaluated in the FEIS: (1) Qualifying Land Uses. (a) Planned Action Categories: The following general categories/types of land uses are listed in the Lindsay Subarea Plan and can qualify as Planned Actions: i. Residential. Small lot detached single family homes (3,600 SF to 4,500 SF), attached residential (e.g., townhomes, rowhouses, duplexes), City of Arlington Lindsay Planned Action Page 4 accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and multifamily (e.g., apartments, fourplexes, garden apartments). ii. Small commercial, such as retail, restaurant, gym, office, and services. iii. Recreational facilities, parks, open space, and trails (i.e., active green space). iv. Street and non-motorized circulation improvements consistent with the Transportation evaluation in the FEIS, Subarea Plan, and applicable Arlington Public Works Design and Construction Standards and Specifications. v. Other uses allowed in the Zoning regulations applicable to the Lindsay Subarea that are similar to studied uses as determined by the responsible official or designee. vi. Enlargement or intensification of uses existing at the time the Planned Action Area is approved, so long as such enlargement or intensification complies with the Lindsay Subarea Plan. (b) Planned Action Project Land Uses: A land use shall be considered a Planned Action Project Land Use when: i. it is within the Planned Action Area as shown in Exhibit A; ii. it is within one or more of the land use categories described in subsection D(1)(a) above; and iii. it is listed in development regulations applicable to the zoning classifications applied to properties within the Planned Action Area. iv. A Planned Action may be a single Planned Action use or a combination of Planned Action uses together in a mixed-use development. Planned Action uses include accessory uses. (c) Public Services: The following public services, infrastructure and utilities are also Planned Action Projects: Multi-modal transportation improvements, water and sewer improvements, and stormwater improvements, considered in capital plans associated with the Lindsay Subarea Plan. i. Applicants for public services, infrastructure and utilities projects shall demonstrate consistency with all applicable city, county, state, and federal laws, regulations, and permitting requirement, including but not limited to the Lindsay Subarea Plan and Arlington Critical Areas Ordinance. ii. Essential public facilities defined in RCW 47.06.140 are excluded from the Planned Action and not eligible for review or permitting as Planned Actions unless they are accessory to or part of a project that otherwise qualifies as a planned action. (2) Development Thresholds: (a) Land Use: The following maximum amounts of new land uses are contemplated by the Planned Action: City of Arlington Lindsay Planned Action Page 5 Table D2a-1. Planned Action Development Limits 2025-2044: Preferred Alternative Net Growth and Total Existing (2025) Net Change Total Jobs 0 20 20 Dwelling 17 419 436 Source: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Forecasts, 2024; Land Technologies, MAKERS, 2025. (b) Shifting development amounts between land uses in Subsection 3(D)(2)(a) may be permitted when the total build-out is less than the aggregate amount of development reviewed in the FEIS; the traffic trips for the preferred alternative are not exceeded; and, the development impacts identified in the FEIS are mitigated consistent with Exhibit B. (c) Further environmental review may be required pursuant to WAC 197-11- 172, if any individual Planned Action or combination of Planned Actions exceed the development thresholds specified in this Ordinance and/or alter the assumptions and analysis in the FEIS. (3) Transportation Thresholds: (a) Trip Ranges & Thresholds. The maximum number of PM peak hour trips anticipated in the Planned Action Area and reviewed in the FEIS is as follows: Table D3a-1. PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips Generated, Preferred Alternative Land Use No Action Total Trips* Preferred Alternative Total Trips Residential 101 371 Commercial 289 46 Total 390 417 *No Action includes uses assigned throughout the applicable transportation analysis zones (TAZs). Source: Transpo Group, 2025. (a) Trip Ranges & Thresholds. The maximum number of PM peak hour trips anticipated in the Planned Action Area and reviewed in the FEIS is as follows: (b) Concurrency. All Planned Actions shall meet the transportation concurrency requirements and the level of service (LOS) thresholds established in the Arlington Comprehensive Plan and AMC Chapter 20.56. (c) Traffic Impact and Mitigation. The responsible City official shall require documentation by Planned Action Project applicants demonstrating that the total trips identified in Subsection 3.D(3)(a) are not exceeded, that the project meets the concurrency standards of Subsection 3.D(3)(b), and that the project has mitigated impacts consistent with Exhibit B. Planned action applicants shall provide the following documentation at a minimum unless otherwise required to address standards of AMC 20.04.120 and AMC 20.56: i. Trip generation and total trips in relation to the trip bank in Subsection 3.D(3)(a) and (d). City of Arlington Lindsay Planned Action Page 6 ii. Site-specific access design and consistency with City standards. iii. Implementation of required frontage improvements consistent with applicable City engineering standards. iv. Share of cost on areawide mitigation per Exhibit B-2. (d) Discretion. The City Engineer or his/her designee shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (latest edition) or an alternative manual accepted by the City Engineer at his or her sole discretion, for each project permit application proposed under this Planned Action Ordinance. (4) Elements of the Environment and Degree of Impacts. A proposed project that would result in a significant change in the type or degree of adverse impacts to any element(s) of the environment analyzed in the FEIS, would not qualify as a Planned Action. (5) Changed Conditions. Should environmental conditions change significantly from those analyzed in the FEIS, the City’s SEPA Responsible Official may determine that the Planned Action designation is no longer applicable until supplemental environmental review is conducted. (6) Substantive Authority. Pursuant to SEPA Substantive Authority at AMC 20.98.200 and Comprehensive Plan Policies, impacts shall be mitigated through the measures included in Exhibit B. E. Planned Action Review Criteria. (1) The City’s SEPA Responsible Official may designate as “planned actions”, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030, applications that meet all of the following conditions: (a) The proposal is located within the Planned Action Area identified in Exhibit A of this Ordinance; (b) The proposed uses and activities are consistent with those described in the FEIS and Subsection 3.D of this Ordinance; (c) The proposal is within the Planned Action thresholds and other criteria of Subsection 3.D of this Ordinance; (d) The proposal is consistent with the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan and the Lindsay Subarea Plan; (e) The proposal’s significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the FEIS; (f) The proposal’s significant impacts have been mitigated by application of the measures identified in Exhibit B, and other applicable City regulations, together with any modifications or variances or special permits that may be required; (g) The proposal complies with all applicable local, state and/or federal laws and regulations, and the SEPA Responsible Official determines that these constitute adequate mitigation; and (h) The proposal is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1), unless the essential public facility is accessory to or part of a development that is designated as a planned action under this ordinance. (2) The City shall base its decision on review of a Planned Action SEPA checklist (Exhibit B), or an alternative form approved by state law, and review of the application and supporting documentation. City of Arlington Lindsay Planned Action Page 7 (3) A proposal that meets the criteria of this section shall be considered to qualify and be designated as a Planned Action, consistent with the requirements of RCW 43.21C.030, WAC 197-11-164 et seq., and this ordinance. F. Effect of Planned Action. (1) Designation as a Planned Action Project by the SEPA Responsible Official means that a qualifying proposal has been reviewed in accordance with this Ordinance and found to be consistent with the development parameters and thresholds established herein, and with the environmental analysis contained in the FEIS. (2) Upon determination by the City’s SEPA Responsible Official that the proposal meets the criteria of Subsection 3.D and qualifies as a Planned Action, the proposal shall not require a SEPA threshold determination, preparation of an EIS, or be subject to further review pursuant to SEPA. G. Planned Action Permit Process. Applications for Planned Actions shall be reviewed pursuant to the following process: (1) Development applications shall meet all applicable requirements of the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC). Applications for Planned Actions shall be made on forms provided by the City and shall include the Planned Action SEPA checklist (Exhibit B). (2) The City’s SEPA Responsible Official shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in AMC Chapter 20.98. (3) If the application is for a project within the Planned Action Area defined in Exhibit A, the application will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the criteria of this Ordinance and thereby qualifies as a Planned Action project. (a) The decision of the City’s SEPA Responsible Official regarding qualification of a project as a Planned Action is an administrative decision. The SEPA Responsible Official shall notify the applicant of his/her decision. Notice of the determination on zoning permit decisions per AMC 20.16.100 involving a Planned Action shall also be mailed or otherwise verifiably delivered to federally recognized tribal governments and to agencies with jurisdiction over the Planned Action project, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440. (b) If the project is determined to qualify as a Planned Action, it shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in AMC Chapter 20.16, except that no SEPA threshold determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be required. (c) Notice of the application for a Planned Action project shall be consistent with Chapter 20.98 AMC. (4) If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required by this Ordinance. See Subsection 3.G(3)(a) regarding notice of the zoning permit decision. (5) To provide additional certainty about applicable requirements, the City or applicant may request consideration and execution of a development agreement for a Planned Action project, consistent with RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. (6) If a project is determined to not qualify as a Planned Action, the SEPA Responsible Official shall notify the applicant and prescribe a SEPA review procedure consistent with the City’s SEPA regulations and the requirements of City of Arlington Lindsay Planned Action Page 8 state law. The notice shall describe the elements of the application that result in failure to qualify as a Planned Action. (7) Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the FEIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to meet their SEPA requirements. The SEPA Responsible Official may limit the scope of SEPA review for the non-qualifying project to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the FEIS. SECTION 4. Monitoring and Review. A. The City should monitor the progress of development in the designated Planned Action Area as deemed appropriate to ensure that it is consistent with the assumptions of this Ordinance and the FEIS regarding the type and amount of development and associated impacts, and with the mitigation measures and improvements planned for the Planned Action Area. SECTION 5. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between this Ordinance or any mitigation measures imposed thereto, and any Ordinance or regulation of the City, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control, except that the provision of any International Building Code shall supersede. SECTION 6. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the___________ day of ____________________, 2026 Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2026 _________________________________ Don E. Vanney, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ ________________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk Oskar Rey, City Attorney PUBLISHED the________ day of ______________________, 2026 EFFECTIVE the _________day of ______________________, 2026 ORDINANCE NO. ____________ City of Arlington Lindsay Planned Action Page 9 Exhibit A: Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Area Source: MAKERS, 2025. City of Arlington Lindsay Planned Action Page 10 Exhibit B. SEPA Checklist and Mitigation Measures Exhibit B: Example Environmental Checklist and Required Mitigation Document INTRODUCTION The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review for project and non-project proposals that are likely to have adverse impacts upon the environment. In order to meet SEPA requirements, the City of Arlington issued the Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on September 26, 2025, and the Final EIS was issued on November 25, 2025. The Draft and the Final EIS together are referenced herein as the “EIS”. The EIS has identified significant beneficial and adverse impacts that are anticipated to occur with future development, along with measures to mitigate those significant adverse impacts in the Planned Action Area. On January 20, 2026 the City of Arlington adopted Ordinance No. 2026-XXX establishing a planned action designation for the Lindsay Subarea studied as Planned Action in the EIS (see Exhibit A). SEPA Rules indicates review of a project proposed as a planned action is intended to be simpler and more focused than for other projects (WAC 197-11-172). In addition, SEPA allows an agency to utilize a modified checklist form that is designated within the planned action ordinance (see RCW 43.21c.440). This Exhibit B-1 provides a modified checklist form adopted in the Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Ordinance. MITIGATION MEASURES The Mitigation Measures are provided in Exhibit B-2, and also summarized in the environmental checklist. The mitigation measures shall apply to future development proposals which are consistent with the Planned Action scenarios reviewed in the EIS, and which are located within the Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Area (see Exhibit A). APPLICABLE PLANS AND REGULATIONS The EIS identifies specific regulations that act as mitigation measures. These are summarized in Exhibit B-3 by EIS topic, and are advisory to applicants. All applicable federal, state, and local regulations shall apply to Planned Actions, including the regulations that are adopted with the Preferred Alternative. Planned Action applicants shall comply with all adopted regulations where applicable including those listed in the EIS and those not included in the EIS. INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANTS This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City of Arlington will use this checklist to determine whether the project is consistent with the analysis in the Lindsay Subarea Planned Action EIS and qualifies as a planned action or would otherwise require additional environmental review under SEPA. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The City may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own project plans and the Planned Action EIS without the need to hire experts. City of Arlington Lindsay Planned Action Page 11 Exhibit B-1 Modified SEPA Checklist A. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION Date: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Address Street: City, State, Zip Code: Parcel Information Assessor Parcel Number: Property Size in Acres: Give a brief, complete description of your proposal. Property Zoning District Name: Building Type: Permits Requested (list all that apply) Land Use: Building: Engineering: Other: All Applications Deemed Complete? Yes __ No __ Explain: Are there pending governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? Yes __ No __ Explain: Existing Land Use Describe Existing Uses on the Site: Proposed Land Use (check all that apply)  Residential  Commercial  Recreational facilities, parks, open space, trails (i.e., active green space)  Other: Non-residential Uses: Building Square Feet Existing (sq ft): Proposed (sq ft): Net Change Employment in Ordinance: 20 Total Employment in Ordinance: 20 Job Remainder as of 20__ Jobs: City of Arlington Lindsay Planned Action Page 12 Dwellings # Existing Dwelling Units: #____ Small lot detached single family #____ Attached residential #____ Multifamily apartments #____ Accessory dwelling units # Proposed Dwelling Units: #____ Small lot detached single family #____ Attached residential #____ Multifamily apartments #____ Accessory dwelling units Combined (Existing plus Proposed) % of Total Planned Dwelling Units: ____ Small lot detached single family ____ Attached residential ____ Multifamily apartments or accessory dwelling units Proposed Gross Density (du/ac): Proposed Gross Buildable Land Area Density - area excluding critical areas, buffers, and easements (du/acre): Dwelling Units Thresholds in Ordinance Total: 436 Small lot detached single family: 305 Attached residential: 87 Multifamily apartments or accessory dwelling units: 44 Dwelling Units Bank Remainder as of _________20__ Total: _____ Small lot detached single family: _____ Attached residential: _____ Multifamily apartments or accessory dwelling units: _____ Building Height Existing Stories: Existing Height in Feet: Proposed Stories: Proposed Height in Feet: Parking Spaces Existing: Proposed: Impervious Surfaces Existing Square Feet: Proposed Square Feet: PM Peak Hour Weekday Vehicle Trips Existing Estimated Trips Total: Future Estimated Trips Total: Net New Trips: Source of Trip Rate: ITE Manual ___ Other ____ Transportation Impacts Determined Consistent with AMC 20.04.120 and Chapter 20.56. Yes ____ No ____ Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing). Describe plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to this proposal. List any available or pending environmental information directly related to this proposal. B. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND MITIGATION MEASURES Earth Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering earth questions 1 a. General description of the site: Circle or highlight one: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Staff Comments: b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. f. Could erosion occur because of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? h. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-3 regarding Mitigation Measures and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply):  Temporary erosion and sediment controls  Compliance with grading and fill standards  Compliance with critical area regulations Explain: 1 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist-guidance/sepa- checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements-earth City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 14 Air Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering air questions 2 a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Staff Comments: b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Water Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering water questions 3 a. Surface (Find help answering surface water questions 4): 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Staff Comments: 2 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-Air 3 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-3-Water 4 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-3-Water/Environmental-elements-Surface-water City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 15 b. Ground (Find help answering ground water questions 5): 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Staff Comments: c. Water Runoff (including stormwater): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. 3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. d. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-3 regarding Mitigation Measures and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply):  Compliance with critical areas regulations  Compliance with construction-related stormwater requirements, including temporary erosion and sediment control, and development and implementation of a stormwater pollution and spill prevention plan  Determination of necessary permanent, long-term water quality treatment requirements  Implementation of on-site or street frontage green infrastructure  Low Impact Development (LID) techniques employed, consistent with AMC 13.28  Impact fee and fair share of capital improvements  Other: Explain: City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 16 Plants Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering plants questions 6 See the Lindsay Subarea Planned Action FEIS Section 3.2.1 Affected Environment for information about species and vegetation found in the Lindsay Subarea. a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: ☐ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ☐ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ☐ shrubs ☐ grass ☐ pasture ☐ crop or grain ☐ orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops. ☐ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ☐ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ☐ other types of vegetation Staff Comments: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-3 regarding Mitigation Measures and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply):  Compliance with Critical Areas Ordinance  Compliance with Shoreline Master Program  Implementation of on-site or street frontage green infrastructure  Other: Explain: e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. 5 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-3-Water/Environmental-elements-Groundwater 6 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist-guidance/sepa- checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements-4-plants City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 17 Animals Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering animal questions 7 See the Lindsay Subarea Planned Action FEIS Section 3.2.1 Affected Environment for information about species and vegetation found in Lindsay. a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: • Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: • Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: • Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Staff Comments: b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-3 regarding Mitigation Measures and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply):  Compliance with Critical Areas Ordinance  Compliance with Shoreline Master Program  Other: Explain: e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. 7 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-5-Animals City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 18 Energy and Natural Resources Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering energy and natural resource questions 8 a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Staff Comments: b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. 8 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-6-Energy-natural-resou City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 19 Environmental Health Checklist and Mitigation Measures Health Find help with answering environmental health questions 9 a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur because of this proposal? If so, describe. 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. 2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. 3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. 4. Describe special emergency services that might be required. 5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. Staff Comments: b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site)? 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 9 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-7-Environmental-health City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 20 Land and shoreline use Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering land and shoreline use questions 10 a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Staff Comments: b. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how? c. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? f. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. g. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. h. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-3 regarding Mitigation Measures and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply):  Compliance with Island Crossing Subarea Plan.  Compliance with the Island Crossing Development Standards  Compliance with other applicable land use and shoreline policies and development regulations.  Other Explain: 10 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-8-Land-shoreline-use City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 21 Aesthetics Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering aesthetics questions 11 See the Lindsay Subarea Plan Chapter 3 Development and Design Standard. a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Staff Comments: b. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-3 regarding Mitigation Measures and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply):  Compliance with Lindsay Subarea Plan  Other Explain: Light and Glare Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering light and glare questions 12 a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Staff Comments: b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: 11 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-10-Aesthetics 12 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-11-Light-glare City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 22 Recreation Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering recreation questions 13 a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Staff Comments: b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Historic and Cultural Preservation Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering historic and cultural preservation questions 14 a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. Staff Comments: b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. 13 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-12-Recreation 14 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-13-Historic-cultural-p City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 23 Transportation Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help with answering transportation questions 15 e. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Staff Comments: f. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? g. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). h. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? i. Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. j. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-3 regarding Mitigation Measures and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply):  Evaluate and mitigate roadways consistent with Planned Action Ordinance Section 3.D(3).  Street frontage standards  Impact fee for fair share of capital improvements  Other: k. Explain: 15 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-14-Transportation City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 24 Public Services Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering public service questions 16 l. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Staff Comments: m. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Utilities Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering utilities questions 17 a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: Staff Comments: b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. See the Lindsay Subarea Plan Chapter 7 Utilities. c. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-3 regarding Mitigation Measures and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply):  Capital Facility Plan has been considered, and development provides its fair share of the cost of improvements consistent with applicable local government plans and codes.  Developer has coordinated with City to ensure that sewer lines, water lines, or stormwater facilities will be extended to provide service to proposed development site where required.  General facility charges have been determined to ensure cumulative impacts to utilities are addressed.  Other Measures to reduce or control public services and utilities impacts: Explain: C. APPLICANT SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date: 16 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist-guidance/sepa- checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements-15-public-services 17 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist-guidance/sepa- checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements-16-utilities City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 25 D. REVIEW CRITERIA Review Criteria The City’s SEPA Responsible Official may designate “planned actions” consistent with criteria in Ordinance No. 2026-XXX Subsection 3.E. Criteria Discussion (a) the proposal is located within the Planned Action area identified in Exhibit A of this Ordinance; are consistent with those described in the Planned Action EIS and Section 3.D of this Ordinance; Action thresholds and other criteria of Section 3.D of this Ordinance; the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan and the Lindsay Subarea Plan; environmental impacts have been identified in the Planned Action EIS; have been mitigated by application of the measures identified in Exhibit B, and other applicable City regulations, together with any modifications or variances or special permits that may be required; applicable local, state and/or federal laws and regulations, and the SEPA Responsible Official determines that these constitute adequate mitigation; public facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1), unless the essential public facility is accessory to or part of a development that is designated as a planned action under this ordinance. City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 26 Determination Criteria Applications for planned actions shall be reviewed pursuant to the process in Ordinance No. 2026-XXX Section 3.G. Applications for planned actions were made on forms provided by the City including this Lindsay Subarea Checklist and Mitigation Document. complete in accordance with AMC Chapter 20.93. Planned Action Area pursuant to Exhibit A of this Ordinance Section 3.D of the Ordinance and qualify as a Planned Action. City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 27 E. SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL DETERMINATION A. Qualifies as a Planned Action: The application is consistent with the criteria of Ordinance No. 2026-XXX and thereby qualifies as a Planned Action project. It shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in AMC 20.16, except that no SEPA threshold determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be required. Notice shall be made pursuant to AMC Chapter 20.98. as part of notice of the underlying permits and shall include the results of the Planned Action determination. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required. See Section 3.G(3)(a) regarding notice of the zoning permit decision. The review process for the underlying permit shall be as provided in AMC Chapter 20.16. NOTE: If it is determined during subsequent detailed permit review that a project does not qualify as a planned action, this determination shall be amended. Signature Date: B. Does not Qualify as Planned Action: The application is not consistent with the criteria of Ordinance No. 2026-XXX, and does not qualify as a Planned Action project for the following reasons: Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to meet their SEPA requirements. The SEPA Responsible Official may limit the scope of SEPA review for the non-qualifying project to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Planned Action EIS. SEPA Process Prescribed: C. Responsible Official Signature Signature: City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 28 Exhibit B-2 Mitigation Measures This section includes Mitigation Measures referenced in the FEIS, and where not otherwise incorporated into the Subarea Plan. Mitigation measures incorporated into the Subarea Plan are part of applicable regulations and not necessary in the SEPA mitigation measures. The mitigation measures in this Exhibit B-2 shall apply to proposals that are determined to qualify as a Planned Action Project. Where a mitigation measure includes the words “shall” or “will,” inclusion of that measure in Planned Action Project application plans is mandatory to qualify as a Planned Action Project. Where “should”, “would”, or “may” appear, the mitigation measure may be considered by the project applicant as a source of additional mitigation, as feasible or necessary, to ensure that a project qualifies as a Planned Action Project. Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measures that require preparation of plans, conduct of studies, construction of improvements, conduct of maintenance activities, etc., are the responsibility of the applicant or designee to fund and/or perform. The City’s SEPA Responsible Official’s authorized designee shall determine consistency with this mitigation document. LAND USE & URBAN FORM Planned Action Projects shall adhere to the development and supplemental design standards in the Lindsay Subarea Plan, Chapter 3 Development and Design Standards, as well as the design standards for parks and common open space in Chapter 5 Parks and Trails. TRANSPORTATION Planned Action Projects shall adhere to the street design standards, frontage improvements, and right-of-way dedication requirements in the Lindsay Subarea Plan, Chapter 4 Transportation, and trail design in Chapter 5, Parks and Trails. Planned Action Projects shall pay applicable transportation impact fees (TIF) for improvements included in the current TIF program. a. See Lindsay Subarea Plan Chapter 4 Transportation, section “SR 531 (172nd St NE) and Roundabout” regarding transportation impact fee credits for the roundabout project. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Planned Action Projects shall adhere to the strategies in the Lindsay Subarea Plan, Chapter 6 Natural Environment. UTILITIES Planned Action Projects shall adhere to the water and sewer, electric and communications, and stormwater strategies in the Lindsay Subarea Plan Chapter 7 Utilities. This includes fairly sharing costs with the City and other development projects for offsite improvements. Planned Action Projects shall adhere to stormwater strategies in the Lindsay Subarea Plan Chapter 6 Natural Environment. City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 29 Exhibit B-3 Applicable Regulations and Advisory Notes In addition to the Lindsay Subarea Plan goals, policies, and strategies and the Arlington Land Use Code development regulations, the following regulations may apply. All applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met regardless of whether they are highlighted in this Exhibit or not. LAND USE AND URBAN FORM The following regulations help to ensure projects include compatible land uses, meet City urban form goals, are consistent with existing land use plans and estimated population and employment, and meet housing goals:  Title 20 Land Use Code  AMC Chapter 20.46 – Arlington Design Standards, as modified by the Lindsay Subarea Plan’s Chapter 3 Development and Design Standards  Airport Master Plan: contains regulations applicable to Flight path zone areas.  AMC Chapter 9 – Peace, Morals and Safety and AMC Chapter 7 – Nuisances for noise regulations  Arlington Tree List CULTURAL RESOURCES In terms of historic and cultural resources the following local, state, and federal laws or rules apply:  Arlington and State code includes policies and regulations that would require appropriate cultural review by tribal and other agencies. An Archaeology/Cultural Report and/or Unanticipated Discovery Plan may be required.  State funded capital projects require Governor’s Executive Order 0505 review. Implementation of the Executive Order requires all state agencies implementing or assisting capital projects using funds appropriated in the State's biennial Capital Budget to consider how future proposed projects may impact significant cultural and historic places.  Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that each federal agency identify and assess the effects its actions may have on historic buildings. TRANSPORTATION The following regulations address transportation:  Travel Demand Management (TDM): Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law requires employers with 100 or more employees and located in high-population counties to implement TDM programs.  Arlington Complete Streets Program  Arlington and Snohomish County Traffic Mitigation Agreements  Arlington Transportation Improvement Program and Capital Improvement Program  The following regulations and standards:  AMC Chapter 10.80 – Commute Trip Reduction  AMC Chapter 20.56 – Streets and Sidewalks  AMC Chapter 20.90 – Concurrency and Impact Fees  Arlington Engineering Standards  AMC Chapter 20.44.098 – Electric Vehicle Infrastructure City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 30 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Development and redevelopment projects within the study area that have the potential to impact environmentally sensitive natural resources will require compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. Mitigation sequencing to avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental impacts is typically required for all applicable permitting reviews and authorizations. The table below provides a regulatory permit matrix for actions requiring local, state, and federal authorizations. Appropriate mitigation measures specific to project alternatives will need to be proposed when alternatives are farther along in the planning process. This may include preservation, enhancement, and restoration of wetland and marine shoreline buffer. Table B.4-1. Environmental Regulations Jurisdictional Agency Regulations/Authorizations City of Arlington Pre-application submittal conference SEPA Determination (No Action Alternative) Planned Action Consistency Determination (Action Alternatives) City of Arlington Critical Areas Ordinance Compliance City of Arlington Floodplain Development Regulations Compliance City of Arlington Stormwater Code Compliance City of Arlington Public Works Stormwater Standards and Specifications Washington State Department of Ecology CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Certification Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) WAC 220 Fish and Wildlife Regulations National Marine Fisheries Services Magnuson-Stevens Act U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Migratory Bird Treaty U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA Section 404 Clean Water Act Nationwide Permit CWA Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act Requires Compliance with: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act Sources: City of Arlington Municipal Code; Soundview, 2025. City of Arlington Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Page 31 PUBLIC SERVICES The following plans and regulations address public services:  Comprehensive Plan – Addresses levels of service and capital improvements for fire, police, and parks. This is updated every eight years with the Comprehensive Plan.  Title 15 Fire – Includes requirements for fire suppression.  Parks and Recreation Master Plan and 6-year Capital Improvement Plan.  Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan – Addresses Capital Replacement projects to ensure proper function of current schools.  Arlington Police Department Strategic Plan  North County Fire & EMS Strategic Plan UTILITIES The following regulations and standards apply: • 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. • Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington • 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 • Stormwater Management Program Plan • 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 • Arlington 6-Year Capital Improvement Plan City of Arlington / MJS Investors \ Lindsay Subarea Plan November 2025 Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 ii Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge everyone in the Arlington community who supported this effort by attending meetings, providing feedback, and helping shape the vision. We thank you for contributing your time and effort to the development of this plan. DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT MJS Investors CITY OF ARLINGTON Amy Rusko, Community & Economic Development Director Jen Haugen, Planning Manager Thad Newport, Development Services Engineering Manager CONSULTANTS MAKERS architecture and urban design, LLP Land Technologies, Inc. Transpo Group Soundview Consultants Land Acknowledgement We gratefully acknowledge that the indigenous Stillaguamish, Tulalip, Upper Skagit, Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla people are the original caretakers of the waters and landscape that are known today as Arlington. With gratitude, we honor the land, the water, and its people. Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 iii Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Study Area 2 1.3 Existing Conditions 3 1.4 What We Heard 5 2 Vision and Plan Concepts 7 2.1 Vision and Guiding Principles 7 2.2 Framework Plan 7 2.3 Goals and Policies 14 3 Development and Design Standards 17 3.1 Context 17 3.2 Strategies 18 Land Use Mix and Density 18 Development Regulations 20 Design Standards 22 Airport Noise 36 Wildfire Risks 37 4 Transportation 38 4.1 Context 38 4.2 Strategies 39 SR 531 (172nd St NE) and Roundabout 39 Right-of-Way Dedication 41 Street Types and Design 42 5 Parks and Trails 50 5.1 Context 50 5.2 Strategies 52 Active Green Space 52 Parks Design 53 Common Open Space Design 54 Trails Design 55 Other Park and Trail Projects 55 Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 iv 6 Natural Environment 57 6.1 Context 57 6.2 Strategies 58 Native Growth Protection Areas Enhancement 58 Wetlands and Streams 59 Stormwater 62 7 Utilities 63 7.1 Context 63 7.2 Strategies 64 Water and Sewer 64 Electric and Communications 67 Stormwater 67 Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 v Exhibits Exhibit 1-1. Study Area 2 Exhibit 1-2. Top Takeaways – Lindsay 3 Exhibit 1.4-1. Engagement Summary 5 Exhibit 2.2-1. Lindsay Framework Plan 8 Exhibit 2.2-2. Lindsay’s Expected Housing Units 9 Exhibit 2.2-3. Housing Type Map 10 Exhibit 2.2-4. Housing Type Examples 10 Exhibit 2.2-5. Open Space and Trails 11 Exhibit 2.2-6. Recreational Facilities, Open Space, and Trail System 12 Exhibit 2.2-7. Common Open Space Illustrations 12 Exhibit 2.2-8. SR 531 (172nd St NE) Roundabout Concept 13 Exhibit 3.2-1. Land Use Map 19 Exhibit 2-. Future Development Area Minimum Residential Density 19 Exhibit 3.2-3. Lindsay Development Standards 21 Exhibit 3.2-2. Lindsay Design Standards Overview 22 Exhibit 3.2-3. Arlington Municipal Airport Traffic Patterns 36 Exhibit 3.2-4. Arlington Wildland Urban Interface Map 37 Exhibit 4.2-1. SR 531 (172nd St NE) Improvement Projects 39 Exhibit 4.2-2. Street Projects Map 41 Exhibit 4.2-3. Street Types Map 43 Exhibit 5.1-1. Neighborhood Meeting Open Space and Trails Survey Result 51 Exhibit 5.2-1. Conceptual Active Green Spaces and Trails 53 Exhibit 5.2-2. PRMP Proposed Park and Trail Improvements near Lindsay 56 Exhibit 6.1-1. Wetlands and Streams 58 Exhibit 6.2-1. Natural Buffer and Wetland Impact Mitigation Requirements. 60 Exhibit 7.2-1. Arlington Capital Projects near Lindsay Subarea 64 Exhibit 7.2-2. Existing offsite infrastructure 65 Exhibit 7.2-3. Existing offsite infrastructure and optional routes 66 Exhibit 7.2-4. Flood risk in Lindsay 68 Chapter 1 | Introduction Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 1 1 In t roduction 1.1 Purpose The Lindsay Annexation was completed in 2022 under Ordinance 2022-003, officially bringing Lindsay into the City of Arlington, where it is now one of the neighborhoods within the Hilltop Subarea. In November 2023, Ordinance 2023-016 amended Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) Section 20.44.032 Subarea Plans. This amendment reflects community priorities identified through the 2024 Comprehensive Plan engagement process and emphasizes the importance of coordinated land development through subarea planning. This amendment introduced several key changes: 1. Subarea plans must be created for all Comprehensive Plan-designated subareas, including the Lindsay and East Hill areas, both of which fall under the Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) overlay. 2. Each subarea plan must be developed in conjunction with a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 3. Planning must support a coordinated and efficient approach to neighborhood development, including a diverse mix of housing, transportation options, parks and trails, infrastructure, and capital improvements. In 2024, MJS Investors, in partnership with the City of Arlington, initiated the community planning process for the Lindsay Subarea. This process addresses planning elements such as future land use, transportation, environmental stewardship, parks and trails, and utilities and public services. The subarea plan is also being developed in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), countywide planning policies, and the City of Arlington’s Comprehensive Plan. Once adopted, the subarea plan will be integrated into the City's development code. The Lindsay Subarea Plan offers a roadmap to guide growth and development. It articulates a long-term vision that reflects the subarea’s unique character, identifies critical infrastructure and service needs, and outlines strategies to advance citywide goals and community priorities. The plan establishes a clear framework to shape Lindsay into a peaceful, connected community by cultivating spaces that support well-being and welcome all who call it home. Chapter 1 | Introduction Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 2 1.2 Study Area The Lindsay Subarea, also referred to as the Subarea, is located at the south end of the Hilltop neighborhood and is approximately 87.49 acres. It is bounded by SR 531 (172nd St NE) on the north, the 84th Ave NE alignment on the east, the 168th St NE alignment on the south, and the 75th Ave NE alignment on the west. The SR 531 (172nd St NE) and SR 9 provide local and regional connections across Arlington and into neighboring cities. Edgecomb Creek tributaries flow through the site in two locations. The Lindsay Subarea includes two development areas: • Pending Project Area: Properties assembled by MJS investors, and where development is anticipated to follow soon after the subarea plan adoption. • Future Development Area: Properties within the Subarea that are outside of MJS land assembly. The timing and nature of development in this area remain uncertain. Exhibit 1-1. Study Area Source: MAKERS, 2025 Chapter 1 | Introduction Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 3 1.3 Existing Conditions The following topics are addressed in Appendix B Existing Conditions Report and summarized in Exhibit 1-2: • Land Use, Development, and Design • Transportation • Natural Environment • Utilities & Public Services Exhibit 1-2. Top Takeaways – Lindsay Topic Summary Land Use, Development, and Design Lindsay is zoned Rural Ultra Low Capacity (RULC) with a Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay. The primary existing land use is low- density residential homes, with 17 housing units as of 2024. The area retains a rural character, with large open fields and natural areas. Unincorporated Snohomish County rural residential land, including a chicken farm and Stillaguamish Tribe property, abuts the subarea to the south and west. The Northern Hilltop and Gleneagle neighborhoods to the north, developed in the 1990s-early 2000s, include single family houses, parks, trails, and a golf course. No residential development has occurred over the past two decades on the Lindsay properties. The low-density zoning limits development feasibility. Anticipated commercial development at the intersection of SR 531(172nd St NE) and SR 9 presents opportunities for services to support Lindsay’s growth. AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans requires Lindsay development to include diverse housing types and open space. Community interests for future land uses within the subarea include a strong desire to maintain a residential character, interest in small commercial (e.g., corner store, café), and mixed views on housing, including both concerns and interest in smaller lot sizes and greater variety of home types. Transportation Roads serving the Lindsay Subarea are SR 531 (172nd St NE) and SR 9. SR 531 (172nd St NE) runs along the northern edge of the Subarea and connects I-5 to SR 9. SR 9, a north-south route, connects to Lake McMurray to the north and unincorporated Snohomish County to the south. Sidewalks have only been developed where there are existing residential subdivisions. There are no bicycle facilities along SR 531 (172nd St NE), and the Centennial Trail runs north-south along 67th Ave a little over half a mile to the west of Lindsay. The nearest bus stop is 2.75 miles away at Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd St NE). Lindsay lacks an internal street network; existing development nd th th Chapter 1 | Introduction Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 4 Topic Summary The City’s Transportation Master Plan includes several planned motorized and non-motorized projects for this area. Parks and Trails No parks exist within Lindsay. The Gleneagle and Northern Hilltop neighborhoods directly north include public and HOA parks, a golf course, open space, and trails. AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans requires that a portion of the site area is dedicated to parks and recreation (i.e., trails). There are planned trail extensions along SR 531 (172nd St NE) and SR 9, including the planned interconnected trail system as part of the subarea developed. Natural Environment Edgecomb Creek and a tributary to the creek are within the Lindsay Subarea. The Tulalip Tribes and MJS Investors are coordinating on Edgecomb Creek, which runs through the wooded ravine located on the western portion of the site. Another stream just east of Lindsay connects to Tex Lake, Portage Creek, and the Stillaguamish River. Edgecomb Creek provides suitable fish habitat for important salmonid species, such as the Coho Salmon and Bull Trout, and an existing fish barrier could be removed. The other two streams are non-fish bearing due to natural and manmade barriers. Eleven wetlands have been identified either within Lindsay or within 300 feet of the Subarea. Many are considered degraded due to prior land clearing, mowing, encroachment of non-native species, and/or used for agriculture. Vegetation includes pasture grasses, forests, and scrub-shrub patches and corridors. Disturbed/degraded areas include non-native invasive species. The area supports typical urban wildlife, such as deer, squirrels, crows, songbirds, and other small birds and mammals. Utilities & Public Services Existing homes currently use on-site septic systems and domestic wells. Future water and sewer service will be provided by City of Arlington Public Works Water and Sewer Divisions. The City is currently at maximum capacity and is planning numerous facility improvements, including increasing the production capacity of the water treatment plant. Snohomish County Public Utility District (SPUD), Waste Management, Ziply, and Comcast serve the Lindsay area and are expected to continue coordinating with the City to accommodate growth in Lindsay. The City recently updated its water and sewer system model. However, the modeling results have not yet been made available to fully assess the system’s capacity to serve the Lindsay Subarea. This modeling would help clarify necessary offsite improvements to maintain systems capacity. With continued planning, adequate funding, and interagency coordination, schools, police, and fire/emergency services are anticipated to adequately serve Lindsay. Chapter 1 | Introduction Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 5 1.4 What We Heard The input from the April 2025 EIS Scoping Neighborhood Meeting and 2024 Comprehensive Plan and Housing Action Plan outreach informed the ideas and goals for the subarea. The summary of the public engagement is below: Exhibit 1.4-1. Engagement Summary Event Date What We Heard Comprehensive Plan Public Engagement and Outreach – Housing Survey 2022- 2024 48% of those surveyed are satisfied with the sense of community among residents. 12% of those surveyed believed there was an availability of affordable housing within the city. 47% of those surveyed had acceptance of residents of all backgrounds. Comprehensive Plan Public Engagement and Outreach – Hilltop Subarea Survey* 2022 - 2024 Good appearance and has adequate lighting No essential services nearby No easy access to medical services No variety of housing types 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. EIS Scoping/ Neighborhood Meeting (Planned Action Ordinance Community Meeting as required by RCW 43.21C.440) March 20 – April 10, 2025/ April 7, 2025 Community members value the rural character of the area but there are conflicting visions for future land uses within the Subarea. Single-family homes and attached home styles are most preferred in the area. Some community members raised concerns about smaller lot sizes and higher housing density, noting they may not align with the character of surrounding neighborhoods. Others emphasized the importance of offering affordable housing options to support young 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 St are considered the most likely to be used by participants. Community members stressed the importance of conducting further traffic studies and prioritizing investments in infrastructure along 172nd St to address safety and meet anticipated capacity needs. Preservation of cultural artifacts and environmental resources in coordination with the Tulalip and Stillaguamish Tribe. Residents should be made aware of the proximity of their dwelling to Chapter 1 | Introduction Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 6 Event Date What We Heard impacts (noise and air pollution). Future plans should be reviewed for airspace hazard. *Note: The following survey response is for the broader Hilltop Subarea. Chapter 2 | Vision and Plan Concepts Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 7 2 Vision and Plan Concepts 2.1 Vision and Guiding Principles Arlington’s Comprehensive Plan, Arlington in Motion 2024 & Beyond, establishes a community vision for the Hilltop Subarea, including the Lindsay neighborhood: “In 2044 Hilltop has a diversity of housing types allowing all types of families to call this subarea home. Hilltop is home to many residents of Arlington and has entertainment and retail opportunities for the community” Building on this vision, the Lindsay Subarea will grow into a peaceful, connected neighborhood by cultivating spaces that support well-being and welcome all who call it home. The following guiding principles, as detailed in the framework plan, reflect the community’s priorities for Lindsay and inform the strategies outlined in the chapters that follow:  Encourage diverse housing options  Invest in safe, multimodal connectivity  Create a well-connected network of parks and open space  Enhance natural environment health 2.2 Framework Plan Exhibit 2.2-1 illustrates the vision and key proposals for Lindsay Subarea, reflecting the guiding principles outlined above. The Lindsay Subarea Framework Plan aligns with the City of Arlington’s land use planning framework and supports implementation of AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans. Chapter 2 | Vision and Plan Concepts Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 8 Exhibit 2.2-1. Lindsay Framework Plan Source: MAKERS, 2025 Chapter 2 | Vision and Plan Concepts Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 9 Housing The City of Arlington and Snohomish County are planning for housing growth in the Lindsay Subarea (see Appendix B Existing Conditions Report – Land Use, Development, and Design), and employment growth within the larger Hilltop area. In accordance with AMC 20.44.032, the Lindsay Framework Plan aligns with these growth targets and includes a diverse mix of housing types. The plan accommodates a total of around 436 units at an average gross density of 5 units per acre, resulting in a net increase of around 419 housing units. Houses and townhomes are allowed to be up to 3 stories, and apartments up to 5 stories. Housing types are envisioned to be similar to the examples shown in Exhibit 2.2-4. To meet the City and community goals for housing variety, the plan accommodates single- family homes (approximately 70% of the expected housing units), townhomes (20% of units), and multifamily homes (10% of units). Additionally, AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans allows for a small portion of mixed-use, small commercial, and ADUs, which could be included in the Future Development Area. Exhibit 2.2-2. Lindsay’s Expected Housing Units Single family homes Townhomes Multifamily homes or other1 Total Pending Project Area 224 (51%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 224 (51%) Future Development Area2 81 (19%) 87 (20%) 44 (10%) 212 (49%) Lindsay Subarea 305 (70%) 87 (20%) 44 (10%) 436 1.Mixed-use, small commercial, and ADUs are allowed, but not included in draft proposal. 2. Example land use breakdown meeting AMC 20.44.032 and aligning with Pending Project Area developments. Gross area (acres) 87.5 Gross density (units per acre) 5.0 Existing Net New Total Housing Units 17 419 436 Chapter 2 | Vision and Plan Concepts Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 10 Exhibit 2.2-3. Housing Type Map Note: The types and configuration of development may be updated in future phases, provided the intent for land uses under AMC 20.44.032 is maintained. Source: MAKERS, Land Technologies, 2025 Exhibit 2.2-4. Housing Type Examples Source: Land Technologies, MAKERS, 2025 Chapter 2 | Vision and Plan Concepts Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 11 Parks and Open Space Housing would be organized around two open space corridors that follow the Edgecomb Creek tributaries, and parks and trails would be interspersed throughout the development. The parks and open space plan features include: • Several active green spaces (see illustrations in Exhibit 2.2-5), including common open spaces between buildings and parks facing the natural open space corridors, some of which double as stormwater vaults. • A planned trail system connecting sidewalks and open spaces. • A preserved wooded wetland in the southeast corner. • Restoration of other wetlands and the historic Edgecomb Creek in coordination with the Tulalip Tribes. Exhibit 2.2-5. Open Space and Trails Note: The types and configuration of development may be updated, provided the intent for land uses under AMC 20.44.032 is maintained. Source: MAKERS, Land Technologies, 2025 Chapter 2 | Vision and Plan Concepts Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 12 Approximately 12% of the site would be designated as active green space and trails, exceeding the AMC 20.44.032 requirement for 10% of the non-Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) site area to be recreation, open space, and trails. The NGPA would account for 30% of the site. Exhibit 2.2-6. Recreational Facilities, Open Space, and Trail System Area (sf) % of Gross Total Lindsay Subarea Gross Area 3,810,914 Required Open Space (10% of (gross area minus NGPA)) 268,223 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 NGPA 791,258 21% Open Space1 64,410 3% Parks: Storm Management, Recreation Areas1 348,350 9% Sources: Land Technologies, 2025 Exhibit 2.2-7. Common Open Space Illustrations Sources: Land Technologies, 2025 Chapter 2 | Vision and Plan Concepts Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 13 Transportation The proposed street system would ensure the new neighborhood is interconnected and accessible with streets and trails for people walking, biking, rolling (e.g., wheelchair, stroller, scooter), transit riding, and driving. Major connections within Lindsay include a north-south connection—79th Ave NE—and east-west connections (non-continuous because of the stream) approximately 176 ft, 670 ft, and 1,330 ft south of SR 531 (172nd St NE). To ensure the larger transportation system runs smoothly, the developer and/or City would install a roundabout at 80th Dr NE, depending on timing of development, and the developer would improve SR 531 (172nd St NE) along the Subarea to help implement City and WSDOT plans for SR 531 (172nd St NE). Exhibit 2.2-8. SR 531 (172nd St NE) Roundabout Concept Source: Land Technologies, 2025 Street types and associated cross sections can be found in Chapter 4 Transportation. Chapter 2 | Vision and Plan Concepts Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 14 2.3 Goals and Policies Development and Design Objectives Goals 1. Accommodate planned housing growth within the subarea that aligns with citywide goals. 2. Encourage high-quality, pedestrian- oriented design that prioritizes walkability, safety, accessibility, and opportunities for social connection. 3. Advance Arlington’s tree canopy goals and climate resilience strategies. Objectives 1. Update development and design standards to support a mix of housing types that meet the evolving needs of Arlington’s households. 2. Protect the privacy of individual properties while encouraging shared spaces that promote social interaction. 3. Integrate parks and common open spaces into neighborhoods to create accessible areas for informal gathering, recreation, and neighborly interaction. 4. Preserve existing mature trees where feasible and require tree retention and tree planting. 5. Require landscaping to minimize impervious surface area, increase green space, and enhance aesthetics. Transportation Goals 1. 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. 2. Design the transportation network with the capacity and flexibility to support future growth and evolving travel needs. 3. Use complete street design to improve connectivity, support multimodal travel, and strengthen neighborhood identity. 4. Reduce reliance on single- occupancy vehicles by promoting active transportation. 5. Integrate sustainable design in transportation infrastructure to minimize environmental impacts. Chapter 2 | Vision and Plan Concepts Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 15 Objectives 1. Coordinate with WSDOT to improve SR 531 (172nd St NE) to enhance safety, expand capacity for increased traffic volumes, and provide safe access for all users. 2. Develop a cohesive network of sidewalks, shared paths, and trails to ensure safe and comfortable multimodal connections throughout the neighborhood. 3. Prioritize safety of children and other vulnerable people by separating paths for people from fast-moving vehicles – encouraging play and independent neighborhood travel. 4. Connect to regional trail systems, expanding recreational access and mobility options. 5. Implement traffic calming measures on internal roadways to slow traffic and enhance pedestrian comfort. Parks and Trails Goals 1. Create a cohesive green space and trail network. 2. Improve access to nature and promote opportunities for both active and passive recreation. 3. Encourage environmental stewardship and habitat preservation through thoughtful park and trail design. 4. Design parks and trails as community gathering spaces that foster social interaction and inclusion. Objectives 1. Dedicate at least 10% or more of the total land area (minus the NGPA) to recreation facilities, parks, and trails 2. Integrate the trails with the broader green space system to provide continuous, accessible pathways throughout the neighborhood 3. Create flexible, multi-functional active green spaces that accommodate a variety of activities such as play, events, and quiet reflection. 4. Design parks to respond to the site’s natural features, incorporating native vegetation, stormwater features, and topography. Chapter 2 | Vision and Plan Concepts Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 16 Natural Environment Goals 1. Protect and enhance wetlands, critical areas, and their buffers to maintain ecosystem services. 2. Restore the health of Edgecomb Creek and its tributaries. 3. Protect fish and wildlife habitat in the subarea. Objectives 1. Preserve the Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) and critical areas and their associated buffers 2. Implement wetland mitigation plan and protect the wooded wetland. 3. Partner with the Tulalip Tribes to restore fish passage and ecological functions of Edgecomb Creek. Utilities Goals 1. Manage stormwater through integrated systems that support a healthy natural environment. 2. Serve the area with adequate infrastructure. Objectives 1. Manage stormwater with green stormwater infrastructure where feasible to filter and reduce runoff and support wetland health. 2. Coordinate with utilities to meet future capacity needs and support long-term development. 3. Integrate utility corridors with multi- functional uses (e.g., trails, habitat corridors, or greenways) where appropriate. Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 17 3 Development and Design Standards 3.1 Context Over the past two decades, while the greater Hilltop Subarea saw significant residential development, the Lindsay portion has seen no new development and retains much of its rural and agricultural character. Existing land uses are predominantly low density residential, with single family homes situated on large lots interspersed among open fields and wooded areas. Gleneagle and Northern Hilltop, just north of Lindsay, include single family houses interwoven with public parks, HOA mini-parks, and a private golf course. Newer developments east of SR 9 have introduced smaller lot single family, reflecting a shift toward more compact housing. The Subarea benefits from proximity to the following hubs: • Commercial – the future SR 531(172nd St NE)/SR 9 commercial node • Civic – Pioneer Elementary School, Arlington High School, and the Byrnes Performing Arts Center northeast of Hilltop • Industrial – the Cascade Industrial Center, one of Snohomish County’s employment centers These hubs attract residents and are a driving factor to foster housing growth in Lindsay. Community members envision Lindsay as a residential hub aligned with the Hilltop Subarea vision for diverse housing, retail, and entertainment. Lindsay Subarea planning participants were interested in compatible development patterns with quality design, parks and trails, and enhanced neighborhood connectivity. This chapter positions Lindsay to evolve into a complete, connected neighborhood that supports local residents and the broader community. Nearby subdivisions – Edgecomb, Google, 2025 Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 18 3.2 Strategies The community’s development and design goals for the Lindsay Subarea include: Promote diverse housing options (See Exhibit 2.2-2) to meet community needs, Complement the surrounding neighborhood pattern, and Promote a walkable and welcoming community. The following strategies advance these goals. Land Use Mix and Density AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans section (f) regarding Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) Overlay areas requires the following land uses: • 70% small lot detached single family homes (3,600 SF to 4,500 SF). • 20% attached residential (e.g., townhouses, rowhouses, duplexes). • 10% multifamily, mixed-use (commercial/residential), accessory dwelling units (ADUs), or small commercial. • 10% of the total area of land minus the Native Growth Protection Areas (NGPA) to be recreational facilities, open space, and trail system. Exhibit 3.2-1 Land use map illustrates the anticipated mix of land use types, with development in the Pending Project Area providing small lot detached single family homes, and the Future Development Area providing the remainder of the required mix of housing types. Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 19 Exhibit 3.2-1. Land Use Map Note: The Pending Project Area is likely to develop as illustrated. The Future Development Area is anticipated to develop completing the remainder of land uses to meet the required land use mix across Lindsay. Source: Land Technologies, MAKERS, 2025 Exhibit 2-23. Future Development Area Minimum Residential Density Future Development Area Minimum Residential Density Future Development Area gross area (acres) 39 Unbuildable land critical areas, buffers, and easements (acres) 20 Gross buildable land (acres) 19 Minimum Residential Density Expected units/gross buildable land acres (units/acre) 11 Source: Land Technologies, 2025 Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 20 DS-1 Land use mix. Apply this subarea plan to the Lindsay Subarea, allow the land uses as described in AMC 20.44.032(f)(3), and require the land use mix described above. See also Strategy PT-1. DS-2 Residential density. Across the full Lindsay Subarea, residential development shall achieve a minimum density of 5 dwelling units per gross acre (includes critical areas, buffers, and easements), i.e., approximately 436 units/87.5 acres. Residential development shall not exceed 436 units across the full Lindsay subarea; however, if more units are proposed in the future the application for the additional units is required to update and/or revise all necessary documents to describe and mitigate any additional impacts, and provide a site plan and calculations that show compliance with the 70/20/10 residential housing split. Because the Pending Project Area includes approximately 227 small lot single family units, residential development in the Future Development Area must achieve a minimum density of 11 dwelling units per gross buildable area (excludes critical areas, buffers, and transmission lines easement) and maximum unit count of approximately 209 units (unless providing additional impacts analysis and information as described in the paragraph above). This density is required to ensure that the subarea as a whole meets the intent of AMC 20.44.032’s required mix of land uses. If an individual future project area cannot meet the minimum density due to site constraints, the applicant must provide a site plan that illustrates how the Future Development Area as a whole would meet this density and land use mix requirement. If development in the Pending Project Area does not develop as anticipated, the subarea-wide minimum gross density and land use mix requirements continue to apply, though the distribution of density may be adjusted. Development may be configured across the full subarea differently than displayed in the example site plan. Development Regulations Exhibit 3.2-1 identifies the changes to apply to the Lindsay subarea, which are intended to encourage housing development and accommodate the growth anticipated in the city and region. DS-3 Apply the following dimensional standards to the Lindsay Subarea to accomplish the concept shown in Exhibit 2.2-1. Lindsay Framework Plan. Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 21 Exhibit 3.2-45. Lindsay Development Standards Single-family or cottage housing Minimum Lot Size 3,600 square feet Maximum Lot Size 4,500 square feet Minimum Lot Width 30 feet Single-family houses, cottage housing, or townhouses Maximum Height 35 feet Building Setbacks Front – minimum: 10 feet* Front – maximum: 15 feet (greater distance allowed if lot shaped requires it) Side – minimum: 5 feet Rear Loaded Rear Setback from sidewalk or drive aisle paving edge if no sidewalk: Garage: 2-5 feet or 20-22 feet, or Surface parking only: 20’ minimum if parking is perpendicular to drive aisle, or 10’ if parking is parallel to drive aisle Front Loaded Rear Setback: 10 feet minimum Projections: Roof overhangs, fireplace projections, and bay and box windows are allowed to project up to 18” inches into the setbacks Parking Orientation Drive aisles are encouraged. When drive aisles are present, parking must be accessed from the drive aisle. Otherwise, front-loaded parking is allowed. Also see Vehicular Entrances and Driveways. Impervious Coverage Refer to setback and stormwater manual for initial development. For redevelopment, impervious surface area may not increase by more than 10%. 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 See Vehicular Entrances and Driveways and Parking Lots Location. Commercial Size Maximum: 2,000 square feet Impervious Coverage Refer to setback and stormwater manual for initial development. For redevelopment, impervious surface area may not increase by more than 10%. * Porches are allowed within the front setback up to 5’ from the property line. Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 22 Design Standards To fulfill community goals for Lindsay, the design standards guide development to be functional, well designed, and integrated into the surrounding natural and built environment. These standards supplement the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) Title 20 – Zoning and the Development Design Standards. The table below provides an overview of the citywide Development Design Standards that are either maintained or amended for the Lindsay Subarea as follows: Existing citywide standard applies to Lindsay Subarea Refined design standard applies to the Lindsay Subarea, as amended in the corresponding sections of this chapter New topic applies to the Lindsay Subarea, as outlined in the corresponding sections of this chapter Exhibit 3.2-6. Lindsay Design Standards Overview Citywide Development Design Standards Subarea Plan Reference Relevant Codes Street Character and Liveliness Inhabited Streets Pedestrian-Oriented Facade Pedestrian Environment Access to Buildings from the Street Screening Blank Walls and Retaining Walls Pedestrian-Oriented Facade Service Element Screening Screening Parking Lots Screening Parking Garages Parking Garage Entries and Driveways Vehicular Entrances and Driveways Lighting Design Lighting Landscape Design Continuity Along the Street Parking Lots Trees Trees 20.76.124 Shade Trees on Trees Along Dedicated Streets Transition Between Occupied Spaces and Street Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 23 Citywide Development Design Standards Subarea Plan Reference Relevant Codes Buffering Private Spaces Trees 20.46.080 Walls and Fences Neighborhood Character Creating Streetscape Compatibility Orienting the Building to the Street Orienting to Public Spaces Compatibility within Emerging Centers Adjacent Properties Retaining Privacy and Solar Access Solar Access Parking Adjacent to Residences 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 Creating Usable Open Space Residential Open Space 20.44.032 Subarea Plans and 20.52.030 Residential Usable Open Space Siting Parking Areas Parking Lots Location Vehicular Entrances and Driveways Chapter 20.72 Parking, 20.76.130 Shade Trees in 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 Complexes Parking Lots Location Chapter 20.72 Parking, 20.76.130 Shade Trees in Parking Areas, and 20.76.110 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 Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 24 Citywide Development Design Standards Subarea Plan Reference Relevant Codes Human Scale Building Features Entries Exterior Finish Materials Appropriate Materials Parking Garages Compatibility with Occupiable Spaces Integration with the Attached Building Mixed-Use Buildings Site and Building Design Legend: = Applicable citywide Development Design Standard = Refined design standard for the Lindsay Subarea = New topic for the Lindsay Subarea Orienting to Public Spaces Intent This standard adds to the citywide Development Design Standard 2.1, Access to Buildings from the Street, and Orienting to Public Spaces standards that require primary entries to face streets. In the Lindsay Subarea, many units’ primary entries will face active green spaces instead of streets. Ensure that lots facing designated parks or common open spaces have direct and comfortable pedestrian connections to the public sidewalk network, supporting walkability, neighborhood sociability, and “eyes on the park” for safety. Standards DS-4 Orient buildings toward public space, which includes streets, parks, and common open space. When a townhouse complex or multifamily building abuts multiple public spaces (e.g., a corner lot on 2 streets or a street and a park), face at least one unit toward each public space when feasible. For lots abutting parks and common open space, relate to and connect to the space through the following measures: 4.1. Orient primary pedestrian entries toward the park or common open space. 4.2. Provide a direct path to the sidewalk or trail in the park or common open space (also see Trails). Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 25 4.3. See Public to Private Space Transitions to ensure primary entries balance privacy with opportunities for neighborly int0eraction. Pedestrian -Oriented Facade Intent These standards add to citywide Development Design Standards 1.1 Inhabited Streets about creating lively street edges and 2.2 Screening Blank Walls about preventing inactive spaces. It builds on these goals by clarifying requirements for residential facades facing streets and common open spaces. Standards DS-5 Create lively street edges through the following measures: 5.1. Transparency. Provide transparent windows or doors on at least 15% of the primary pedestrian façade (all vertical surfaces of a residence facing the street or open space that contain living space or garage) to promote visibility and connection between the building interior and the public realm. For secondary streets on corner lots, a minimum of 10% transparency is required. All areas inside an individual window frame may be counted in transparency calculations (including, without limitation, window sashes, mullions, rails, stiles, and grilles). 5.2. Blank walls. No ground floor may have a length of 15 feet or greater (measured parallel to the street) without a window, door, porch, special landscaping (e.g., vertical trellis, trees, and shrubs), or other architectural building elements that provide visual interest at the pedestrian scale. Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 26 Example of a corner lot with quality windows and materials facing the street. Vehicular Entrances and Driveways Intent This standard amends citywide Development Design Standards 2.6 Parking Garage Entries and Driveways and adds to 7.2 Siting Parking Areas to reinforce a walkable and people- oriented community by minimizing the impact of vehicles on the streetscape and pedestrian environment. Standards DS-6 Locate and design garages and driveways to support a people-oriented community in the following ways: 6.1. Primary pedestrian entrance. Buildings must prioritize individual pedestrian entrances over garages. Enhance primary entries with vegetation, trellis, small porch, or other architectural elements that provide a transitional space between private homes and the public realm, and where possible, weather protection. (Refer to Pedestrian-Oriented Facade standards.) 6.2. Garages. Allow street-accessed/front-loaded garages provided: 6.2.1. Garage door maximum: 20 feet 6.2.2. Location: Garages must be set back at least 5 feet from the front projection of the residence (including porches or covered entry features) Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 27 Front-loaded homes with garages’ visual impact minimized through prominent pedestrian entry and garage set back 5 feet from porch and roof projections. Source: Google, 2025. 6.3. Driveway dimensions for street-accessed homes. 6.3.1. Driveway width maximum: 20 feet (measured at the sidewalk perpendicular to driveway edge) 6.3.2. Driveway length (measured from the property line): minimum 20 feet, maximum 22 feet. Exception: Adjustments to driveway length are permitted when necessary to accommodate the shape of the lot or curvature of the street. 6.4. Drive aisles parking. Drive aisles that provide auto access from the rear are encouraged. Buildings on lots that have drive aisle access must provide parking access from the drive aisle and adhere to the following standards: 6.4.1. Garage setback along drive aisle: Garage setback to be 5’ maximum from edge of drive aisle or 20-22’ from edge of drive aisle. Driveways between 5’ and 20’ long are not allowed to prevent parked vehicles encroaching on the drive aisle, which could block emergency vehicles and other vehicles in the drive aisle. 6.4.2. Drive aisle landscape: A minimum 20 square feet of landscaped area abutting the drive aisle is required per lot. These may be clustered but must be placed no more than 60 feet apart on average. Back yards (with or without fencing) count toward this requirement if a tree is provided. While trees are not required, the landscaping may include a combination of groundcover and Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 28 shrubs and/or small trees (and large trees where possible) to slow traffic by narrowing the visual width of the drive aisle and reduce the aesthetic and stormwater impact of paved surfaces. Decorative walls and retaining walls count toward this requirement. (See Trees) Drive aisles with regular landscaped areas to narrow the visual width of the drive aisle and provide shade, and garage placement for either no parking or adequate parking in front of the garage. The bottom image is an example of inacceptable design treatments. Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 29 Lighting Intent Adjusts 2.7 Lighting Design to provide appropriate illumination for public space and streets. Consistent, low levels of light increase safety and support a positive atmosphere while minimizing unwanted light spillover into nearby residential areas and wildlife habitats. Standards DS-7 Provide appropriate exterior lighting: 7.1. Provide appropriate average lighting levels for all publicly accessible paths: 7.1.1. Low or non-pedestrian and vehicular traffic areas, which include drive aisles and trails –minimum 0.2 foot-candles average , maximum 4 foot-candles average, except when adjacent to natural areas, trails may be unlit. 7.1.2. Moderate- or high-volume pedestrian areas, which include access and neighborhood streets and building entries–minimum .9 foot-candle average, maximum 5 foot-candles average, preferred average 2 foot-candles. 7.1.3. Parking lot lighting. Use fully shielded parking lighting fixtures; dark sky rated and mounted no more than 20 feet above the ground, with lower fixtures preferable so as to maintain a human scale. Public parking lots –minimum .5 foot-candle average, maximum 4 foot-candles average. 7.2. Maintain consistent lighting levels with a minimum lighting level uniformity ratio no greater than 4:1 to create gradual transitions between varying levels of lighting and between lit areas and unlit areas. Avoid highly contrasting pools of light and dark areas. 7.3. Pedestrian lighting maximum height: 15 feet, or 3-4-foot bollards 7.4. Parking area lighting maximum height: 20 feet, with lower fixtures preferred to maintain a human scale. 7.5. Use only fully shielded, dark sky-rated lighting fixtures. 7.6. Steady, non-flashing lighting of building features, artwork, and special landscape elements may be allowed, subject to the findings of the Director that the light causes no significant adverse impact. Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 30 Trees Intent Ensure adequate trees are near homes to provide access to nature and beauty, shade for cooling, stormwater management, air filtration, noise absorption or masking, and other ecosystem benefits. Create a cohesive aesthetic with rows of trees along the front, and where possible back, of homes. Standards DS-8 Provide trees along streets and paths and in parking lots, and preserve existing trees, in the following manner: 8.1. Preserve existing trees in the Native Growth Protection Area and designated open spaces. To the extent possible, preserve existing trees in designated parks. See designated parks and open space in Exhibit 5.2-1. 8.2. Select tree species per Arlington’s approved species list (City of Arlington Tree List or Seattle's Green Factor tree list). 8.3. Along all streets, plant or preserve street trees in landscape strips at least every 40 feet on average (also see Street Types and Design). Note, trees are encouraged but not required in the landscaped areas along drive aisles. 8.4. Where development faces parks or common open spaces, plant or preserve trees at least every 40 feet on average along the path running roughly parallel to the front lot lines. (Trees may be on either side of the path and may alternate sides.) 8.5. See the Citywide Development Design Standards 3.2 Parking Lots for trees in parking lots standards. 8.6. Phased development must meet tree requirements for the portion of the site being developed, including conditions of approval. 8.7. See root barrier requirement in City of Arlington Tree List. Public to Private Space Transitions Intent This standard refines 4.1 Buffering Private Space to encourage safe and comfortable public and private realms, design “eyes-on-the-street” interaction between the building Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 31 interior and the public realm, clarify “ownership” of space (which helps people in their respective zones feel more comfortable occupying the space they’re in), and maintain a sense of privacy in private space. Standards DS-9 Create a clear transition between private property and the public realm by establishing a physical “threshold” that defines a semi-public/semi-private zone, through the following measures: Transition between public and private areas to clarify “ownership” of the space and accommodate positive social interactions between people in public and private areas. 9.1. Define the edge of the property line by one or combination of the following elements, a low hedge, retaining wall, rockery, gate, low fence, railing. It may partially screen the home(s) but not fully block views to and from the street and help define individual units. 9.2. Front yard fences abutting streets, common open space, and parks may be a maximum height of 4 feet. Side and rear yard fences’ opaque materials may be a maximum height of 5 feet, with 2 additional feet of lattice or other partial screening, up to a total of 7 feet in height. Private yard space, where no other private yard is provided, may be treated like a front, side, or rear yard. Refer to AMC 20.46.080 for fence and wall architectural and material requirements. Exceptions: 9.2.1. Properties that have their rear yards abutting 172nd St NE may have rear yard fence heights up to 7 feet, except at intersections as described in 8.2.2 below. 9.2.2. At intersections along public streets, fence height is limited to 42” within 10 feet of the right-of-way for visibility sight lines as determined by AMC 20.48.100. 9.3. Provide opportunities for eyes on the public space, screen direct views into the home, and provide a clear public to private threshold (as Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 32 described in 8.1). Avoid eye level views from the public space into the home through window placement, ground floor elevation, landscape screening, or other technique. Direct views from a close distance into the home often result in residents keeping their blinds/curtains closed, reducing eyes on the public space. Views to the interior ceiling are acceptable. In general, reduced lateral transition space may be accommodated with increased elevation and/or a stronger threshold element. Examples of acceptable screening and elevation techniques that provide opportunities for eyes on the public space while protecting views into the home for positive public to private space transitions. 9.4. Covered entries are required. Porches and stoops are to have a minimum depth of 5 feet to accommodate seating and entry. Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 33 9.5. For retaining walls over 4 feet tall, refer to Citywide Development Standards 2.2.3. Vegetation is encouraged to soften the appearance of retaining walls. Lindsay’s single family home lots rendering with thresholds and elevated covered porches, defining the transition between public and private spaces. Source: Land Technologies. 2025. Solar Access Intent Replacing the citywide Development Design Standards 6.1 Retaining Privacy and Solar Access, this standard promotes site and building design that enhances solar access for new development, promotes energy efficiency, supports the future integration of solar energy systems, and minimizes impacts to adjacent structures and public areas. Standards DS-10 When feasible, orient structures and outdoor open spaces to maximize wintertime solar access, improve passive heating and cooling, and create opportunities for future solar energy infrastructure. Use strategies such as: 10.1. As feasible, minimize wintertime shading on parks and neighboring properties through site planning, stepped building forms, and tree species selection to the extent possible (also see Parks Design). For example, plant conifers on northern park boundaries (where shadows would have minimal wintertime impacts on the park) and deciduous trees in southern areas (where shadows on the park would be appreciated during summer). Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 34 10.2. When providing solar panels over parking, relax parking lot tree requirements to provide an equivalent area of shade. Residential Open Space Intent Given the extensive provision of ground level parks and open space, adjust Citywide Development Design Standard 7.1 Creating Usable Open Space to add flexibility to balcony design on multifamily buildings and allocation of private outdoor space. Standards DS-11 Private outdoor space minimum per unit: 50 contiguous square feet. Private yard space, covered patio or deck, and/or shared private courtyards (or any mix of these) may count toward this requirement. This area may count toward alley landscaping (see Strategy 5.4.2 Drive aisle landscape if abutting an alley). Exception: Where topography, site configuration, or other constraints make this requirement infeasible, the requirement may be reduced or waived provided the lot connects to a park or common open space. DS-12 Balconies have no minimum depth when a multifamily building orients to a courtyard, park, or common open space. Parking Lots Location Intent This standard adds to 6.2 Parking Adjacent to Residence, 7.2 Siting Parking Areas, an 8.2 Pedestrian Circulation to Multi-Family Complexes. It adds flexibility for parking lot location that prioritizes park or common open space activation over street activation, while continuing to emphasize pedestrian comfort and safety, maintains an attractive, cohesive streetscape, and ensures buildings relate to streets, parks, and common open space. Standards DS-13 Allow parking areas and lots between a residence and the street only as an exception, when a building is intended to orient toward a park, trail, or common open space and the following design treatments are provided: 13.1. Adhere to Orienting to Public Spaces. Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 35 13.2. To the extent feasible, locate and design the building to activate both the park/common open space and the street, even if just for a portion of the street or park/open space front. 13.3. Install landscaping consistent with the Citywide Development Design Standards 3.2 Parking Lots and 2.4 Screening Parking Lots to soften the visual impact of the parking area and support stormwater management. 13.4. See citywide Development and Design Standards 5.3 Compatibility within Emerging Centers regarding pedestrian circulation routes through all residential complexes (5.3.3.6) and grouping buildings in a way to orient to courtyards and gardens, avoiding orientation to parking lots (5.3.3.3). Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 36 Airport Noise As Lindsay lies near Arlington Municipal Airport, more homes could be affected by airport- related air traffic noise. Aircraft follow standard National Business Aircraft Association noise abatement procedures and are advised to avoid noise sensitive areas. Shown in Exhibit 3.2-3. Arlington Municipal Airport Traffic Patterns, Lindsay is not currently designated as a noise abatement area. Updating the Arlington Municipal Airport Traffic Patterns map to include the Lindsay Subarea as a noise abatement area would encourage flight paths that reduce noise impacts to Lindsay. DS-14 Incorporate the Lindsay Subarea within the Noise Abatement Area on the Arlington Municipal Airport Traffic Patterns Map. Exhibit 3.2-7. Arlington Municipal Airport Traffic Patterns Source: Traffic Patterns, City of Arlington, 2025 Chapter 3 | Development and Design Standards Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 37 Wildfire Risks The Department of Natural Resource wildland-urban interface (WUI) map and Arlington’s Comprehensive Plan indicates Lindsay is located within a WUI intermix area, characterized by lower-density housing interspersed with undeveloped wildland vegetation. The Snohomish County Wildfire Hazard Map shows much of the City of Arlington falls within the lowest wildfire risk zone. In recognition of this potential risk, Lindsay development should consider the guidance in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 51-55 Wildland-Urban Interface Building Code, or standards the City and/or State may adopt over time, to minimize potential risks and impacts of wildfires. Exhibit 3.2-8. Arlington Wildland Urban Interface Map Source: City or Arlington Comprehensive Plan, 2024. Chapter 4 | Transportation Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 38 4 Transportation 4.1 Context Lindsay is located along SR 531 (172nd St NE), a critical east-west corridor for the City of Arlington that carries local and regional traffic. The highway runs along the northern edge of the Subarea, connecting Interstate 5 (I-5) to the west and State Route 9 (SR 9) to the east. Connectivity. Within Lindsay, the area has not developed with a street system; all properties have direct access to SR 531 (172nd St NE); 79th Ave NE, a north-south street running through the center of the subarea; or 75th Ave NE at the southwest corner. With redevelopment, greater internal connectivity will be necessary. Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The area only includes sidewalks where residential subdivisions developed, meaning there are currently no sidewalks within Lindsay, and a disconnected system on the north side of SR 531 (172nd St NE). SR 531 (172nd St NE) also currently has no bike facilities, though the City is planning for a trail. The Centennial Trail runs north-south along 67th Ave a little over a half-mile west of Lindsay. The nearest bus stop is 2.75 miles away at the Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd St NE) intersection. Traffic. As part of planning for growth and responding to community concerns about congestion and safety, the City of Arlington’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) have planned major upgrades to SR 531 (172nd St NE). These include road widening, new roundabouts, improved lighting, and other street amenities (see Exhibit 4.2-1 SR 531 (172nd St NE) Improvement Projects). As Lindsay develops, street and trail networks need to prioritize connectivity, safety, and multimodal access. Design considerations include continuous and protected pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, effective traffic control measures to ensure safety and comfort, and landscaping and street trees to enhance the public realm and corridor appearance. Chapter 4 | Transportation Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 39 4.2 Strategies SR 531 (172nd St NE) and Roundabout Transportation projects planned in and around the Lindsay Subarea are described in Exhibit 4.2-1 and shown in Exhibit 4.2-2 Street Projects Map. The primary access to the Subarea is at the 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) intersection. To support this connection and other planned improvements along SR 531 (172nd St NE), a two- lane roundabout will be constructed at this intersection (see Exhibit 4.2-1). Responsibility for constructing the roundabout will fall to the developer and/or the City, depending on whether the development or the SR 531 (172nd St NE) widening project (Phase 2) occur first. If the developer constructs the roundabout, it will count toward impact fee credits since it would be implementing a City-planned improvement. The developer will also be responsible for frontage improvements along SR 531 (172nd St NE). AMC 20.76.090 Special Screening Requirements , which requires 30-foot-wide landscape screens along SR 531 (172nd St NE), is not applied to the Lindsay Subarea. Instead, SR 531 (172nd St NE) street design includes a buffer and design elements (e.g., trees, shrubs, and residential fences) consistent with Complete Streets, Lindsay Design Standards, and planned improvements. These features improve comfort for all users and may reduce perceived impact of traffic noise. Exhibit 4.2-1. SR 531 (172nd St NE) Improvement Projects Projects Extents Description SR 531 (172nd St NE) widening – Phase 1 (City TIP Item #8; Project #R-14A) 43rd Ave to 59th Ave NE Widen SR 531 (172nd St NE) from 43rd Ave NE to 59th Ave NE to a four-lane facility with two travel lanes in each direction. Construct roundabouts at 51st Ave NE and 59th Ave NE Managed and funded through WSDOT with expected City contribution as needed. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2025 and be completed in 2026. SR-531 Trail Segment 67th to Hwy 9 (City TIP Item #12) Construct a multiuse (ped/bike) trail along the north side of SR 531 (172nd St NE) between 67th Ave and Highway 9. Design phase is Federally funded. SR 531 (172nd Street NE) widening – Phase 2 (City TIP Item #18) 59th Ave NE to SR 9 a four-lane facility with two travel lanes in each direction. Construct a roundabout at 67th Ave NE Construct a two-lane roundabout at 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE). Funded and led by the developer and/or City depending on timing (see row below). Listed in WSDOT TIP and anticipated for completion before 2044. Chapter 4 | Transportation Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 40 Projects Extents Description 80th Dr. NE and SR 531(172nd St NE) Roundabout (City TIP Item #45) 80th Dr NE/ SR 531 (172nd St NE) and SR 531 (172nd St NE). Coordination with WSDOT. If development comes before the SR 531 Phase 2 project listed above, this is a developer driven and funded project. Source: 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan, 2024 T-1 City to support the construction of SR 531(172nd St NE) Widening - Phase 1. T-2 City to collaborate with WSDOT and support the construction of SR 531 (172nd St NE) Widening - Phase 2 to accommodate growth and safety improvements. Accommodate access points as mapped in Exhibit 4.2-2 Street Projects Map, which includes a right-in/right-out only intersection east of 80th Dr NE and west of 80th Dr NE is a full access (no turn restrictions) until completion of the SR 531 (172nd St NE) Widening - Phase 2, after which it will convert to a right-in/right-out only. T-3 80th Dr NE Roundabout. Design and construct the 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) roundabout. Implementation will depend on timing of development and SR 531 Phase 2 project. The 80th Dr NE roundabout project will be developer funded and led, and count toward their City transportation impact fees, if development occurs prior to the Phase 2 project. Ensure the following elements are incorporated: 3.1 Accommodate large vehicles such as trucks and emergency vehicles. 3.2 Provide safe and comfortable pedestrian crossings, including appropriate traffic control measures. 3.3 Ensure safe and comfortable trail connections. T-4 SR 531 (172nd St NE) Frontage Improvements. Improve SR 531 (172nd St NE) in a manner that supports the SR 531 (172nd St) Phase 2 project and planned access points as illustrated in Exhibit 4.2-2 Street Projects Map. Frontage improvements will be developer funded and led for portions redeveloping, and will be eligible to count toward their City transportation impact fees, unless the City/WSDOT completes the project prior to development. 4.1 Locate sidewalks, curb, gutter, and other utilities to accommodate the planned SR 531 (172nd St NE) widening. 4.2 Align improvements with the City's Complete Streets Program and support non-motorized travel, including a trail. Buffer sidewalks from roadway traffic with landscaped strips with street trees. Chapter 4 | Transportation Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 41 4.3 Provide landscaping to improve corridor appearance and increase comfort for pedestrians. Integrate green storm water infrastructure when feasible. Right-of-Way Dedication As part of required frontage improvements, developers will be responsible for constructing street infrastructure consistent with City regulations and the Lindsay Subarea street design guidelines (See Street Types and Design). Ongoing maintenance will depend on whether the streets are publicly or privately owned. T-5 Dedicate primary thoroughfares as public streets to be publicly owned and maintained by the City, subject to City approval, as shown in Exhibit 4.2-2. Street Projects Map. T-6 Maintain internal streets that provide localized access as private streets to be privately owned and maintained as shown in Exhibit 4.2-2. Street Projects Map. Long-term maintenance must be provided by a homeowners’ association or other responsible entity. Exhibit 4.2-2. Street Projects Map Note: Location and alignment of streets may be updated with future phase development, as long as the intent for connected streets and trails is maintained. Source: Land Technologies, Makers, 2025. Chapter 4 | Transportation Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 42 T-7 As streets are developed in phases, maintain private access and utility easements over the 79th Ave NE, 168th St NE, and 75th Ave NE public rights-of-way. Street Types and Design The following map and subsequent cross sections present the vision of a safe, connected street network in Lindsay. As street improvements are implemented in phases, construction and design should not preclude opportunities for future street extension and connectivity. Design Priorities. The proposed streets design emphasizes safe, comfortable, and accessible movement for all users while enhancing the natural character of the neighborhood through landscaping and green infrastructure. Key design considerations include: • Connected Sidewalk and Trails Network. A continuous and well-defined system of sidewalks and trails ensures seamless movement throughout the neighborhood. This network enhances walkability, strengthens access to open spaces, and connects residents to community destinations. Sidewalks are a minimum of 5 feet wide to accommodate two people walking side by side, including those using mobility devices. • Landscape. Streets typically feature landscape strips at least 5 feet wide, providing a buffer between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. These landscape areas accommodate small to medium-sized street trees and support green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) to promote shade and natural drainage. • Traffic Calming Measures. Traffic calming elements through physical barriers (speed tables, traffic circles, chicanes, and textured pavement) or visual cues (street trees, landscaping, and on-street parking) are encouraged, particularly along Access Streets, to manage vehicle speeds and enhance pedestrian safety. • Bicycle Facilities: Support active transportation—including a protected multi-use trail along SR 531 (172nd St NE), a trail under the powerlines that run alongside 79th Ave NE, and bike facility on 168th St NE—to connect residents to destinations within Lindsay and nearby areas (e.g., Centennial Trail and bus stop to the west and emerging commercial center to the east). • Parking. On-street parking is minimized to allow more room for landscaping and pedestrian space, as most homes are designed with dedicated off-street parking provided in garages or surface lots. Where on-street parking is provided, it may be located intermittently and designed to double as a traffic calming feature. Chapter 4 | Transportation Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 43 Exhibit 4.2-3. Street Types Map Note: Locations, alignments, and types of streets may be updated with future phase development, as long as the intent for connected streets and trails is maintained. Source: Land Technologies, MAKERS, 2025 T-8 Street Types. Design streets according to the street types designated in Exhibit 4.2-3 Street Types Map and their associated Access Streets, Neighborhood Streets, Drive Aisles, and Trails design guidance (starting on page 44). Each street type serves a distinct purpose in the neighborhood’s circulation system: 8.1 Access Streets serve as the primary routes for residents entering or exiting Lindsay, linking the neighborhood to the broader Arlington community. 8.2 Neighborhood Streets provide secondary circulation within Lindsay, supporting internal connectivity between residential areas, parks, and community amenities. 8.3 Drive Aisles are designed as shared streets acting as alleys providing vehicular access to rear-lot parking, while encouraging slower vehicle speeds and prioritizing pedestrian movement. Chapter 4 | Transportation Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 44 8.4 Trails are integrated into the green space network to offer active recreation opportunities and strengthen neighborhood-wide connectivity. Refer to Trails Design for additional trail design guidance. T-9 Implement street design concepts consistent with the Complete Streets Program. Consider the following: 9.1 Sidewalks and landscape areas minimum width: 5 feet 9.2 Parking maximum width: 8 feet 9.3 Travel lane maximum width: 10 feet 9.4 Provide landscape features and plant trees along streets to enhance appearance. Integrate green stormwater infrastructures within landscape areas, as opportunity allows. Refer to Vehicular Entrances and Driveways for drive aisles landscaping design standards. 9.5 Consider incorporating bicycle infrastructure along Access Streets to promote active transportation and improve neighborhood connectivity, and include as part of frontage improvements along 172nd St. T-10 Integrate traffic calming features at no greater than 400-foot intervals along 171st St NE, designated Access Streets, and other streets with wide, straight alignments. All other Neighborhood Streets and Drive Aisles to be designed to naturally reduce vehicle speeds through curving alignments and narrow travel lanes. Appropriate traffic calming measures may include traffic circles, speed tables, or chicanes, depending on the street type and surrounding context. Chapter 4 | Transportation Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 45 Examples of traffic calming measures include (from left to right): first row - traffic circles and curb extensions (bulb-outs); second row - speed cushions and speed tables; third row - chicanes and speed dots; and fourth row - midblock crossings with median refuges and midblock curb extensions. T-11 Design and construct streets such that opportunities for future street extensions are not precluded. Use street stubs to allow the street network to expand as adjacent properties develop. T-12 Design all new streets to accommodate emergency service vehicles. Chapter 4 | Transportation Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 46 Access Streets Option A: No On-Street Parking This cross-section is appropriate for the short segments accessing SR 531 where on- street parking is not desirable and may also be used adjacent to natural areas where parking is unnecessary. Option B: Intermittent On-Street Parking Travel lanes may shift within the right-of-way to prioritize parking where it is most needed, with roadway curves (i.e., chicanes) serving as traffic calming measures. Chapter 4 | Transportation Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 47 Neighborhood Streets Neighborhood Streets allow for two-way travel where motorists may occasionally need to yield to an oncoming vehicle by pulling over out of the travel lane. Chapter 4 | Transportation Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 48 Drive Aisles An 18-foot wide drive aisle is the preferred standard for drive aisles. A 20-foot wide drive aisle is allowed as an alternative. Source: Top left image - Land Technologies, 2025. Chapter 4 | Transportation Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 49 Trails Refer to Trails Design for additional trail design guidance. Source: Top image - Land Technologies, 2025; MAKERS, 2025 Chapter 5 | Parks and Trails Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 50 5 Parks and Trails 5.1 Context Currently, there are no existing parks or formal trail network within the Lindsay Subarea. However, to the north, the adjacent Gleneagle and Northern Hilltop subdivisions offer a model for a cohesive, amenity-rich neighborhood design. These communities feature interconnected open space and recreational amenities, including public parks, HOA- managed mini-parks, and a private golf course, that are woven into the neighborhood fabric. These features not only enhance quality of life but also promote walkability, social interactions, and access to nature. During the neighborhood meeting, community members expressed a strong interest in expanding the local park and recreational opportunities. The preferred park feature is an open field or lawn for informal play and community gatherings. Other highly desired amenities include pedestrian lighting, playgrounds, and seating. Parks located away from SR 531 (172nd St NE) and near natural areas were identified as likely to be frequently used by residents. See Exhibit 5.1-1 for neighborhood meeting open space and trails survey results. As Lindsay continues to grow, coordinated planning for parks and open space will be essential to support community well-being and strengthen the sense of community and identity. Chapter 5 | Parks and Trails Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 51 Exhibit 5.1-1. Neighborhood Meeting Open Space and Trails Survey Result Chapter 5 | Parks and Trails Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 52 5.2 Strategies Active Green Space The Lindsay Subarea Framework Plan outlines a vision that allocates 12% of the total land area to Recreational Facilities, Open Space, and Trail System (called “active green space” in this plan), exceeding the minimum requirement outlined in AMC 20.44.32(f)(3)(iv) Subarea Plans: iv. Fourth element shall be the location of Recreational Facilities, Open Space, and Trail System that consists of ten (10) percent of the total area of land, minus areas to be preserved as Native Growth Protection Areas (NGPA). (A) This designation shall include areas proposed to be dedicated to the city as public spaces. All dedicated parks shall be a minimum of two (2) acres in size and coordinated with the city prior to approval. (B) The trail system shall consist of a paved trail that connects the required sidewalk system and to all recreation facilities and open spaces. This plan implements the community shared goal to prioritize outdoor access for residents for livability and community well-being. Exhibit 5.2-1 presents the planned distribution of active green space. This includes a connected network of parks, common open spaces, and multi-use trails. Each neighborhood enclave includes parks and/or common open spaces to ensure access to nature and recreational opportunities. These spaces accommodate a range of users and activities, from playgrounds and sports fields to picnic areas and quiet, passive green spaces. The proposed trail system provides direct connections to sidewalks and integrated into the green space network, enhancing connectivity and promoting active transportation for heathy lifestyle opportunities. U-1 Design parks, common open spaces, and trails that are responsive to community needs and meet or exceed AMC 20.44.32(f)(3)(iv) requirements. See also Strategy DS-1. Chapter 5 | Parks and Trails Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 53 Exhibit 5.2-1. Conceptual Active Green Spaces and Trails Note: The types of developments may be updated in future phases, provided that the intent for land uses under AMC 20.44.032 is maintained. Source: MAKERS, 2025. Parks Design Parks are thoughtfully woven into the community fabric to provide accessible green spaces that foster social connection, active and passive recreation, and connection to nature. For parks that abut natural areas, emphasize low-impact uses such as trails, nature observation, and educational signage to complement natural area preservation. Use native landscaping and natural barriers to define boundaries, prevent encroachments, and preserve ecological health. Design guidelines for Public to Private Space Transitions and Orienting to Public Spaces help ensure that parks are welcoming and accessible, while clearly delineating the separation between private and public property. U-2 Design flexible, multi-functional parks by incorporating the following elements: Chapter 5 | Parks and Trails Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 54 2.1 Take advantage of natural views and incorporate scenic viewpoints along trails and within parks, accompanied by wayfinding and interpretative signage to share the area’s ecological and cultural history. 2.2 Incorporate shading and seating structures like picnic tables, benches, and lighting to provide comfort for park users. Refer to the Trails Design section for complementary trail design guidelines. 2.3 Integrate green stormwater facilities such as stormwater vaults and bioretention into park design where feasible. 2.4 Provide age-appropriate recreational facilities tailored to community needs (e.g., tot lots for young children, multipurpose courts for all ages). 2.5 Enhance the park environment with attractive landscaping that emphasizes native vegetation. Refer to Trees for tree planting strategies to support shade and habitat. Common Open Space Design Common open spaces, while typically more limited in size than parks, are intended to be inviting, thoughtfully designed areas that support casual gathering, recreation, and neighborhood interaction. Their design should strike a balance between offering shared community benefits and maintaining privacy for adjacent homes. (See Trees) U-3 Design corridor open spaces to be accessible, safe, and functional for informal recreation and leisure activities. Consider the following: 3.1 Manage access and create a sense of privacy from street entry points by using low fencing, shrubs, and other vegetation to help define the boundary between shared and public space. 3.2 Provide pedestrian-friendly amenities such as trails, seating areas, and lighting to make the area more enjoyable. Refer to the Trails Design section for trail design guidelines. 3.3 Place children’s play areas in locations that are safely distanced from street edges and parking lots. 3.4 Orient common open space to receive year-round sunlight, facing east, west, or (preferably) south when feasible. 3.5 Where feasible, integrate green stormwater facilities such as rain gardens or bioswales into the landscape. Refer to Trees for tree planting opportunities to support shade and improve overall aesthetics. Chapter 5 | Parks and Trails Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 55 Trails Design A well-connected trail network provides key connections through the neighborhood, parks and other destinations while supporting healthy, active lifestyles. For small areas, trails provide an alternative mode of travel and minimize reliance on cars. Trail design should respect the surrounding natural environment, accommodate future connections, and define public access. Note, the outer 25% of critical area buffers may be used for passive recreation, such as trails, wildlife viewing, and benches. U-4 Design trails for comfort following these design considerations: U-5 Trails must be a minimum width of five feet and must be hard surfaces outside of the critical area buffers, and may be soft surfaces when in critical area buffers. 5.1 Maintain a minimum five-foot setback from the outer edge of the property line to ensure privacy and reduce potential conflicts with adjacent private properties. U-6 Enhance trails with pedestrian-scale lighting and wayfinding elements to promote safety and ease of navigation, except within critical areas and their buffers. U-7 Avoid placing trails within wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and other critical areas (except within critical area buffers is ok) to minimize environmental impacts. Trails could be located within natural areas only if appropriate mitigation is provided and the project is reviewed and approved by the City. 7.1 Leverage existing utility corridor along 79th Ave NE to improve trail connectivity. Refer to Other Park and Trail Projects for trail alignments to potential trail and park projects near Lindsay. Other Park and Trail Projects The 2024 Park and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) reinforces these local priorities with system-wide findings that emphasize investment in multiuse trails and playground, indoor activity spaces for youth programs, and enhancements of natural areas, particularly along creek corridors and open space. Drawing on this feedback and an assessment of existing facilities, the PRMP recommends conceptual projects focused on expanding trail and park capacity near Lindsay. Chapter 5 | Parks and Trails Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 56 Exhibit 5.2-2. PRMP Proposed Park and Trail Improvements near Lindsay Proposed1 Description SR 531 (172nd St NE) Trail Extend Airport Trail east on SR 531 (172nd St NE) to SR-9; 1.7 miles SR-9 Trail Develop trail on SR-9 from Centennial Trail south to SR 531 (172nd St NE) Skate Dots at Forest Trail Park Install skate dot in park activity area Sport court at Wedgewood Park Install sports court in park activity area 1 The park proposals are conceptual and subject to further study and coordination with public and private partnerships to refine and develop. Source: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2044 Arlington’s Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan identifies the anticipated motorized and non-motorized projects. One of these projects is the multiuse trail expansion along SR 531 (172nd St NE) from 67th Ave NE to SR 9. The project’s design phase is federally funded and aligns with the proposed SR 531 (172nd St NE) trail listed in the PRMP. U-8 City to continue coordinating with WSDOT and Snohomish County to develop trails along SR 531 and SR 9 and improve regional connectivity. U-9 City to support park amenities expansion at Forest Trail Park and Wedgewood Park. U-10 City to pursue and encourage with redevelopment safe and comfortable connections between parks in neighboring areas and Lindsay to facilitate active transportation, green space access, and social interaction. Chapter 6 | Natural Environment Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 57 6 Natural Environment 6.1 Context Lindsay is located in a rural residential area characterized by a rolling topography with pastures, open fields, and a forested ravine. Lindsay’s vital natural resources are the seasonal Edgecomb Creek (the ravine on the western portion of the site), its tributary, and the wetlands distributed throughout the area. These conditions support a variety of habitats and animals that contribute to the area's ecological function and overall watershed health. Edgecomb Creek and other streams. As determined through coordination with the Tulalip Tribes, Edgecomb Creek runs through the north-south ravine in western Lindsay and should support fish. Significant improvements have been made to Edgecomb Creek downstream to improve fish passage, and there is opportunity to continue improvements into the Subarea. Stream Z (a tributary to Edgecomb Creek) runs through central Lindsay, and Stream 2 runs north-south just east of Lindsay (see Exhibit 6.1-1) and flows to Tex Lake, Portage Creek, and ultimately the Stillaguamish River. Wetlands. Eleven wetlands have been identified either within or nearby and many are considered degraded due to prior land clearing, mowing, agricultural activities, and encroachment of non-native species. The southeastern wetland is forested. Plants and animals. Vegetation is predominantly pasture grasses, forests, and scrub-shrub patches and corridors. Disturbed/degraded areas include non-native invasive species. The area supports urban wildlife, such as deer, squirrels, crows, songbirds, and other small birds and mammals, which are typically capable of adapting to human land uses. The Edgecomb Creek provides suitable fish habitat for important salmonid species, such as the Coho Salmon and Bull Trout. The northern reach of Stream Z is also regarded as a suitable fish habitat; however, most of Stream Z and Stream 2 are considered seasonal streams that do not support fish presence. Future development is expected to involve grading and an increase in impervious surfaces, which will alter existing topography and hydrology. Land clearing is expected to result in some loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat within the Subarea. All development will be Chapter 6 | Natural Environment Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 58 required to comply with the critical area regulations specified in AMC 20.93 to protect and enhance environmental health within the Subarea. Exhibit 6.1-1. Wetlands and Streams Source: SoundView, 2025 6.2 Strategies Native Growth Protection Areas Enhancement Native Growth Protection Areas, which include wetlands, streams, and their associated buffers, will, for the most part, be preserved and restored to a healthier state. Development will result in some loss of open fields, forests, and pasture areas. However, as the area is mostly disturbed, development presents an opportunity to enhance ecological functions. Restoring disturbed or degraded areas, particularly within degraded wetland buffers, with dense plantings of native trees, shrubs, and groundcover will improve habitat quality. It could also improve riparian habitat, increase shading of the stream channels, and help improve water quality onsite. These are consistent with the mitigation preferences outlined in AMC 20.93.740 (streams) and 20.93.840 (wetlands). These enhancements will support Chapter 6 | Natural Environment Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 59 the establishment of native forest and scrub-shrub wetland communities and promote the creation of connected wildlife and habitat corridors. NE-1 Preserve and enhance NGPAs to maintain habitat corridors, support long-term ecological function, and compensate for any impacts on critical area buffers. Wetlands and Streams Development activities are anticipated to avoid, as much as feasible, areas that contain critical areas and their associated buffers, as described in AMC 20.93. However, to support efficient neighborhood growth, new development may directly or indirectly impact wetlands and streams due to grading, an increase in impervious surfaces, potential land clearing and loss of vegetation and habitat within wetland and stream buffers, and expansion of 79th Ave NE. Edgecomb Creek includes one manmade fish passage barrier (on parcel 31052600100300), which could be removed as part of a mitigation plan to allow fish to travel upstream in the southwest portion of Lindsay. Wetland impacts, such as partial wetland fill, and indirect impacts resulting from buffer intrusions that cannot be fully mitigated through buffer averaging, will be addressed through a combination of onsite and offsite mitigation strategies. Onsite mitigation includes buffer creation, enhancement/restoration, and averaging. As of 2025, AMC 20.93 does not have any code mechanisms requiring the enhancement of degraded wetlands. Likewise, AMC 20-93 does not allow for any outright stream buffer reductions and does not require stream buffer enhancement. As many of the stream and wetland areas are degraded with invasive plants and lack native trees and shrubs, flexibility in the site plan provided by reducing and averaging buffers, paired with required enhancement, would result in a net ecological lift. The preferred offsite mitigation strategy is purchasing credits from a wetland mitigation bank within the same watershed. Lindsay is located within the service areas for Skykomish Habitat Mitigation Bank (SHMB) and Snohomish Basin Mitigation Bank (SBMB), both of which are approved for use and have credits available for purchase. The City and developers should continue coordinating with the Tulalip and Stillaguamish Tribes to support the restoration of Edgecomb Creek and the surrounding wetlands. Upgrading the culverts will be necessary to improve and restore watershed health. Overall, these mitigation measures are expected to result in a net ecological lift both onsite and at the watershed scale. NE-2 Wetland buffers flexibility. Adhere to AMC 20.93 code allowances for wetland and buffer impacts, including mitigation as identified in Exhibit 6.2-1, with the following exceptions within the Lindsay Subarea: Chapter 6 | Natural Environment Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 60 2.1 The City will allow a 25-percent wetland buffer reduction beyond the minimum wetland buffer requirements identified in AMC Table 20.93-4, if the wetland is enhanced with native tree and shrub plantings and non- native invasive plants are removed. 2.2 The City will allow wetland buffer averaging of the 25-percent-reduced wetland buffers (beyond the minimum wetland buffer requirements identified in AMC Table 20.93-4) when associated with wetland enhancement. NE-3 Future Development Area stream buffers flexibility. Adhere to AMC 20.93 code allowances for stream and buffer impacts, including mitigation as identified in Exhibit 6.2-1, with the following exceptions: 3.1 Allow a 25-percent stream buffer reduction beyond the standard buffers for any buffer over 50 feet (as identified in AMC Table 20.93-3), if the stream buffers are enhanced and/or restored through the removal of non- native invasive plants and installation of native trees and shrubs. 3.2 Allow stream buffer averaging of the reduced stream buffers beyond the minimum stream buffer requirements identified in AMC Table 20.93-3. NE-4 Pending Project Area stream buffer. In the Pending Project Area, the buffer of Edgecomb Creek/Stream Z shall be 50 feet, as generally depicted in Appendix D. Exhibit 6.2-1. Natural Buffer and Wetland Impact Mitigation Requirements. Code Allowance1 Mitigation Sequencing2 Requirements3 Mitigation Options4 Proposed Condition5 Natural Buffer Retention AMC 20.93.330 Avoid Retain natural buffer condition None required. Buffers remain degraded Standard Buffer Requirements AMC 20.93.830(a) Avoid Increase buffer width None required Buffer width increased, but remains degraded Implement mitigation measures and improve degraded buffer Enhancement Avoid and/or limit impacts to critical areas and their buffers while improving buffer condition Buffer Impacts (Temporary) AMC 20.93.330 Minimize and rectify Where disturbed, revegetate Restoration Impacted buffers are restored, in areas where the buffers are currently degraded, this will result in improved conditions Buffer Impacts (Permanent) Minimize and compensate Onsite in-kind, presumed 1:1 replacement Creation Replace impacted buffer area onsite, degraded areas will be improved through enhancement measures. Chapter 6 | Natural Environment Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 61 Code Allowance1 Mitigation Sequencing2 Requirements3 Mitigation Options4 Proposed Condition5 AMC 20.93.820 Offsite replacement Mitigation Bank Impacted buffer will be compensated through the purchase of credits from a mitigation bank within the same watershed Buffer Averaging AMC 20.93.320 Avoid Buffer width reduction up to 25%, net zero loss of buffer area Enhancement (if degraded) Average buffer to avoid impacts and improve buffer conditions for any part of the existing buffer that is degraded Mitigation Wetland Impacts AMC 20.93.840 Rectify Restore areas temporarily impacted by construction activities Restoration Ensures temporarily impacted areas are restored with native vegetation, may provide improvement over existing degraded condition Compensate Onsite in-kind replacement according to Table 20.93-7 Creation, restoration, and/or enhancement Impacted critical area will be replaced onsite at a higher ratio resulting in overall net increase of that critical area onsite Compensate Offsite replacement Mitigation Bank Impacted critical areas will be 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. NE-5 Coordinate with Tulalip and Stillaguamish Tribes to preserve and enhance Edgecomb Creek and surrounding wetlands. NE-6 Preserve the wooded wetland in Lindsay’s southeast corner and native plant communities in stream buffers. NE-7 Fully enhance and/or restore—through the removal and control of non-native invasive species and the installation of native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers— all degraded stream buffers. This will significantly improve riparian habitat, increase shading of the stream channels, and improve water quality onsite and downstream of the Subarea. NE-8 Create new wetland area(s) and enhance degraded wetland areas to improve onsite wetland functions and mitigate the loss of wetland areas elsewhere onsite. Chapter 6 | Natural Environment Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 62 NE-9 Purchase credits from the Skykomish Habitat Mitigation Bank and/or Snohomish Basin Mitigation Bank to offset any mitigation deficits. NE-10 Coordinate with Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) to upgrade the 79th Ave NE culvert. As part of required frontage improvement for 79th Ave NE, replace the existing culvert with a spanning crossing design to improve fish passage and restore natural drainage patterns. The Pending Project will improve 79th Ave NE up to the stream buffer, and subsequent projects will improve the 79th Ave NE culvert. Private access and utility easements will remain in place over the 79th Ave NE public right-of-way. NE-11 Coordinate with Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) for the 168th St NE Edgecomb Creek crossing. As part of required frontage improvement for 168th St NE, include a spanning crossing design to protect fish passage and natural drainage patterns. Subsequent projects (following the Pending Project) will build the 168th St NE stream crossing. Private access and utility easements will remain in place over the 168th St NE public right-of-way. NE-12 Fully restore buffers with native plantings following any temporary impacts from construction activities such as site grading and the installation of utilities/stormwater infrastructure. Stormwater The overall increase in impervious surfaces and homes across the Subarea is expected to generate greater runoff and introduce additional pollutant loads to the landscape, such as 6PPD and 6PPD-q which are chemicals from automobile tires that are toxic for salmonids species such as ESA listed bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook salmon. Stormwater will be managed through the installation of stormwater facilities with enhanced water quality treatment to ensure runoff is collected and treated before reaching critical area buffers. NE-13 Use low-impact development (LID) techniques and stormwater facilities to manage increased runoff from impervious surfaces, protecting water quality, and supporting watershed health. NE-14 Apply best available science provided by the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) and the Washington Stormwater Center for best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater treatment and erosion control. Use approved media filter, infiltration, biofiltration, and/or vegetated filtration of parking surfaces and roads stormwater to effectively reduce 6PPD and 6PPD-q below toxicity thresholds at a minimum. Chapter 7 | Utilities Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 63 7 Utilities 7.1 Context The Lindsay Subarea’s utilities—electricity, natural gas, refuse service, telephone, cable, water, sewer, and stormwater—are available at varying capacities to accommodate increased land use intensity. Water and sewer. Existing homes currently use domestic wells and on-site sewage septic systems. Future service will be provided by the City of Arlington Public Works Water and Sewer Divisions. Drinking water flows from a water storage tank located east of SR 9 along SR 531 (172nd St NE) to Lindsay. Sewer flows northwest from Lindsay through the Gleneagle and Hilltop neighborhoods with two routes available, both meeting on 67th Ave NE near 188th St NE, then continuing north to the water treatment plant. The City’s Water Department maintains a Water System Plan (WSP) reviewed and approved by the Department of Health to assure provision of safe and ample water supplies for public health and fire protection. The Arlington 2024 Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement states that the City is currently at maximum capacity and is planning numerous water and sewer improvements, including increasing the production capacity of the water treatment plant. Power, communications, and gas. Snohomish County PUD, Puget Sound Energy, Comcast, and Ziply (cable) serve the subarea. Existing infrastructure is located along SR 531 (172nd St NE). The City encourages placing electric utilities underground with redevelopment. Chapter 7 | Utilities Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 64 7.2 Strategies Water and Sewer As Lindsay develops in phases, each project would include new connections to the existing water and sewer systems and increase water demand and sewage flows. According to the City of Arlington’s reported water use data, the subarea will require an average of approximately 85,000 gallons of water per day. Preliminary estimates indicate an increase in peak sewage flows of approximately 306.8 gallons per minute (GPM) or 0.614 cubic feet per second (cfs). Water and sewer system modeling, being completed by the City, will determine offsite infrastructure upgrades necessary to maintain system capacity. Most new utility infrastructure would be installed along or under the future road alignments. In some cases, short segments may extend outside of roadways. These segments may affect wetland or stream buffers, and appropriate site-specific mitigation measures would be determined through project-level analysis. The City’s Capital Improvement Plan includes the following City-funded improvement projects identified near Lindsay:  Project SM27 – Primary Interceptor (67th Ave Trunkline) Improvements (Phase 1 & 2), horizon year 2025  2025 Utility Improvement & Pavement Preservation Project to install new utility lines and preserve pavement surfaces (green line along Gleneagle Blvd in Exhibit 3.5-3) – construction began Summer 2025 Exhibit 7.2-1. Arlington Capital Projects near Lindsay Subarea 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 Chapter 7 | Utilities Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 65 U-1 Design and construct water and sewer systems to accommodate anticipated demand, proportionately and fairly sharing costs with the City and other development projects for offsite improvements. 1.1 Plan infrastructure lines for efficiency to maximize the number of homes and businesses served. 1.2 Avoid impacts to critical areas, but where pipes must extend through streams, wetlands, and/or associated buffer areas, mitigate any impacts. Exhibit 7.2-2. Existing offsite infrastructure Source: City of Arlington, Land Technologies, 2025 Chapter 7 | Utilities Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 66 Exhibit 7.2-3. Existing offsite infrastructure and optional routes Source: City of Arlington, Land Technologies, 2025 Chapter 7 | Utilities Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 67 Electric and Communications As electric vehicle use increases and buildings include more electric systems and appliances, loads on the electric system continue to increase. At the same time, power sources and battery storage continue to evolve. New neighborhoods have the opportunity to build resiliency into their utility systems. To protect utilities from storms, fire, and human interaction, and to avoid visual clutter, power and cable lines will be underground. Also see the Solar Access development standards. U-2 Continue coordinating with the Snohomish County PUD to ensure adequate power supply. U-3 When improving SR 531 (172nd St NE), underground the electric/cable lines (not including the existing transmission lines). U-4 Design and construct new electric and communications lines to be underground throughout Lindsay. U-5 To the extent feasible, design and construct Lindsay’s power system as a microgrid with back-up power storage for emergencies and renewable energy sources. U-6 Consider solar power or other alternative energy sources to light the street and trail system. U-7 Encourage streets and the electric systems to support future EV charging infrastructure along public streets that include street parking. Stormwater In Lindsay, stormwater generally flows toward the two Edgecomb Creek tributaries and wetlands. Stormwater facilities protect public health, safety, and welfare by preventing or reducing floods and improving water quality (see water quality related measures in the Natural Environment chapter’s Stormwater section). According to Flood Factor, Lindsay’s flooding risk is relatively low. The City is planning some culvert and other natural enhancements along Edgecomb Creek. Chapter 7 | Utilities Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ November 2025 68 Exhibit 7.2-4. Flood risk in Lindsay Note: Environmental risk data is provided by First Street™. First Street models are designed to approximate risk and not intended to include all possible scenarios. Source: First Street Flood Factor, 2025. To prevent downstream flooding, the Arlington Public Works Standards and Specifications and the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington require development to include stormwater systems that slow and clean water onsite as well as natural conditions would have. This means that Lindsay will be graded and stormwater collected to flow to a series of rain gardens and stormwater vaults. U-8 Design green stormwater infrastructure systems with best management practices and capacities beyond the minimum Arlington stormwater manual requirements when feasible, especially when projects are small and trigger limited stormwater code compliance. Ensure each project phase has adequate stormwater infrastructure. U-9 Limit paving widths and use pervious paving systems to the extent possible to minimize impervious surfaces. City of Arlington / MJS Investors Lindsay Subarea Plan Appendices November 2025 Lindsay Subarea Plan Appendices ▪ Appendices ▪ November 2025 2 Appendices Lindsay Subarea Plan Appendices ▪ Appendices ▪ November 2025 3 List of Appendices A Lindsay Scoping Engagement Summary B Existing Conditions Report Land Use, Development, and Design Pending Project Area Traffic Impact Analysis Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Utilities & Public Services C Conceptual Mitigation Plan D Updated Pending Project Area Site Plan and Mitigation Lindsay Subarea Plan Appendices ▪ Appendices ▪ November 2025 A-1 A Lindsay Scoping Engagement Summary Public Neighborhood Meeting On March 20, 2025, the City of Arlington issued a scoping notice advertising a 30-day written comment period on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concluding on April 10, 2025. As part of the community planning process and to meet the Planned Action community meeting provisions in RCW 43.21C.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 Meeting Objectives •Identify key EIS topics •Highlight community assets and challenges •Gather feedback on the preliminary site plan, proposed housing types, transportation improvements, and park/open spaces A-2 Results About 15 people attended the neighborhood meeting. 5 written comments were received, either written directly on the board and/or sticky notes. The presentation included a survey to gather feedback on the meeting objectives. The following are summarized responses from community members: •Single-family homes and attached home styles are most preferred in the area. Some community members raised concerns about smaller lot sizes and higher housing density, noting they may not align with the character of surrounding neighborhoods. Others emphasized the importance of offering affordable housing options to support young families and future generations. •There is equal interest in placing multifamily homes close or away from 172nd St. •There is strong interest in expanding park and recreational opportunities. The most desired park feature is an open field or lawn, followed by pedestrian lighting, playgrounds, and seating. Parks located near 172nd Street are considered the most accessible and likely to be used by residents •Community members stressed the importance of conducting further traffic studies and prioritizing investments in infrastructure along 172nd Street to address safety and meet anticipated capacity needs. •Preservation of cultural artifacts and environmental resources in coordination with the Tulalip and Stillaguamish Tribe. •Residents should be made aware of the proximity of their dwelling to the Arlington Municipal Airport and associated airport-related impacts (noise and air pollution). Future plans should be reviewed for airspace hazard. A-3 Survey Response Images Visioning Question 1. I’m interested in the Lindsay Subarea because (Select all that apply) Question 2. What makes the Hilltop Area (including the Linsday Subarea) special? (Select your top 3) A-4 Question 3. What do you value most about living or working in your community? (Enter one word responses) Question 4. What are you interested in seeing as this part of Arlington develops? (Select all that apply) A-5 Question 5. Knowing that properties here are allowed to build homes and the City’s Comprehensive Plan is counting on this area to provide housing options, what types of homes would you like to see? A-6 Housing Question 6. Knowing that a variety of housing types is needed in the area, where would you most like to see multifamily homes? (Select up to 2 options) Parks Question 7. What amenities would you like to see in the parks? (Select your top 4) A-7 Question 8. If you lived in the area, which parks would you likely use the most Transportation Question 9. What street elements would you prioritize? A-8 EIS Scoping Question 10. What do you think are the 4 most important EIS topics to understand environmental implications and tradeoffs of Lindsay Subarea development options? A-9 Question 11. If you selected “Other “, what topic would you like to add for the environmental analysis? Note: Participants were informed that a transportation analysis model will be completed as part of the EIS. A-10 Lindsay Subarea Plan Appendices ▪ Appendices ▪ November 2025 B-1 B Existing Conditions Report City of Arlington | Lindsay Subarea Plan Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report September 2025 Prepared by: MAKERS architecture and urban design B-2 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 1 In t roduction Subarea Planning Purpose and Proces s The Lindsay Annexation was completed in 2022 under Ordinance 2022-003, officially designating Lindsay as one of the neighborhoods within the Hilltop Subarea. In November 2023, Ordinance 2023-016 amended Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) Section 20.44.032 related to Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) development. This amendment introduced several key changes: 1.Subarea plans must be created for all fourteen Comprehensive Plan-designated subareas, including both the Lindsay and East Hill areas, both of which fall under the MPN overlay. 2. Each subarea plans must be developed in conjunction with a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 3.Planning efforts must support a coordinated and efficient approach to neighborhood development, including a diverse mix of housing, transportation options, community amenities, infrastructure, and capital improvements. See AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans for more details. The Lindsay Subarea Plan will establish a long-term vision for development, address current and future infrastructure needs, and recommend strategies to support citywide and community goals. An initial step toward implementation is expected to include updates to zoning and development standards to align with the vision outlined in the plan. This document is part of the first stage to summarize existing conditions in the Lindsay subarea. This analysis will inform options development and evaluation for inclusion in the subarea plan. B-3 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 Study Area The Lindsay Subarea, or Subarea, encompass an area of approximately 87.49 acres. It is bounded by SR 531 (172nd St NE) on the north, the 84th Ave NE alignment on the east, the 168th St NE alignment on the south, and the 75th Ave NE alignment on the west. The Lindsay Subarea is subdivided into two development areas: •Pending Project Area: Properties assembled by MJS investors, and where development is anticipated to follow the Subarea Plan adoption. •Future Development Area: Properties within the Subarea that are outside of MJS land assembly. The timing and nature of development in this area remain uncertain. Exhibit 1. Top Takeaways – Lindsay Source: MAKERS, 2025. B-4 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 2 Land Use Regional Context and Location Lindsay is located in southeast Arington, Washington. Surrounding land uses includes low density residential, undeveloped forest lands, and open spaces. Unincorporated Snohomish County abuts Lindsay to the east and south. Arlington is bounded by Port Susan in the Puget Sound to the west, the Stillaguamish River to the north, and the Cascade Mountain Range to the east. Arlington is roughly 40 miles north of Seattle and 10 miles north of Everett, home to Snohomish County’s Paine Field Airport. According to the 2020 US Census, the city of Arlington’s population is roughly 20,000 people. The are currently 17 existing homes in the Linsay Subarea. The SR 531 (172nd St NE) and SR 9 provide local and regional connections across Arlington, and into neighboring cities. • Interstate 5 (I-5) to Mt Vernon, Burlington, Bellingham, and British Columbia to the north and Marysville, Everett, the Seattle area, Oregon, and California further south • State Route (SR) 530 eastward to Old Town Arlington, Darrington, and the Cascade Range • SR 531 west to Warm Beach and Port Susan on the Puget Sound • SR 9 to Lake Stevens, Bothell, and Bellevue The land is the traditional homeland of the Stillaguamish, Tulalip, Upper Skagit, Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Tribes, and falls within the Treaty of Point Elliott area. The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians owns the property to the east of Lindsay. The Stillaguamish Reservation is located north of the Stillaguamish River, about 1.5 miles northeast of the subarea. The Tulalip Indian Reservation is about 4 miles southwest of the subarea. B-5 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 Exhibit 2. Arlington Region Map Source: MAKERS, 2025 B-6 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 Subarea Context Lindsay is located at the south end of the Hilltop neighborhood. To the west and south, the Subarea is bordered by Snohomish County rural residential lands. This is similar in pattern to the existing land uses within Lindsay. The property to the east is owned by the Stillaguamish Tribe and is largely an undeveloped open space. Lindsay’s vital natural resources are the seasonal tributaries of Edgecomb Creek which flow through the site at two locations, the large ravine on the western portion of the site, and the wetlands distributed throughout the area. These conditions support a variety of habitats and animals that contribute to the area's ecological function and overall watershed health. There are existing subdivisions to the north, including Gleneagle and Northen Hilltop. These neighborhoods typically feature two-story single-family homes on lot sizes ranging from 7,000 to 8,000 square feet. Small parks and a golf course are interwoven in the neighborhood. Future development in Linsay is anticipated to mirror the development of nearby subdivisions. Exhibit 3. Lindsay Northward Perspective Map Source: MAKERS, 2025 B-7 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 Planning Context Arlington Comprehensive Plan The City’s Comprehensive Plan, was adopted in December 2024. As part of this process, the City collaborated with the community to establish a framework guiding future growth in the Hilltop area. The Subarea chapter of the Comprehensive Plan outlines the community’s vision for Hilltop, including the Lindsay Subarea, as follows: “In 2044 Hilltop has a diversity of housing types allowing all types of families to call this subarea home. Hilltop is home to many residents of Arlington and has entertainment and retail opportunities for the community”. Arlington in Motion 2024 & Beyond include goals and policies to ensure the subareas develop in a way that is consistent with the community’s visions to promote sustainable, equitable growth that will improve the City’s quality of life for generations to come. The following selected goals addressed in the Lindsay Subarea Plan includes: Economic Development E-1 Preserve and enhance open space, natural, and cultural resources and strive for equitable geographic and demographic distribution. E-5 Identify, protect, and enhance natural areas to foster resiliency to climate impacts, as well as areas of vital habitat for safe passage and species migration. Land Use LU-1 Provide unique places and context for the growth of social capital and community resiliency. LU-8 Ensure new services and facilities are provided within a reasonable time after the annexation of unincorporated Urban Growth Areas. LU-10 Future growth in the City will be accommodated and served consistent with the PSRC Regional Growth Strategy. 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. H-5 Encourage mixed-income and mixed-use neighborhoods. B-8 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 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.” AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans Ordinance No. 2023-016, adopted in November 2023, amended AMC 20.44.032, formerly titled Master Planned Neighborhood Development, which is now referred to as Subarea Plans. This amendment reflects the city’s current housing needs and emphasizes the importance of coordinated land development through a subarea planning process. The ordinance establishes specific requirements under the Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay. Key amendments to the municipal code include the following “(c) A subarea plan is typically developed to encompass the entire subarea, however under certain circumstances it may be developed to include only specific neighborhoods, corridors, downtown, or other types of special districts that show cohesive characteristics. The East Hill and Lindsay Annexation subareas shall be developed in their entirety. (d) As subarea plans are created, elements of form based code are proposed to be included to provide the community with a predictable design and development pattern that is customized for the specific area (e) Subarea plans are to be processed in conjunction with a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A planned action is a development project whose impacts have been identified and addressed through an EIS associated with the subarea plan for the specific geographical area before individual projects are proposed. A planned action involves detailed State Environmental Policy Act B-9 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 (SEPA) review and preparation of EIS documents in conjunction with subarea plans, consistent with RCW 43.21C.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) (B) Mixed-Use Development (vertical) (C) Multi-Family Apartments (D) Multi-Family Fourplex (E) Multi-Family Garden Apartments (F) Small Commercial iv. Fourth element shall be the location of Recreational Facilities, Open Space, and Trail System that consists of ten (10) percent of the total area of land, minus areas to be preserved as Native Growth Protection Areas (NGPA). (A) This designation shall include areas proposed to be dedicated to the city as public spaces. All dedicated parks shall be a minimum of two (2) acres in size and coordinated with the city prior to approval. (B) The trail system shall consist of a paved trail that connects the required sidewalk system and to all recreation facilities and open spaces. (4) The subarea plan shall show the location of each housing type listed above in the way of a subdivision layout. (5) The architectural design of the structures shall comply with the Development Design Standards pursuant to §20.46 Design. (6) The subarea plan shall show the conceptual infrastructure plans that include location, types, and sizes of streets, sewer, water, stormwater, etc. B-10 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 (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). “ Land Use Pattern s Existing Land Use Over the past two decades, while the greater Hilltop Subarea saw significant residential development, the Lindsay portion has seen no new development and retains much of its rural and agricultural character, partly due to its zoning prior to the City’s annexation. Lindsay’s current land uses are predominantly low-density residential. These single-family homes are interspersed within expansive open fields, wetlands, and forested areas. This development pattern is remnant of the area’s agricultural heritage. Lindsay currently lacks a connected street network, with 79th Ave NE serving as the primary internal roadway for existing residents, and parks or other recreational facilities. Within one mile of the Subarea is commercial, civic, and industrial hubs. Residential. North of the study area, the Gleneagle and Northern Hilltop neighborhoods consist mostly of single-family homes on lots ranging from 7,000 to 8,000 square feet. These established communities are interwoven with public parks, HOA mini- parks, and a private golf course. East of SR 9 is a growing subdivision with new single-family homes on 4,000 square feet lots, reflecting a shift toward more compact, yet still low-density, residential development. – Edgecomb, B-11 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 Consistent with the Hilltop Subarea vision, community members have expressed strong interest in shaping Lindsay as a residential hub. Together, these adjacent residential areas present an opportunity for the Lindsay Subarea to adopt compatible development forms and neighborhood design strategies that promote continuity and enhance connectivity. Surrounding rural lands. To the west and south, Lindsay is bordered by Snohomish County rural lands, which are primarily residential and similar in character with Lindsay. East of the study area are properties owned by the Stillaguamish Tribe. Future planning efforts must consider compatibility with these lands and seek to minimize potential land use conflicts. This will require updated zoning, and context-sensitive design standards to ensure development in Lindsay complements the surrounding rural context. Nearby supportive hubs. Lindsay benefits from proximity to key commercial, civic, and industrial hubs that support its evolution as a complete neighborhood: • Commercial: The intersection of SR 531 (172nd St NE ) and SR 9 is identified as a future commercial node, offering opportunities for retail, services, and community-focused businesses that can serve nearby residents and visitors. • Civic: Just northeast of Hilltop, at the intersection of Crown Ridge Blvd and SR 9, a cluster of civic institutions, including Pioneer Elementary School, Arlington High School, and the Byrnes Performing Arts Center. • Cascade Industrial Center (CIC): West of 67th Avenue NE lies the second-largest Manufacturing-Industrial Center in Snohomish County. The CIC includes resource- based manufacturing and processing facilities, as well as the Arlington Municipal Airport. These uses are key employment centers for the broader region and may attract family and working-age households to the Lindsay area, further supporting its residential development. Urban Form Lindsay’s character is shaped by its prior unincorporated Snohomish County rural residential zoning and agricultural legacy. The area maintains a rural character defined by low-density residential development, large open fields, and natural areas like forests and wetlands. Existing single-family homes are located on large lots and are typically set far back from the road, resulting in no or limited build-to-street relationship. This area is largely car-dependent, with limited pedestrian pathways, bicycle infrastructure, and transit. Roads serving homes in Lindsay lack sidewalks are unpaved and lack street lighting. The existing subdivisions to the north are screened from SR 531 (172nd St NE) with fences and street trees. Sidewalks along SR 531 (172nd St NE) are limited and exists only where adjacent to these subdivision developments, resulting in a sporadic and fragmented sidewalk network. B-12 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 Future Land Uses Zoning In 2022, Lindsay was annexed into the Hilltop Subarea under AMC 20.44.032, following the sewer plant expansion that enabled service to the area. As part of the adoption, the City proposed a zoning designation of Residential Ultra Low Capacity (RULC) with a Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) overlay to support the goals of the Growth Management Act. See Exhibit 4. Lindsay Zoning Map. Exhibit 4. Lindsay Zoning Map Source: City of Arlington, MAKERS 2025 RULC allows for 1-4 dwelling units per acre and primarily accommodates single-family homes on large lots, 9,600 square feet or more, and permitted building height up to 35’, or three stories tall (See Exhibit ). The intent of the MPN overlay is to promote a more coordinated, efficient, and effective land development. Section AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans provide more details about the specific policies and criteria to meet the provisions of AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans for MPN designated areas. B-13 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 Exhibit 5. RULC Density and Dimension Standards Zone Residential Ultra Low Capacity Minimum Lot Size (square feet) 9,600 or larger Minimum Residential Densities 1-4 Du/AC Minimum Lot Width (feet) 70 Building Setback Requirements –Minimum Distance, in feet from: Non-Arterial Street Right of Way Line Building 25 Freestanding Sign 10 Arterial Street Right of Way Line Building 40 Freestanding Sign 10 Rear Lot Boundary Line Building Primary – 20 Accessory – 5 Side Lot Boundary Line or Alley Building and Freestanding Sign 5 ECA Buffer 15 Height Limit (feet) 35 Max. Lot Coverage (%) 35 Source: AMC Chapter 20.48 Density and Dimensional Regulations. Airport Protection Subdistrict The majority of Lindsay lies within the Airport Protection Subdistrict C (See Exhibit ), which restricts uses that would interfere with airport and flight operations, limits building/structure heights to 166 feet, deters uses that increase bird impact problem, and does not limit residential or employment intensities. Noise Noise sources in and near Lindsay include typical neighborhood sounds, such as lawn equipment, children playing, car horns, sirens, and music played outdoors; roadway-related noise from vehicles’ tires hitting pavement and engine sounds, especially along SR 531 (172nd St NE); Arlington Municipal Airport-related air traffic noise; an indoor shooting range east of Lindsay; and a chicken farm south of Lindsay. Aircraft follow standard National B-14 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 Business Aircraft Association noise abatement procedures and are asked to be aware of noise sensitive areas. AMC 20.44.210 – Noise, pursuant to WAC Chapter 173-60, limits the maximum permissible noise level within a residential zone to 55 dBA, with limits reduced by 10 dBA between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am. Louder intermittent sounds are allowed with limits on their time (1.5 to 15 minutes depending on volume) in a one-hour period. Sounds generated from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity are exempt from this provision between the hours of 7:00am and 10:00pm, or when conducted beyond 1,000 feet from any residence. Motor vehicle and aircraft noise follow separate rules. AMC Chapter 9 – Peace, Morals and Safety and AMC Chapter 7 – Nuisances provide additional guidelines regarding allowable noise, violations, and exemptions. Noise must not rise to the level of public nuisance that disturbs a community or neighborhood. Variances may be approved subject to City approval. Homeowners’ associations may also enforce supplemental regulations. Exhibit 6. Noise levels near Lindsay Subarea Note: Map includes road and rail-related noise. Aviation noise data is not available. Source: National Transportation Noise Map, 2020 B-15 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 Exhibit 7. Arlington Municipal Airport Traffic Patterns Source: Traffic Patterns, City of Arlington, 2025 B-16 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 Housing Capacity The table below presents housing capacity to accommodate growth targets and projected housing needs in Arlington, as analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan and by PSRC. Recognizing Lindsay's redevelopment potential, the City identified the Subarea as a key opportunity area to accommodate housing growth. No significant job growth is anticipated in this area. To plan proactively, the City has analyzed a higher-end growth scenario in the Comprehensive Plan, reflecting a more aggressive pace of development to accommodate HB 1220 (housing needs by income) requirement and to concentrate growth near Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC) and high-capacity transit stations. As a result, the City’s Comprehensive Plan’s estimated housing capacity across the city is higher than PSRC’s estimates. Under the Comprehensive Plan, the City planned for the Lindsay Subarea to see about 85 net new housing units, for a total of 102 housing units, and significant growth within the broader Hilltop area, especially the southeastern corner. The PSRC growth target is not an alternative to be analyzed in this EIS, but included for information purposes only. In the Lindsay Subarea, it closely aligns with the intent for a subarea plan developed under the City’s Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay regulations, rather than the underlying ultra-low intensity residential zoning. Lindsay is part of the broader Hilltop geographic area—Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZes) 423, 424, and 441—for which housing capacity is modeled. Two TAZes extend beyond the Lindsay Subarea boundary, and the southeastern TAZ is critical to the Hilltop area as a whole, so the “Outside of Lindsay” area shows the housing capacity for that larger area excluding Lindsay. Exhibit 8. Lindsay Comprehensive Plan and PSRC Growth Targets for 2044 Existing Net New Housing 2044 Total Housing Units 2044 Comprehensive Plan PSRC1 Comprehensive Plan PSRC1 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 B-17 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 Existing Net New Housing 2044 Total Housing Units 2044 Comprehensive Plan PSRC1 Comprehensive Plan PSRC1 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 Source: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Forecasts 1 PSRC targets are included only for informational purposes. Exhibit 9. TAZ Growth Targets Model Map Source: MAKERS, 2025 Key Findings and Implication for Plan Assets •Zoning. The Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay provides an opportunity to increase residential density. The adoption of AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans provides guidance for land development, and when paired with regulatory updates, support community desired development patterns. •Nearby supportive hubs. Lindsay benefits from proximity to key commercial, civic, and industrial hubs that support its evolution as a complete neighborhood. The SR 531 B-18 Land Use, Development, and Design Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 (172nd St NE) and SR 9 provide local and regional connections across Arlington and into nearby towns and cities. •Opportunity for community serving uses. Additional commercial, service-oriented, and recreational opportunities can be incorporated to better meet community needs. Explore opportunities for private-public partnerships to support needed amenities, including civic and community spaces. •High-quality, efficient development. New homes and streetscape design can be functional, well designed, and integrated into the surrounding natural and built environment by, and not limited to, updating design standards, requiring green infrastructure and low impact development techniques, and promoting energy-efficient building practices Challenges •Housing target. The Subarea would not likely meet housing goals without the subarea planning efforts under the Master Planned Neighborhood overlay to reach desired densities and encourage more growth than the existing zoning. •Connectivity. This area is largely car-dependent, with limited pedestrian pathways, bicycle infrastructure, and transit. 79th Ave NE serves as the main access road within Lindsay, connecting many of the existing homes to SR 531 (172nd St NE). This road remains unpaved and lacks sidewalks and street lighting. As Lindsay develops, planned street networks should prioritize connectivity, safety and multimodal access. New streets are designed to support developments, improve mobility and non-motorized connectivity. B-19 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS INVESTORS PARCELS Prepared for: MJS Investors December 2024 Prepared by: 12131 113th Avenue NE, Suite 203 Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425-821-3665 Fax: 425-825-8434 www.transpogroup.com 1.24222.00 © 2024 Transpo Group B-20 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 i Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 2 Study Scope ........................................................................................................................... 2 Existing & Future Without-Project Conditions ..................................................................... 5 Street System ........................................................................................................................ 5 Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 6 Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................ 10 Traffic Safety ........................................................................................................................ 10 Project Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 12 Trip Generation .................................................................................................................... 12 Trip Distribution & Assignment ............................................................................................ 12 Traffic Volume Impact .......................................................................................................... 14 Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................ 16 Site Access .......................................................................................................................... 16 Mitigation ................................................................................................................................ 18 Transportation Mitigation Fees ............................................................................................ 18 Findings and Conclusions .................................................................................................... 19 Appendix Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: LOS Definitions Appendix C: LOS Worksheets Appendix D: Detailed Trip Generation List of Figures Figure 1. Site Vicinity & Study Intersections ....................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Preliminary Site Plan ........................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................. 7 Figure 4. Future (2024) Without-Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .......... 9 Figure 5. Weekday PM Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution & Assignment ..................... 13 Figure 6. Future (2029) With-Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............. 15 List of Tables Table 1. Existing and Future (2029) Without-Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary ............................................................................... 10 Table 2. Five-Year Collision Summary – 2019 to 2023 ................................................... 11 Table 3. Estimated Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation ................................................... 12 Table 4. Future (2029) Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Impacts at Study Intersections ...................................................................................................... 14 Table 5. Future (2029) Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary ................ 16 B-21 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 2 Introduction The purpose of this traffic impact analysis (TIA) is to identify potential transportation-related impacts to the surrounding street network associated with the development of the proposed MJS Investors Parcels development in Arlington, WA. Project Description The project site is located south of 172nd Street NE (State Route [SR] 531) west of SR 9 in Arlington (see Figure 1). The project is located within the Lindsay Sub area and constitutes the first phase of development within the planned area. The proposed project would consist of 177 single family homes. Access to the site is proposed via three access roads on 172nd Street NE: ·79th Avenue NE will be paved as part of the project’s construction process to provide access to the site. Full access will be permitted at 172nd Street NE. ·The main access road will be across from 80th Drive NE. The intersection with 172nd Street NE will be improved to provide a single-lane roundabout. ·A right-in/right-out access road at 172nd Street NE will be provided between 80th Drive NE and 85th Avenue NE. Figure 2 illustrates the preliminary site plan. It is anticipated that the development would be constructed and operating by the end of 2029. Study Scope The scope of this analysis is based on coordination with City staff and consistent with the City of Arlington’s Traffic Analysis Procedures & Checklist (Revised 10/2013). The following intersections were identified for study during the weekday PM peak hour by City staff: 1.67th Avenue NE/172nd Street NE (SR 531) 2.80th Drive NE-Project Access/172nd Street NE (SR 531) 3.SR 9/204th Street NE 4.SR 9/172nd Street NE (SR 531) A. West Project Access (79th Avenue NE)/172nd Street NE (SR 531) B. East Project Access/172nd Street NE (SR 531) The analysis includes a review of existing conditions in the vicinity of the project site, including the street network, non-motorized facilities, transit service, existing and future (2029) without- project peak hour traffic volumes, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Future (2029) with-project conditions are evaluated by adding site-generated traffic to future (2029) without-project volumes and were then compared to future (2029) without-project conditions to identify the relative impacts the proposed project has on the surrounding transportation system. B-22 Project Site Vicinity and Study Intersections Lindsay Sub Area FIGURE 1 Nov 25, 2024 - 12:42pm jeffreyc M:\24\1.24222.00 - Lindsay Sub Area\Graphics\DWG\Graphics_24222.dwg Layout: Site Vicinity 1 42 3 Site SR 531 (172ND ST NE) 67 T H A V E N E 204TH ST NE SR 9 EAGL E F I E L D D R 80 T H D R N E HU R N R D CEMETERY RD 67 T H A V E N E 85 T H A V E N E BU R N R D SR 9 Study Intersection LEGEND X B-23 Project Site Plan Lindsay Sub Area FIGURE 2 Dec 09, 2024 - 2:01pm jeffreyc M:\24\1.24222.00 - Lindsay Sub Area\Graphics\DWG\Graphics_24222.dwg Layout: Site Plan MJS Investors Parcels B-24 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 5 Existing & Future Without-Project Conditions This section describes existing and future (2029) without-project conditions within the study area. Study area characteristics are provided for the existing street network, existing and future without-project peak hour traffic volumes, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Street System The following describes the existing street network within the vicinity of the proposed project and any anticipated changes resulting from planned improvements. Existing Inventory Existing characteristics of 67th Avenue NE, 80th Drive NE, SR 9, 204th Street NE, and 172nd Street NE (SR 531) near the project site are described below. 67th Avenue NE is a 3-lane roadway classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. No parking or bike lanes are available. 80th Drive NE is a local road with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Sidewalks are provided in both sides of the roadway; however, no bike lanes are available. SR-9 is a highway with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour close to the project site. Current channelization along SR-9 is predominantly 2 lanes with turn lanes at major intersections. This is the primary north/south roadway connection near the project site. Sidewalks and bike lanes are not available close to the site. 204th Street NE is classified as an arterial, with a posted speed limit is 20 mph east of SR-9 and 35 mph west of SR-9. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. No bike lanes are available. 172nd Street NE (SR 531) is a highway of regional significance with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. The current channelization along 172nd Street NE is predominantly 2 lanes east of 67th Avenue NE. There are no sidewalks, bike lanes, or on-street parking available on both sides along 172nd Street NE east of 67th Avenue NE. Transit service in the study area is provided by Community Transit with service primarily along 172nd Street NE (SR 531) and Smokey Point Boulevard. The nearest bus stop to the project is located at Smokey Point Boulevard/172nd Street NE approximately 2.75 miles away and is served by routes 201 and 202. Routes 201 and 202 provide service between the Smokey Point Transit Center in Arlington and the Lynnwood Transit Center. Transit service for routes 201 and 202 is provided 7 days a week with AM and PM peak hour headways of approximately 40 minutes on weekdays and 60 minutes on weekends. Planned Improvements Based on a review of the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan’s Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (2024-2029) and Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 2024- 2027 Statewide Transportation Program (STIP), there are two planned roadway improvements in the study area, which include: · 172nd Street NE (SR 531) Widening, Phase I: Widening of 172nd Street NE (SR 531) from 43rd Avenue NE to 67th Avenue NE to a four-lane facility with two travel lanes in each direction. The improvement project would install roundabouts at the 51st Avenue NE, 59th Avenue NE, and 67th Avenue NE intersections along 172nd Street NE (SR 531). The project is completely funded by WSDOT with construction beginning in 2025 B-25 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 6 and completed in 2026. The roundabout at 67th Avenue NE & 172nd St NE is assumed as part of the future without-project analysis. · 172nd Street NE (SR 531) Widening, Phase II: Widening of 172nd Street NE (SR 531) between 67th Avenue NE and SR-9 to a four-lane facility with two travel lanes in each direction. The timing of this widening project is anticipated following the project’s 2029 opening year, such that this improvement was not assumed in the future analysis. Traffic Volumes The following summarizes the traffic volumes for existing and future without-project conditions. Existing Traffic Volumes Existing weekday PM peak period (4-6 p.m.) traffic counts were collected in June 2024 and November 2024. Figure 3 illustrates the existing weekday peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. Volumes are rounded to the nearest 5 vehicles to account for the daily fluctuations in traffic volumes. Detailed traffic counts are provided in Appendix A. B-26 Existing (2024) Peak Hour Volumes Lindsay Sub Area FIGURE 3 Nov 25, 2024 - 12:43pm jeffreyc M:\24\1.24222.00 - Lindsay Sub Area\Graphics\DWG\Graphics_24222.dwg Layout: Existing Vols 1 42 3 Site SR 531 (172ND ST NE) 67 T H A V E N E 204TH ST NE SR 9 EAGL E F I E L D D R 80 T H D R N E HU R N R D 67 T H A V E N E 85 T H A V E N E BU R N R D SR 9 SR 9 204th St NE 155 355 120 65 315 155 160 235 155 65 295 110 260 480 55 45 200 95 65 305 45 80 210 155 67th Ave NE SR 531 (172nd St NE) SR 9 SR 531 (172nd St NE) 95 95 280 185 385 5 15 60 20 30 370 110 80th Dr NE SR 531 (172nd St NE) 60 480 355 10 5 30 1 2 3 4 1 LEGEND Study Intersection X Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X B-27 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 8 Future Without-Project Traffic Volumes Future (2029) without-project PM peak hour traffic volumes were forecasted by applying an annual growth rate to existing traffic volumes and adding traffic from “pipeline” development projects that would also contribute traffic to study intersections. An annual growth rate of 2 percent was applied to existing study intersection traffic volumes to estimate 2029 horizon year background traffic growth, as coordinated with City of Arlington staff. Six pipeline projects were identified by the City to be included in the analysis which include: · The Allen Townhomes development would construct 43 single-family attached residential units on the north side of 172nd Street NE, east of SR 9. The project is anticipated to be constructed and occupied by 2028. · The Amber Grove development would construct 84 single-family attached residential units along the west side of SR-9, south of 204th Street NE and east of 74th Avenue NE. The project is anticipated to be constructed and occupied by 2028. · The Arlington Crossroads development would construct a shopping center, a gas station, and a coffee/donut shop with a drive-through. The project is located at the northeast corner of the SR 9/172nd Street NE intersection. The project was planned to be constructed and occupied by 2023 but has not yet been constructed as of December 2024. · The Harmony at Arlington development would construct 60 single-family townhomes. The project is located north of 204th Street NE on the west side of SR 9. The project is anticipated to be constructed and occupied by 2027. · The Wet Rabbit Car Wash development would construct a car wash at the southeast corner of the SR 9/204th Street NE intersection. The project is anticipated to be constructed and occupied by the end of 2025. · The Zahradnik development would construct 334 residential units with 51,500 square feet of commercial space. The project is located along the north side of 172nd Street NE between 85th Avenue NE and SR 9. The project is anticipated to be constructed and occupied by 2026. The forecast future (2029) without-project weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4. B-28 Future (2029) Without-Project Peak Hour Volumes Lindsay Sub Area FIGURE 1 Nov 25, 2024 - 12:43pm jeffreyc M:\24\1.24222.00 - Lindsay Sub Area\Graphics\DWG\Graphics_24222.dwg Layout: Baseline Vols 1 4 SR 9 204th St NE 180 415 150 95 370 205 205 280 175 80 345 130 295 605 60 50 225 125 90 400 65 105 235 175 67th Ave NE SR 531 (172nd St NE) SR 9 SR 531 (172nd St NE) 115 190 320 225 425 25 35 155 115 125 410 140 80th Dr NE SR 531 (172nd St NE) 65 650 500 10 5 35 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 Site SR 531 (172ND ST NE) 67 T H A V E N E 204TH ST NE SR 9 EAGL E F I E L D D R 80 T H D R N E HU R N R D 67 T H A V E N E 85 T H A V E N E BU R N R D SR 9 LEGEND Study Intersection X Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes X B-29 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 10 Traffic Operations The operational characteristics of an intersection are determined by calculating the intersection level of service (LOS). At signalized and roundabout intersections, LOS is measured in average control delay per vehicle and is typically reported using the intersection delay. At unsignalized side-street, stop-controlled intersections, LOS is measured by the average delay on the worst- movement of the intersection. Traffic operations and average vehicle delay for an intersection can be described qualitatively with a range of levels of service (LOS A through LOS F), with LOS A indicating free-flowing traffic and LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. Appendix B contains a detailed explanation of LOS criteria and definitions. For the operations analysis of existing conditions at the signalized study intersections, signal timing and phasing information was obtained from the WSDOT and City of Arlington. Future (2029) analysis parameters such as channelization was maintained with the exception of the planned roundabout installation at the 67th Avenue NE/172nd Street NE intersection as noted above as well as signal timing optimization of splits (cycle lengths and offsets were maintained along corridors). Weekday PM peak hour traffic operations for existing and future without-project conditions were evaluated at the study intersections based on the procedures identified in the Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition, unless otherwise noted for signal timing constraints, and were evaluated using Synchro 12. Synchro 12 is a software program that uses HCM methodology to evaluate intersection LOS and average vehicle delays. Roundabout controlled intersections were evaluated utilizing Sidra 9.1 and the WSDOT methodology for analyzing roundabouts. Results for the existing and future without-project operations analyses are summarized in Table 1. Detailed LOS worksheets for each intersection analysis are included in Appendix C. The City of Arlington and the WSDOT intersections have an LOS Standard of LOS D for the study area intersections. For the roundabout controlled intersections, a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio less than or equal to 0.90 is also generally targeted. Table 1. Existing and Future (2029) Without-Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary Intersection Traffic Control (Existing/Future) Existing Future 2029 Without-Project LOS1 Delay2 WM3 or v/c4 LOS Delay WM or v/c 1. SR 9/204th St NE Signal C 33 - D 44 - 2. 67th Ave NE/172nd St NE (SR 531) Signal/Roundabout5 D 47 - A 8 0.59 3. SR 9/172nd St NE (SR 531) Roundabout A 7 0.32 A 8 0.48 4. 80th Dr NE/172nd St NE (SR 531) TWSC C 20 SBL D 30 SBL Note: TWSC = two-way stop controlled. Bold indicates the intersection is operating below standard. 1. Level of Service (A – F) as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 7th Edition (TRB). 2. Average delay per vehicle in seconds. 3. Worst movement reported for two-way stop-controlled intersections. SBL = southbound left movement. 4. Volume to capacity ratio reported for roundabouts. 5. Roundabout with planned improvements. As shown in Table 1, all intersections operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour under both existing and future (2029) conditions, meeting the LOS standard. Traffic Safety Recent collision records were reviewed within the study area to identify existing traffic safety issues at the study intersections. The most recent complete five-year summary of accident data B-30 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 11 from the WSDOT is for the period between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2023. This information is summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Five-Year Collision Summary – 2019 to 2023 Number of Collisions Annual 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 1. SR 9/204th St NE 6 5 4 6 2 23 4.60 2. 67th Ave NE/172nd St NE (SR 531) 8 4 8 2 5 27 5.40 3. SR 9/172nd St NE (SR 531) 2 2 3 2 0 9 1.80 4. 80th Dr NE/172nd St NE (SR 531) 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.20 Source: WSDOT, 2024 Under 23 U.S. Code § 409 and 23 U.S. Code § 148, safety data, reports, surveys, schedules, lists compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data. As shown in Table 2, the study intersections had between 1 and 6 collisions reported per year on average during the review period. The collisions in the study area were primarily rear end collisions resulting in property damage only. One fatal collision was reported at the SR 9/204th St NE intersection, which involved a driver under the influence of alcohol striking 2 pedestrians. Additional non-fatal collisions involving a pedestrian or cyclist also occurred at SR 204th St NE and 67th Ave NE/SR 531. As identified above, there are planned SR 531 corridor improvements that will result in widening between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE, as well as implementing a roundabout at the 67th Ave NE/NE 172nd St intersection. These changes are anticipated to relieve congestion by adding capacity, which is a common cause of rear-end collisions. Additionally, studies have shown that roundabouts result in reductions in the overall severity of collision relative to traditional signalized intersections. These reductions are achieved through lower travel speeds through roundabouts, yielding behavior of roundabouts, and one-way travel. As such, it is anticipated that the collision rate would improve at 67th Ave NE/NE 172nd St in the future. There are no current improvements planned at the SR 9/204th St NE intersection. B-31 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 12 Project Impacts This section of the report documents the proposed project’s impacts on the surrounding street network and study intersections. First, estimated traffic volumes generated by the proposed project are distributed and assigned to adjacent streets and intersections within the study area for the weekday PM peak hour study period. Next, project trips are added to future without- project traffic volumes and any potential impact to traffic operations. Site specific items are also discussed. Trip Generation Trip generation for the proposed project was calculated based on trip rates using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). ITEs Single- Family Detached Housing (LU #215) was assumed for the proposed project. There is no existing use on the proposed site. Table 3 shows the weekday vehicle trips generated by the proposed project. The detailed trip generation calculations are included in Appendix D. Table 3. Estimated Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation Size Daily Trips PM Peak Hour Land Use1 In Out Total Proposed Single-Family Detached Housing (LU #210) 177 du 1,706 105 61 166 Net New Total 1,706 105 61 166 Note: du = dwelling units, sf = square feet 1. Average trip rates and equations from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021). As shown in Table 3, the proposed project is estimated to generate 1,706 weekday daily trips with 166 occurring in the PM peak hour. Trip Distribution & Assignment Trip distribution patterns developed for the project were based on existing travel patterns and coordination with City of Arlington staff. Figure 5 illustrates the vehicle trip distribution and assignment for the proposed project. B-32 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Lindsay Sub Area FIGURE 5 Dec 06, 2024 - 8:04pm jeffreyc M:\24\1.24222.00 - Lindsay Sub Area\Graphics\DWG\Graphics_24222.dwg Layout: Trip Dist 5 3 1 42 3 Site SR 531 (172ND ST NE) 67 T H A V E N E 204TH ST NE SR 9 EAGL E F I E L D D R 80 T H D R N E HU R N R D CEMETERY RD 85 T H A V E N E BU R N R D SR 9 67 T H A V E N E 35% 5% 11% 8% 8% 13% 4% 1% 9% 6% 4 2 7 12 1 1 5 8 8 14 5 8 3 6 10 6 37 21Study Intersection Site Access X Project Trips Trip Distribution LEGEND X X XX% B-33 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 14 Traffic Volume Impact The assigned project generated traffic was added to the future without-project weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections under future 2029 conditions. The future (2029) with-project weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 6. Table 4 summarizes the project share of traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday PM peak hour under the future 2029 conditions. Table 4. Future (2029) Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Impacts at Study Intersections PM Peak Hour Total Entering Vehicles Intersection 2029 Without- Project Project Trips 2024 With- Project Project Share 1. SR 9/204th St NE 2,565 48 2,613 1.8% 2. 67th Ave NE/172nd St NE (SR 531) 2,430 27 2,457 1.1% 3. SR 9/172nd St NE (SR 531) 2,281 130 2,411 5.4% 4. 80th Dr NE/172nd St NE (SR 531) 1,265 142 1,407 10.1% As shown in Table 4, the proposed project is estimated to account for less than 6 percent of the total weekday PM peak hour traffic at the majority of study intersections, with the exception of the central site access at 80th Dr NE/172nd St NE, where the proposed project is estimated to account for approximately 10% of the total weekday PM peak hour traffic. Traffic volumes fluctuate day-to-day and the anticipated traffic increase at study intersections are within the range of typical daily traffic fluctuations. B-34 Future (2029) With-Project Peak Hour Volumes Lindsay Sub Area FIGURE 6 Dec 09, 2024 - 1:46pm jeffreyc M:\24\1.24222.00 - Lindsay Sub Area\Graphics\DWG\Graphics_24222.dwg Layout: WP Vols 1 4 SR 9 204th St NE 180 395 158 100 378 195 203 265 175 75 359 130 295 617 60 50 225 129 92 407 66 106 235 175 67th Ave NE SR 531 (172nd St NE) SR 9 SR 531 (172nd St NE) 139 193 341 262 425 25 35 160 115 125 410 180 80th Dr NE SR 531 (172nd St NE) 65 670 4 2 34 59 523 10 5 35 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 Site SR 531 (172ND AVE NE) 67 T H A V E N E 204TH ST NE SR 9 EAGL E F I E L D D R 80 T H D R N E HU R N R D 67 T H A V E N E 85 T H A V E N E BU R N R D SR 9 A B West Access (79th Ave NE) SR 531 (172nd St NE) 734 4 11 5 23 537 East Access SR 531 (172nd St NE) 699 15 9 597 5 6 A B Study Intersection Site Access X Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes LEGEND X X B-35 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 16 Traffic Operations The following section summarizes the future with-project LOS at the study intersections relative to the without-project conditions to identify project-related impacts. Intersection parameters such as channelization and intersection control applied to the future with-project analyses were consistent with those used in the evaluation of future without-project conditions. A comparison of the future (2029) without-project and with-project weekday PM peak hour traffic operations are summarized in Table 5. Detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Table 5. Future (2029) Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary Intersection Traffic Control (Future/With- Project) Future 2029 Without-Project Future 2029 With-Project LOS1 Delay2 WM3 or v/c4 LOS Delay WM or v/c 1. SR 9/204th St NE Signal D 44 - D 47 - 2. 67th Ave NE/172nd St NE (SR 531) Roundabout A 8 0.59 A 8 0.59 3. SR 9/172nd St NE (SR 531) Roundabout A 8 0.48 B 11 0.61 4. 80th Dr NE/172nd St NE (SR 531) TWSC /Roundabout5 D 30 SBL A 6 0.68 . West Access (79th Ave NE)/172nd St NE (SR 531) TWSC - - - C 17 NB B. East Access/172nd St NE (SR 531)TWSC - - - B 14 NB Note: TWSC = two-way stop-controlled. Bold indicates the intersection is operating below standard. 1. Level of Service (A – F) as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 7th Edition (TRB) 2. Average delay per vehicle in seconds. 3. Worst movement reported for two-way stop-controlled intersections. SBL = southbound left movement. 4. Volume to capacity ratio reported for roundabouts. 5. Single-lane roundabout assumed at project completion. As shown in Table 5, all study intersections continue functioning at an acceptable LOS under with-project conditions with increases in delay of 3 seconds or less. All roundabouts that are planned to be completed by 2029 function with an acceptable v/c ratio below 0.90. Site Access Access to the site is proposed via three driveways on the south side of 172nd Street NE. Full access on the western end of the site would be created along the existing 79th Ave NE, which would be paved as part of the project. A central access would be created as a south leg at the 80th Drive NE/172nd Street NE intersection, and a roundabout is planned at this intersection as part of this project. A third access point would be constructed at the east end of the site. This east access would be right in/right out access only. The future (2029) with-project weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes at the site access are shown in Figure 7 which are assumed for the analysis. The traffic operations at the proposed project’s site accesses are reviewed below. Traffic Operations As noted above, the west site access is assumed and evaluated as a full access driveway, while the east site access is assumed and evaluated as a right in/right out access only. The operations as summarized in Table 5 above show the west site access functioning at LOS C with 17 seconds of delay, and the east site access would function at LOS B with 14 seconds of delay. 80th Drive NE-Project Access/172nd Street Roundabout Upon project completion, a roundabout is planned to be constructed at the 80th Drive NE/172nd Street intersection to provide full access. The roundabout will be constructed to have B-36 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 17 one circulating lane, along with one inbound and outbound lane in each direction at the project opening. Widening of 172nd Street to a 4-lane roadway is planned to be constructed after the project’s estimated completion date of 2029. Frontage improvements will reflect the ultimate configuration of the roundabout as much as feasible to minimize the scope of reconstruction when the SR 531 Phase II improvements are constructed. B-37 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 18 Mitigation The project impacts to the surrounding transportation system would be mitigated through the City of Arlington, Snohomish County and WSDOT impact fee programs. Transportation Mitigation Fees To mitigate impacts of the proposal on the surrounding transportation system, the developer would be required to pay impact fees to three jurisdictions: the City of Arlington, Snohomish County, and WSDOT based on current interlocal agreements that have been established between these entities. The following provides an estimate only, the final fees will be calculated at time of permit issuance. City of Arlington The City of Arlington traffic mitigation fees are currently $3,355 per PM peak hour trip. Based on the anticipated trip generation of 166 primary trips the resulting City of Arlington impact fee would be $556,930 ($3,355/trip x 166 trips). The fee rate is subject to annual increases and will be based on the adopted rates at the time of building permit issuance. Snohomish County Snohomish County has an interlocal agreement with the City of Arlington. Per the Snohomish County Traffic Worksheet and Traffic Study Requirements for Developments in the City of Arlington, the percentage of trips impacting County Streets was determined to be 70 percent. Per SCC 30.66B.330 the fee for residential uses within the urban growth area of TSA A is $185 per average daily trip (ADT). The resulting fee was estimated to be approximately $220,927 (70% x 1,706 ADT x $185 per ADT). The fee rate is subject to annual increases and will be based on the adopted rates at the time of building permit issuance. WSDOT Per the interlocal agreement with WSDOT, project-related impacts can be mitigated through the payment of a flat fee of $36 per ADT or a proportional share based on the WSDOT projects currently planned. Based on the project distribution, the project would impact the WSDOT projects on 172nd Street NE (SR 531); however, those projects have been identified as funded. As such no impact fees would be paid to WSDOT. B-38 Traffic Impact Analysis MJS Investors Parcels December 2024 19 Findings and Conclusions This transportation impact analysis summarizes the transportation impacts associated with the proposed MJS Investors Parcels development in Arlington, WA. · The proposed project would consist of 177 single family homes and is estimated to generate 1,706 weekday daily trips with 166 occurring in the PM peak hour. · Upon project completion, a roundabout is planned to be constructed at the 80th Drive NE/172nd Street intersection to provide full access. The roundabout will be constructed to have one circulating lane, along with one inbound and outbound lane in each direction at the project opening. Widening of 172nd Street to a 4-lane roadway is planned to be constructed after the project’s estimated completion date of 2029. Frontage improvements will reflect the ultimate configuration of the roundabout as much as feasible to minimize the scope of reconstruction when the SR 531 Phase II improvements are constructed. · Under future (2029) with-project PM peak hour conditions, all study intersections continue functioning at an acceptable LOS under with-project conditions with increases in delay of 3 seconds or less. Access to the site is proposed via three driveways on the south side of 172nd Street NE. All driveways are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS. · The developer would be required to pay transportation mitigation fees. The mitigation fees are estimated to total $777,857 (including both Arlington and Snohomish County). The final fees are calculated at the time of building permit issuance. B-39 Appendix A: Traffic Counts B-40 Right 56 PHF HV 94 0.81 1.2%Right 0.88 3.1% 0.97 1.9% 0.88 5.8% 0.95 2.9% PHF = Peak Hour Factor HV = Heavy Vehicles 478 Bicycles = 0 Pe d s C r o s s i n g W e s t L e g = 0 Peds Crossing South Leg = 0Intersection SB Total = 448 Right Thru Left U-Turn PEAK HOUR SUMMARY 199 SB Total TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM Bicycles = 0 Heavy Vehicles = 4 331Approach SB Approach U-Turn Left Thru Right Thru Left Count Period Heavy Vehicles = 14 45 304 64 Bi c y c l e s = 0 WB T o t a l = 4 1 3 Pe d s C r o s s i n g E a s t L e g = 1 U-Turn EB Total He a v y V e h i c l e s = 2 4 Intersection 67th Avenue NE @ 172nd Street NE WB Approach 67 t h A v e n u e N E 172nd Street NE U-Turn Left Thru 0 503 260 0 654 EB Approach 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 0.95 2.9% 1992 NB Approach Bi c y c l e s = 0 EB T o t a l = 7 9 4 He a v y V e h i c l e s = 1 5 NB Total = 337 Arlington, WA WB Total 0 44 Date Time Tue 11/12/2024 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM 67 t h A v e n u e N E Peak Hour Volume PHF HV 172nd Street NE Peds Crossing North Leg = 0 NB Total 504822111550 B-41 LOCATION:67th Avenue NE @ 172nd Street NE TDG Arlington, WA 11/14/2024 DURATION OF COUNT (Hrs):2 TIME INTERVAL INTERVAL ENDING TOTALS AT 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 HV U-Turn Left Thru Right 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 0 0 14 0 82 211 155 0 0 4 0 44 199 94 1 0 24 0 64 304 45 0 0 15 0 260 478 56 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 1992 % HV 3.1%1.2%5.8%1.9%2.9% HV = Heavy Vehicle PHF = Peak Hour Factor 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 HV U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 14 0 82 211 155 0 0 4 0 44 199 94 1 0 24 0 64 304 45 0 0 15 0 260 478 56 1992 4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 13 0 82 195 158 0 0 4 0 43 188 103 3 0 22 0 46 280 46 0 0 15 0 267 489 60 1957 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 11 0 81 190 158 0 0 1 0 38 171 93 3 0 20 0 45 271 49 0 0 14 0 273 514 60 1943 4:45 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 11 0 69 166 170 0 0 4 0 34 155 80 3 0 18 0 47 258 47 0 0 15 0 269 527 61 1883 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 13 0 64 146 176 0 0 4 0 25 144 72 2 0 14 0 38 261 42 0 0 15 0 266 526 61 1821 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Total:0 0 27 0 146 357 331 0 0 8 0 69 343 166 3 0 38 0 102 565 87 0 0 30 0 526 1004 117 3813 172nd Street NE ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM NORTH ON (Southbound)FROM SOUTH ON (Northbound)FROM EAST ON (Westbound)FROM WEST ON (Eastbound) 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR:4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 67th Avenue NE 67th Avenue NE 172nd Street NE 0.95 448 337 413 0.88 0.81 0.88 0.97PEAK HOUR FACTOR PEAK HOUR TOTALS 67th Avenue NE 67th Avenue NE 794 COUNTED BY: DATE OF REDUCTION: INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET 172nd Street NE172nd Street NE FROM NORTH ON (Southbound)FROM SOUTH ON (Northbound)FROM EAST ON (Westbound)FROM WEST ON (Eastbound) DATE OF COUNT:Tue. 11/12/2024 START OF COUNT:4:00 PM TIME OF COUNT:4:00 PM - 6:00 PM B-42 80TH DR NE 80TH DR NE172ND ST NE 172ND ST NE (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location:1 80TH DR NE & 172ND ST NE PM Thursday, June 27, 2024Date: Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Motorized Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in CrosswalkHeavy Vehicles Peak Hour Peak Hour:04:00 PM - 05:00 PM Peak 15-Minutes:04:30 PM - 04:45 PM 36 71 368 488 00 541 386 0.93 N S EW 0.82 0.93 0.00 0.90 (126)(82) (738) (954) (784) (1,044) ()() 30 06 12 356 0 0 482 59 0 0 0 0 0 00 172ND ST NE 172ND ST NE 80TH DR NE 80TH DR NE 0 0 0 0 N S EW 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 00 0 2 N S EW 0 0 0 0 0 00 Interval Start Time RightLeft Thru Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound U-Turn Rolling HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn 4:00 PM 9450 13 110 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 2 0 2210007 4:15 PM 9400 17 118 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 1 0 23505010 4:30 PM 9370 17 134 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 1 0 2530404 4:45 PM 9180 12 120 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 2 0 2360309 5:00 PM 9190 6 109 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 1 0 21603010 5:15 PM 0 14 119 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 3 0 2320106 5:30 PM 0 14 118 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 2 0 23402010 5:45 PM 0 12 111 0 0 97 0 0 0 0 3 0 23703011 Count Total 0 105 939 0 0 717 0 0 0 0 15 0 1,864021067 Peak Hour 0 59 482 0 0 356 0 0 0 0 6 0 945012030 HV% PHF 0.90 0.93 0.00 0.82 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.93 EB WB NB SB All Heavy VehiclesInterval Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 1 0 1 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 1 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 3 0 3 Peak Hour 0 0 2 0 2 Bicycles on RoadwayInterval Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 B-43 Right 120 PHF HV 157 0.94 2.6%Right 0.92 3.4% 0.82 1.6% 0.93 1.6% 0.95 2.2% PHF = Peak Hour Factor HV = Heavy Vehicles 356 Bicycles = 0 Pe d s C r o s s i n g W e s t L e g = 0 Peds Crossing South Leg = 7Intersection SB Total = 465 Right Thru Left U-Turn PEAK HOUR SUMMARY 316 SB Total TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM Bicycles = 0 Heavy Vehicles = 14 575Approach SB Approach U-Turn Left Thru Right Thru Left Count Period Heavy Vehicles = 16 155 233 161 Bi c y c l e s = 0 WB T o t a l = 5 4 9 Pe d s C r o s s i n g E a s t L e g = 1 U-Turn EB Total He a v y V e h i c l e s = 9 Intersection SR-9 @ 204th Street NE WB Approach SR - 9 204th Street NE U-Turn Left Thru 0 409 154 1 576 EB Approach 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 0.95 2.2% 2185 NB Approach Bi c y c l e s = 0 EB T o t a l = 6 3 1 He a v y V e h i c l e s = 1 0 NB Total = 540 Arlington, WA WB Total 0 67 Date Time Tue 11/12/2024 4:00 PM - 6:00 PMSR - 9 Peak Hour Volume PHF HV 204th Street NE Peds Crossing North Leg = 4 NB Total 625632941080 B-44 LOCATION:SR-9 @ 204th Street NE TDG Arlington, WA 11/14/2024 DURATION OF COUNT (Hrs):2 TIME INTERVAL INTERVAL ENDING TOTALS AT 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 HV U-Turn Left Thru Right 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 0 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 16 444 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 4 0 16 0 63 294 108 7 0 14 0 67 316 157 1 0 9 0 161 233 155 0 0 10 1 154 356 120 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 2185 % HV 3.4%2.6%1.6%1.6%2.2% HV = Heavy Vehicle PHF = Peak Hour Factor 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 HV U-Turn Left Thru Right 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 1 154 356 120 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 1 138 352 131 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 0 140 351 118 2060 4:45 PM - 5:45 PM 1 0 9 0 54 270 90 7 0 4 0 59 316 152 0 0 6 0 140 203 137 0 0 2 0 123 308 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 0 104 324 84 1847 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Total:4 0 22 0 117 539 195 9 0 14 0 118 609 293 1 0 12 0 292 453 273 0 0 16 1 258 680 204 4032 204th Street NE ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM NORTH ON (Southbound)FROM SOUTH ON (Northbound)FROM EAST ON (Westbound)FROM WEST ON (Eastbound) 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR:4:00 PM - 5:00 PM SR-9 SR-9 204th Street NE 0.95 465 540 549 0.92 0.94 0.93 0.82PEAK HOUR FACTOR PEAK HOUR TOTALS SR-9 SR-9 631 COUNTED BY: DATE OF REDUCTION: INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET 204th Street NE204th Street NE FROM NORTH ON (Southbound)FROM SOUTH ON (Northbound)FROM EAST ON (Westbound)FROM WEST ON (Eastbound) DATE OF COUNT:Tue. 11/12/2024 START OF COUNT:4:00 PM TIME OF COUNT:4:00 PM - 6:00 PM B-45 Right 278 PHF HV 6 0.92 4.8%Right 0.90 2.1% 0.89 2.4% 0.84 1.0% 0.97 3.1% PHF = Peak Hour Factor HV = Heavy Vehicles 1 187 Date Time Tue 11/12/2024 4:00 PM - 6:00 PMSR - 9 Peak Hour Volume PHF HV 172nd Street NE Peds Crossing North Leg = 0 NB Total 499303711110 SR-9 @ 172nd Street NE WB Approach SR - 9 172nd Street NE U-Turn Left Thru 0 360 95 0 130 EB Approach 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 0.97 3.1% 1654 NB Approach Bi c y c l e s = 0 EB T o t a l = 4 6 6 He a v y V e h i c l e s = 1 1 NB Total = 579 Arlington, WA WB Total U-Turn Left Thru Right Thru Left Count Period Heavy Vehicles = 11 18 62 16 Bi c y c l e s = 1 WB T o t a l = 9 7 Pe d s C r o s s i n g E a s t L e g = 0 U-Turn EB Total He a v y V e h i c l e s = 1 Intersection PEAK HOUR SUMMARY 386 SB Total TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM Bicycles = 0 Heavy Vehicles = 28 665Approach SB Approach 93 Bicycles = 0 Pe d s C r o s s i n g W e s t L e g = 0 Peds Crossing South Leg = 0Intersection SB Total = 512 Right Thru Left U-Turn B-46 LOCATION:SR-9 @ 172nd Street NE TDG Arlington, WA 11/14/2024 DURATION OF COUNT (Hrs):2 TIME INTERVAL INTERVAL ENDING TOTALS AT 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 HV U-Turn Left Thru Right 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 0 0 11 0 30 371 111 0 0 28 0 187 386 6 0 1 1 1 16 62 18 0 0 11 0 95 93 278 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 1654 % HV 2.1%4.8%1.0%2.4%3.1% HV = Heavy Vehicle PHF = Peak Hour Factor 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 HV U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 11 0 30 371 111 0 0 28 0 187 386 6 0 1 1 1 16 62 18 0 0 11 0 95 93 278 1654 4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 0 1 7 0 27 355 116 0 0 30 0 186 386 4 0 1 0 0 12 46 22 0 0 7 0 100 94 280 1628 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 0 1 8 0 25 335 115 0 0 26 0 184 366 7 0 1 0 0 10 45 18 0 0 7 0 112 100 274 1591 4:45 PM - 5:45 PM 0 1 7 0 25 320 110 0 0 19 0 184 355 8 0 0 2 0 3 38 25 0 0 6 0 123 107 227 1525 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 0 1 5 1 18 286 105 0 0 15 0 179 334 12 0 0 2 0 2 38 22 0 0 7 0 126 103 214 1440 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Total:0 1 16 1 48 657 216 0 0 43 0 366 720 18 0 1 3 1 18 100 40 0 0 18 0 221 196 492 3094 COUNTED BY: DATE OF REDUCTION: INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET 172nd Street NE172nd Street NE FROM NORTH ON (Southbound)FROM SOUTH ON (Northbound)FROM EAST ON (Westbound)FROM WEST ON (Eastbound) DATE OF COUNT:Tue. 11/12/2024 START OF COUNT:4:00 PM TIME OF COUNT:4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR FACTOR PEAK HOUR TOTALS SR-9 SR-9 466 0.97 512 579 97 0.90 0.92 0.84 0.89 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR:4:00 PM - 5:00 PM SR-9 SR-9 172nd Street NE 172nd Street NE ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM NORTH ON (Southbound)FROM SOUTH ON (Northbound)FROM EAST ON (Westbound)FROM WEST ON (Eastbound) B-47 Appendix B: LOS Definitions B-48 Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition Signalized intersection level of service (LOS) is defined in terms of a weighted average control delay for the entire intersection. Control delay quantifies the increase in travel time that a vehicle experiences due to the traffic signal control as well as provides a surrogate measure for driver discomfort and fuel consumption. Signalized intersection LOS is stated in terms of average control delay per vehicle (in seconds) during a specified time period (e.g., weekday PM peak hour). Control delay is a complex measure based on many variables, including signal phasing and coordination (i.e., progression of movements through the intersection and along the corridor), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes with respect to intersection capacity and resulting queues. Table 1 summarizes the LOS criteria for signalized intersections, as described in the Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2022). Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (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) F1 >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 F1 >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2022, respectively. 1. If the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio exceeds 1.0, LOS F is assigned an individual lane group for all unsignalized intersections, or minor street approach at two-way stop-controlled intersections. Overall intersection LOS is determined solely by control delay. B-49 Appendix C: LOS Worksheets B-50 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Lindsay Sub Area 1: SR 9 & 204th St NE Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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/ln 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/ln 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/ln 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. B-51 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Lindsay Sub Area 2: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St NE)Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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/ln 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/ln4.4 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 (Gmax), s30.5 55.1 20.5 35.1 30.5 55.1 20.5 35.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.8 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 B-52 MOVEMENT SUMMARY 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 Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of Queue Mov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: SR 9 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 East: 172nd St NE 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 specif ied 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 (Akçelik 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 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Monday, November 25, 2024 1:01:46 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00 - Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\67th_531 RAB.sip9 B-53 HCM 7th TWSC Lindsay Sub Area 4: SR 531 (172nd St NE) & 80th Dr NE Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 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 Major1 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 B-54 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Lindsay Sub Area 1: SR 9 & 204th St NE Future (2029) Without-Project PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 180 395 150 195 265 175 95 370 190 75 345 130 Future Volume (veh/h) 180 395 150 195 265 175 95 370 190 75 345 130 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 189 416 158 205 279 184 100 389 200 79 363 137 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 223 444 371 240 468 390 126 445 229 102 692 582 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.06 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1562 1781 1870 1560 1767 1150 591 1767 1856 1562 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 189 416 158 205 279 184 100 0 589 79 363 137 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1562 1781 1870 1560 1767 0 1742 1767 1856 1562 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.3 23.7 9.3 12.2 14.3 10.9 6.1 0.0 34.1 4.8 16.6 6.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.3 23.7 9.3 12.2 14.3 10.9 6.1 0.0 34.1 4.8 16.6 6.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 223 444 371 240 468 390 126 0 674 102 692 582 V/C Ratio(X)0.85 0.94 0.43 0.86 0.60 0.47 0.79 0.00 0.87 0.78 0.52 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 424 445 372 418 468 390 252 0 943 252 1005 846 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.5 40.7 35.2 46.0 35.9 34.7 49.7 0.0 30.9 50.6 26.6 23.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.5 27.6 0.9 8.5 2.3 1.1 10.5 0.0 7.8 11.9 0.9 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.5 14.2 3.6 6.0 6.8 4.2 3.0 0.0 15.4 2.5 7.4 2.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 55.0 68.3 36.1 54.5 38.2 35.7 60.2 0.0 38.8 62.5 27.5 23.7 LnGrp LOS E E D D D D E D E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 763 668 689 579 Approach Delay, s/veh 58.3 42.5 41.9 31.4 Approach LOS E D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.8 48.2 19.1 30.7 12.3 46.6 17.7 32.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 6.1 4.5 * 4.9 4.5 6.1 4.1 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.5 58.9 25.5 * 26 15.5 58.9 25.9 25.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.8 36.1 14.2 25.7 8.1 18.6 13.3 16.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 6.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 4.4 0.4 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 44.4 HCM 7th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. B-55 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2 [2. SR 531/67th Avenue NE (Site Folder: Baseline 2029)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Future (2029) Without-Project PM Peak Hour Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of Queue Mov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: 67th Ave NE 3 L2 All MCs 53 1.0 53 1.0 0.574 13.6 LOS B 3.2 80.6 0.74 0.88 0.91 33.0 8 T1 All MCs 237 1.0 237 1.0 0.574 8.3 LOS A 3.2 80.6 0.74 0.88 0.91 33.7 18 R2 All MCs 132 1.0 132 1.0 0.574 8.4 LOS A 3.2 80.6 0.74 0.88 0.91 33.3 Approach 421 1.0 421 1.0 0.574 9.0 LOS A 3.2 80.6 0.74 0.88 0.91 33.5 East: SR 531 (172nd St NE) 1 L2 All MCs 95 6.0 95 6.0 0.308 13.3 LOS B 1.8 48.2 0.69 0.69 0.69 32.5 6 T1 All MCs 421 6.0 421 6.0 0.308 7.5 LOS A 2.0 53.1 0.69 0.65 0.69 33.7 16 R2 All MCs 68 6.0 68 6.0 0.308 7.0 LOS A 2.0 53.1 0.69 0.63 0.69 33.8 Approach 584 6.0 584 6.0 0.308 8.4 LOS A 2.0 53.1 0.69 0.65 0.69 33.5 North: 67th Ave NE 7 L2 All MCs 111 3.0 111 3.0 0.588 12.1 LOS B 3.2 82.4 0.61 0.75 0.71 33.3 4 T1 All MCs 247 3.0 247 3.0 0.588 6.8 LOS A 3.2 82.4 0.61 0.75 0.71 34.0 14 R2 All MCs 184 3.0 184 3.0 0.588 6.9 LOS A 3.2 82.4 0.61 0.75 0.71 33.7 Approach 542 3.0 542 3.0 0.588 7.9 LOS A 3.2 82.4 0.61 0.75 0.71 33.8 West: SR 531 (172nd St NE) 5 L2 All MCs 311 2.0 311 2.0 0.455 12.4 LOS B 3.1 79.5 0.70 0.69 0.70 32.2 2 T1 All MCs 637 2.0 637 2.0 0.455 6.6 LOS A 3.4 85.9 0.68 0.62 0.68 33.8 12 R2 All MCs 63 2.0 63 2.0 0.455 6.3 LOS A 3.4 85.9 0.68 0.60 0.68 33.9 Approach 1011 2.0 1011 2.0 0.455 8.4 LOS A 3.4 85.9 0.69 0.64 0.69 33.3 All Vehicles 2558 3.0 2558 3.0 0.588 8.4 LOS A 3.4 85.9 0.68 0.71 0.73 33.5 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specif ied 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 (Akçelik 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 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Monday, November 25, 2024 1:17:24 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00 - Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\67th_531 RAB.sip9 B-56 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 3 [3. SR 9/SR 531 (Site Folder: Baseline 2029)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Future (2029) Without-Project PM Peak Hour Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of Queue Mov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: SR 9 3 L2 All MCs 232 5.0 232 5.0 0.273 12.3 LOS B 1.4 36.2 0.56 0.71 0.56 31.7 8 T1 All MCs 438 5.0 438 5.0 0.431 6.2 LOS A 2.7 69.9 0.62 0.58 0.62 34.4 18 R2 All MCs 26 5.0 26 5.0 0.431 6.3 LOS A 2.7 69.9 0.62 0.58 0.62 34.0 Approach 696 5.0 696 5.0 0.431 8.2 LOS A 2.7 69.9 0.60 0.62 0.60 33.4 East: 172nd St NE 1u U All MCs 1 1.0 1 1.0 0.376 15.1 LOS B 1.8 45.8 0.64 0.70 0.66 33.7 1 L2 All MCs 36 1.0 36 1.0 0.376 12.6 LOS B 1.8 45.8 0.64 0.70 0.66 33.7 6 T1 All MCs 160 1.0 160 1.0 0.376 6.8 LOS A 1.8 45.8 0.64 0.70 0.66 34.3 16 R2 All MCs 119 1.0 119 1.0 0.376 6.6 LOS A 1.8 45.8 0.64 0.70 0.66 34.1 Approach 315 1.0 315 1.0 0.376 7.4 LOS A 1.8 45.8 0.64 0.70 0.66 34.2 North: SR 9 7 L2 All MCs 129 2.0 129 2.0 0.478 11.9 LOS B 3.0 76.7 0.60 0.61 0.60 33.4 4 T1 All MCs 423 2.0 423 2.0 0.478 6.1 LOS A 3.0 76.7 0.60 0.61 0.60 34.0 14 R2 All MCs 144 2.0 144 2.0 0.192 6.7 LOS A 0.9 21.8 0.52 0.62 0.52 34.7 Approach 696 2.0 696 2.0 0.478 7.3 LOS A 3.0 76.7 0.59 0.61 0.59 34.0 West: SR 531 5 L2 All MCs 119 2.0 119 2.0 0.364 12.9 LOS B 2.2 56.4 0.69 0.69 0.69 32.8 2 T1 All MCs 196 2.0 196 2.0 0.364 7.1 LOS A 2.2 56.4 0.69 0.69 0.69 33.4 12 R2 All MCs 330 2.0 330 2.0 0.332 6.7 LOS A 2.1 53.4 0.68 0.65 0.68 34.4 Approach 644 2.0 644 2.0 0.364 8.0 LOS A 2.2 56.4 0.68 0.67 0.68 33.8 All Vehicles 2352 2.8 2352 2.8 0.478 7.8 LOS A 3.0 76.7 0.62 0.64 0.63 33.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specif ied 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 (Akçelik 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 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Monday, November 25, 2024 1:17:25 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00 - Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\67th_531 RAB.sip9 B-57 HCM 7th TWSC Lindsay Sub Area 4: SR 531 (172nd St NE) & 80th Dr NE Future (2029) Without-Project PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 65 650 500 10 5 35 Future Vol, veh/h 65 650 500 10 5 35 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 225 - - - 0 160 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 1 1 0 0 Mvmt Flow 70 699 538 11 5 38 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 548 0 - 0 1382 543 Stage 1 -- - - 543 - Stage 2 - - - - 839 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1031 - - - 160 544 Stage 1 - - - - 586 - Stage 2 -- - - 428 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1031 - - - 149 544 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 149 - Stage 1 -- - - 547 - Stage 2 - - - - 428 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.79 0 14.35 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h)1031 - - - 149 544 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.068 - - - 0.036 0.069 HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.7 - - - 30 12.1 HCM Lane LOS A - - - D B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.1 0.2 B-58 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Lindsay Sub Area 1: SR 9 & 204th St NE Future (2029) With-Project PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 180 395 158 203 265 175 100 378 195 75 359 130 Future Volume (veh/h) 180 395 158 203 265 175 100 378 195 75 359 130 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 189 416 166 214 279 184 105 398 205 79 378 137 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 223 434 362 248 467 389 132 451 233 101 697 587 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.06 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1561 1781 1870 1560 1767 1150 592 1767 1856 1562 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 189 416 166 214 279 184 105 0 603 79 378 137 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1561 1781 1870 1560 1767 0 1742 1767 1856 1562 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.6 24.6 10.2 13.1 14.7 11.2 6.5 0.0 35.9 4.9 17.8 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.6 24.6 10.2 13.1 14.7 11.2 6.5 0.0 35.9 4.9 17.8 6.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 223 434 362 248 467 389 132 0 684 101 697 587 V/C Ratio(X)0.85 0.96 0.46 0.86 0.60 0.47 0.80 0.00 0.88 0.78 0.54 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 413 434 362 407 467 389 245 0 918 245 978 823 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.9 42.4 36.9 47.1 37.0 35.7 50.9 0.0 31.5 52.0 27.3 23.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.7 32.9 1.1 10.2 2.3 1.1 10.5 0.0 8.8 12.0 0.9 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.7 15.2 4.0 6.5 7.0 4.4 3.3 0.0 16.4 2.5 8.0 2.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 56.6 75.3 38.0 57.2 39.3 36.8 61.3 0.0 40.3 64.0 28.3 24.2 LnGrp LOS E E D E D D E D E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 771 677 708 594 Approach Delay, s/veh 62.7 44.3 43.5 32.1 Approach LOS E D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.9 50.0 20.0 30.8 12.8 48.1 18.1 32.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 6.1 4.5 * 4.9 4.5 6.1 4.1 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.5 58.9 25.5 * 26 15.5 58.9 25.9 25.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 37.9 15.1 26.6 8.5 19.8 13.6 16.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.9 0.4 0.0 0.1 4.6 0.4 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 46.6 HCM 7th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. B-59 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2 [2. 172nd Street NE/67th Avenue NE (Site Folder: WP 2029)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Future (2029) With-Project PM Peak Hour Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of Queue Mov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: 67th Ave NE 3 L2 All MCs 53 1.0 53 1.0 0.586 13.7 LOS B 3.3 83.4 0.75 0.89 0.93 33.0 8 T1 All MCs 237 1.0 237 1.0 0.586 8.5 LOS A 3.3 83.4 0.75 0.89 0.93 33.6 18 R2 All MCs 136 1.0 136 1.0 0.586 8.6 LOS A 3.3 83.4 0.75 0.89 0.93 33.3 Approach 425 1.0 425 1.0 0.586 9.2 LOS A 3.3 83.4 0.75 0.89 0.93 33.4 East: SR 531 (172nd St NE) 1 L2 All MCs 97 6.0 97 6.0 0.313 13.4 LOS B 1.9 49.3 0.70 0.69 0.70 32.5 6 T1 All MCs 428 6.0 428 6.0 0.313 7.5 LOS A 2.1 54.3 0.69 0.65 0.69 33.7 16 R2 All MCs 69 6.0 69 6.0 0.313 7.1 LOS A 2.1 54.3 0.69 0.63 0.69 33.8 Approach 595 6.0 595 6.0 0.313 8.4 LOS A 2.1 54.3 0.69 0.66 0.69 33.5 North: 67th Ave NE 7 L2 All MCs 112 3.0 112 3.0 0.592 12.2 LOS B 3.3 83.8 0.62 0.75 0.72 33.3 4 T1 All MCs 247 3.0 247 3.0 0.592 6.9 LOS A 3.3 83.8 0.62 0.75 0.72 34.0 14 R2 All MCs 184 3.0 184 3.0 0.592 7.0 LOS A 3.3 83.8 0.62 0.75 0.72 33.6 Approach 543 3.0 543 3.0 0.592 8.0 LOS A 3.3 83.8 0.62 0.75 0.72 33.7 West: SR 531 (172nd St NE) 5 L2 All MCs 311 2.0 311 2.0 0.462 12.5 LOS B 3.2 81.5 0.70 0.69 0.70 32.2 2 T1 All MCs 649 2.0 649 2.0 0.462 6.6 LOS A 3.5 87.9 0.69 0.63 0.69 33.8 12 R2 All MCs 63 2.0 63 2.0 0.462 6.4 LOS A 3.5 87.9 0.69 0.61 0.69 33.8 Approach 1023 2.0 1023 2.0 0.462 8.4 LOS A 3.5 87.9 0.69 0.65 0.69 33.3 All Vehicles 2586 3.0 2586 3.0 0.592 8.4 LOS A 3.5 87.9 0.69 0.71 0.74 33.5 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specif ied 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 (Akçelik 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 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Friday, December 6, 2024 4:15:22 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00 - Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\67th_531 RAB.sip9 B-60 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 3 [3. SR 9/SR 531 (Site Folder: WP 2029)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of Queue Mov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: SR 9 3 L2 All MCs 270 5.0 270 5.0 0.335 8.3 LOS A 1.4 36.4 0.57 0.46 0.57 29.5 8 T1 All MCs 438 5.0 438 5.0 0.535 11.4 LOS B 3.8 97.8 0.67 0.64 0.97 30.9 18 R2 All MCs 26 5.0 26 5.0 0.535 11.4 LOS B 3.8 97.8 0.67 0.64 0.97 30.7 Approach 734 5.0 734 5.0 0.535 10.3 LOS B 3.8 97.8 0.63 0.57 0.82 30.4 East: 172nd St NE 1u U All MCs 1 1.0 1 1.0 0.494 13.2 LOS B 2.6 66.3 0.72 0.79 1.05 29.5 1 L2 All MCs 36 1.0 36 1.0 0.494 13.2 LOS B 2.6 66.3 0.72 0.79 1.05 29.5 6 T1 All MCs 165 1.0 165 1.0 0.494 13.2 LOS B 2.6 66.3 0.72 0.79 1.05 30.0 16 R2 All MCs 119 1.0 119 1.0 0.494 13.2 LOS B 2.6 66.3 0.72 0.79 1.05 29.8 Approach 321 1.0 321 1.0 0.494 13.2 LOS B 2.6 66.3 0.72 0.79 1.05 29.9 North: SR 9 7 L2 All MCs 129 2.0 129 2.0 0.608 12.8 LOS B 5.4 138.2 0.72 0.73 1.16 29.4 4 T1 All MCs 423 2.0 423 2.0 0.608 12.8 LOS B 5.4 138.2 0.72 0.73 1.16 29.9 14 R2 All MCs 186 2.0 186 2.0 0.222 6.6 LOS A 0.9 22.4 0.53 0.42 0.53 32.7 Approach 737 2.0 737 2.0 0.608 11.3 LOS B 5.4 138.2 0.67 0.66 1.00 30.5 West: SR 531 5 L2 All MCs 143 2.0 143 2.0 0.455 10.9 LOS B 2.6 64.9 0.67 0.65 0.88 29.8 2 T1 All MCs 199 2.0 199 2.0 0.455 10.9 LOS B 2.6 64.9 0.67 0.65 0.88 30.3 12 R2 All MCs 352 2.0 352 2.0 0.428 9.7 LOS A 2.2 57.1 0.64 0.59 0.80 31.3 Approach 694 2.0 694 2.0 0.455 10.3 LOS B 2.6 64.9 0.66 0.62 0.84 30.7 All Vehicles 2486 2.8 2486 2.8 0.608 10.9 LOS B 5.4 138.2 0.66 0.64 0.91 30.4 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6. Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Friday, December 6, 2024 3:33:55 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00 - Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\67th_531 RAB.sip9 B-61 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 4 [4. SR 531/80th Dr NE (Site Folder: WP 2029)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of Queue Mov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: Project Driveway 3 L2 All MCs 2 0.0 2 0.0 0.064 14.0 LOS B 0.4 9.0 0.72 0.73 0.72 32.9 8 T1 All MCs 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.064 9.1 LOS A 0.4 9.0 0.72 0.73 0.72 33.5 18 R2 All MCs 37 0.0 37 0.0 0.064 9.0 LOS A 0.4 9.0 0.72 0.73 0.72 33.2 Approach 40 0.0 40 0.0 0.064 9.3 LOS A 0.4 9.0 0.72 0.73 0.72 33.2 East: SR 531 (172nd St NE) 1 L2 All MCs 64 1.0 64 1.0 0.550 9.9 LOS A 4.5 113.9 0.37 0.46 0.37 34.2 6 T1 All MCs 568 1.0 568 1.0 0.550 5.0 LOS A 4.5 113.9 0.37 0.46 0.37 34.9 16 R2 All MCs 11 1.0 11 1.0 0.550 4.9 LOS A 4.5 113.9 0.37 0.46 0.37 34.5 Approach 643 1.0 643 1.0 0.550 5.5 LOS A 4.5 113.9 0.37 0.46 0.37 34.8 North: 80th Dr NE 7 L2 All MCs 5 0.0 5 0.0 0.060 12.6 LOS B 0.3 7.6 0.62 0.68 0.62 33.4 4 T1 All MCs 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.060 7.7 LOS A 0.3 7.6 0.62 0.68 0.62 34.1 14 R2 All MCs 38 0.0 38 0.0 0.060 7.6 LOS A 0.3 7.6 0.62 0.68 0.62 33.8 Approach 45 0.0 45 0.0 0.060 8.2 LOS A 0.3 7.6 0.62 0.68 0.62 33.7 West: SR 531 (172nd St NE) 5 L2 All MCs 71 0.0 71 0.0 0.678 10.1 LOS B 7.0 174.8 0.45 0.46 0.45 34.0 2 T1 All MCs 728 0.0 728 0.0 0.678 5.2 LOS A 7.0 174.8 0.45 0.46 0.45 34.7 12 R2 All MCs 4 0.0 4 0.0 0.678 5.1 LOS A 7.0 174.8 0.45 0.46 0.45 34.4 Approach 803 0.0 803 0.0 0.678 5.6 LOS A 7.0 174.8 0.45 0.46 0.45 34.6 All Vehicles 1532 0.4 1532 0.4 0.678 5.8 LOS A 7.0 174.8 0.42 0.47 0.42 34.6 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specif ied 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 (Akçelik 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 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Friday, December 6, 2024 3:27:55 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00 - Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\67th_531 RAB.sip9 B-62 SITE LAYOUT Site: 4 [4. SR 531/80th Dr NE (Site Folder: WP 2029)] New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Created: Friday, December 6, 2024 3:27:40 PM Project: M:\24\1.24222.00 - Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\67th_531 RAB.sip9 B-63 HCM 7th TWSC Lindsay Sub Area 5: West Access (79th Ave NE) & SR 531 (172nd St NE)Future (2029) With-Project PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 734 4 23 537 11 5 Future Vol, veh/h 734 4 23 537 11 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 50 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 798 4 25 584 12 5 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 802 0 1434 800 Stage 1 -- - - 800 - Stage 2 - - - - 634 - Critical Hdwy -- 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 821 - 148 385 Stage 1 - - - - 442 - Stage 2 -- - - 529 - Platoon blocked, % - -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 821 - 143 385 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 281 - Stage 1 -- - - 442 - Stage 2 - - - - 513 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.39 17.42 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)307 - - 821 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.057 - - 0.03 - HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 17.4 - - 9.5 - HCM Lane LOS C - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0.1 - B-64 HCM 7th TWSC Lindsay Sub Area 6: East Access & SR 531 (172nd St NE)Future (2029) With-Project PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 699 15 0 597 0 9 Future Vol, veh/h 699 15 0 597 0 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 760 16 0 649 0 10 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 768 Stage 1 -- - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy -- - - - 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - - - - 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 402 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 -- 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 402 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 -- - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 14.19 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h)402 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - - - HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 14.2 - - - HCM Lane LOS B - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - B-65 Appendix D: Detailed Trip Generation B-66 Land Use Setting Size Units Model Equation Rate Inbound % Inbound Outbound Subtotal du Daily General Urban/Suburban Equation (log)Ln(T) = 0.92 Ln(X) + 2.68 -50%853 853 1,706 PM Peak Hour General Urban/Suburban Rate -0.94 63%105 61 166 Gross Trips MJS Investors Parcels Only 1.24222 Lindsay Sub-Area (MJS Parcels) Single Family Homes (LU 210) Notes: 1. Trip rates based on Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) equation and average trip rates as shown above. B-67 WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT LINDSAY ANNEXATION JUNE 2024 B-68 WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT LINDSAY ANNEXATION JUNE 21, 2024 PROJECT LOCATION 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND 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 B-69 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation i Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 ¼, 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. Critical Area Name Size Onsite Category/ Type1 Regulated Under AMC Chapter 20.93 Regulated Under RCW 90.48 Regulated Under Clean 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 feet Type Ns Yes Yes Likely 1.Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) wetland rating system (Hruby and Yahnke 2023) per AMC 20.93.800 and AMC 20.93.730 B-70 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation ii Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Proposed Project Location .......................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Location ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 3. Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 4. 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 Chapter 5. 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 Chapter 7. Closure .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 8. References .................................................................................................................................... 24 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Aerial Image of the Subject Area .................................................................................. 4 Tables Table 1. Precipitation Summary1. ................................................................................................. 5 Table 2. Wetland Summary .......................................................................................................... 7 Table 3. Wetland A Summary. ...................................................................................................... 9 Table 4. Wetland B Summary. .................................................................................................... 10 Table 5. Wetland C Summary. .................................................................................................... 12 Table 6. Wetland D Summary. ................................................................................................... 13 Table 7. Edgecomb Creek (Stream Z) Summary. ........................................................................ 15 Table 8. 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 B-71 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation iii Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix D — Wetland Rating Forms Appendix E — Wetland Rating Maps Appendix F — Site Photographs Appendix G — Qualifications B-72 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 1 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 ¼, 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. B-73 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 2 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 ¼, 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 172nd Street Northeast and 79th Avenue Northeast. Figure 1. Vicinity Map Subject Property Location B-74 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 3 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 (NRCS) 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) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) as modified according to the guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western 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 Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington- 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 Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington 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. B-75 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 4 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 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) Subject Property Location B-76 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 5 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 (NRCS, 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 B6) 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 Summary1. Date Day Of Day Before 1 Week Prior 2 Weeks Prior Last 30 days (Observed/Normal) Year-to-Date2 (Observed/Normal) Percent of Normal (month/year) 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 B-77 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 6 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 2nd). Such conditions were considered in making professional wetland determinations. B-78 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 7 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 officinale). 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 (Rubus armeniacus), salmonberry (Rubus spectabalis), western sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and trailing blackberry (Rubus 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 Wetland Predominant Wetland Classification / Rating Wetland Size Onsite (SF) Cowardin1 HGM2 City of Arlington3 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. B-79 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 8 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 effusus), 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 A11 (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. B-80 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 9 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Table 3. Wetland A Summary. 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 (Rubus spectabilis), skunk cabbage (Lysticium americanum), youth WETLAND A Local Jurisdiction City of Arlington 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 Water Quality (Scores 5 out of 9 points) • Low site potential to trap sediments and pollutants and remove nitrogen due moderate slopes and lack of uncut vegetation. • Low landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due to the lack of surrounding land uses that produce pollutants. • High societal value for water quality functions due to degraded waters within the sub-basin. Hydrologic (Scores 4 out of 9 points) • Low site potential to reduce flooding and erosion due lack of dense uncut plants capable of reducing surface flow velocity. • Low landscape potential to support hydrologic functions due to the lack of excess surface runoff within 150 feet upslope. • Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to flooding problems within the sub-basin Habitat (Scores 6 out of 9 points) • Low site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat as the wetland consists of one plant community, one hydroperiod, moderate species richness, no interspersion, and no special habitat features. • High landscape potential to support habitat use due to accessible and undisturbed habitat within 1 kilometer. • Moderate societal value for habitat functions due one to nearby WDFW Priority Habitat. B-81 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 10 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 on age (Tolmiea menziesii), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), creeping buttercup, water horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). Hydric soil indicators A11 (Depleted below dark surface) and F3 (Depleted Matrix) were observed. Wetland boundaries were determined by a transition to wetland 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. WETLAND B Local Jurisdiction City of Arlington City of Arlington Rating III Wetland Size (Onsite) 1.2 acres Cowardin Classification PFO/SSBCH HGM Classification Depressional Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-18 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP-17 Wetland Functions Summary Water Quality (Scores 6 out of 9 points) • 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. • Low landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due to the wetland 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. Hydrologic (Scores 5 out of 9 points) • 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. • Low landscape potential to provide flood protection due to the minimal pollutant discharges in the contributing basin. • Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to flooding problems within the sub-basin. Habitat (Scores 7 out of 9 points) • Moderate site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat as the wetland consists of two plant communities, three hydroperiods, high species richness, moderate interspersion, and three special habitat features. • High landscape potential to support habitat use due to accessible and undisturbed habitat within 1 kilometer. • Moderate societal value for habitat functions due to one nearby WDFW Priority Habitat. B-82 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 11 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 A11 (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. B-83 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 12 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Table 5. Wetland C Summary. 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 cerasiformis), false WETLAND C Local Jurisdiction City of Arlington 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 Water Quality (Scores 6 out of 9 points) • Low site potential to trap sediments and pollutants and remove nitrogen due to the lack of persistent, ungrazed vegetation and moderate seasonal ponding. • Moderate landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due septic systems within 250 feet. • High societal value for water quality functions due to degraded waters within the sub-basin. Hydrologic (Scores 4 out of 9 points) • 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. • Low landscape potential to provide flood protection due to the less intensive land uses within the contributing basin. • Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to flooding problems within the sub-basin. Habitat (Scores 6 out of 9 points) • Low site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat as the wetland consists of one plant community, two hydroperiods, moderate species richness, no interspersion, and no special habitat features. • High landscape potential to support habitat use due to accessible and undisturbed habitat and within 1 kilometer. • Moderate societal value for habitat functions due to one nearby WDFW Priority Habitat. B-84 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 13 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 A11 (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 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 Water Quality (Scores 6 out of 9 points) • Moderate site potential to trap sediments and pollutants and remove nitrogen due to a permanently flowing outlet, greater than 95% cover of persistent, ungrazed vegetation, and a moderate area of seasonal ponding. • Low landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due to the lack of surrounding land uses that produce pollutants. • High societal value for water quality functions due to degraded waters within the sub-basin. Hydrologic (Scores 4 out of 9 points) • 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 basin. • Low landscape potential to provide flood protection due to the lack of intensive land uses within the contributing basin. • Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to flooding problems within the sub-basin. Habitat (Scores 5 out of 9 points) • Low site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat as the wetland consists of two plant communities, two hydroperiods, moderate species richness, no interspersion, and no special habitat features. • High landscape potential to support habitat use due to the accessible and 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 B-85 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 14 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 (PEMAC). 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 79th 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 April 2024 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. B-86 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 15 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 Documented Fish Use per WDFW and NWIFC-SWIFD Gradient accessible reaches for steelhead, pink, and chinook. Presumed presence of bull trout. Documented spawning of coho. Location of Feature Stream Z crosses through the northwestern portion of the subject property. Connectivity (where water flows from/to) 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 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. Riparian/Buffer Condition The onsite stream channel is degraded, consisting 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. B-87 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 16 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 ditches, 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 and/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 (Coccyzus 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 B-88 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 17 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 (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. B-89 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 18 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 RCW 77.09.020), including those planted under the auspices of a federal, state, local, or tribal programs, or which support priority fish species as identified by the department of fish 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. F.Habitats or species of local importance; No habitats or species of local importance were identified on or within 300 feet of the subject property. B-90 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 19 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 20.93.800(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 Category1 Habitat Score Standard Buffer Width2 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. B-91 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 20 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Table 9. Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands Disturbance Examples of Activities and Uses that Cause Disturbances Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Lights •Parking lots •Warehouses •Manufacturing •Residential •Parks •Direct lights away from critical areas and buffers •Day use only regulations preventing the need for lights •Timer on lights Noise •Manufacturing •Residential •Locate activity that generates noise away from wetlands •Seasonal limitations on hours of operation Toxic runoff* •Parking lots •Roads •Manufacturing •Residential areas •Application of agricultural pesticides •Landscaping •Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered •Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 ft of critical area or buffer •Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff •Parking lots •Roads •Manufacturing •Residential areas •Commercial •Landscaping •Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development •Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer Change in water regime •Impermeable surfaces •Lawns •Tilling •Forest and forest duff removal •Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns •Retain minimum forest and forest duff Pets and human disturbance •Residential areas •Parks •Use privacy fencing; plant dense vegetation to 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 corridors or connections •Roads •Residential •Commercial •Manufacturing •Landscaping •Stormwater •Maintain connection to offsite areas that are undisturbed •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. B-92 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 21 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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) Waters 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 under paragraph (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) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters: (i) Waters 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: (1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act; (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 B-93 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 22 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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; (5) 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 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) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, 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 (8) Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized 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. B-94 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 23 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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. B-95 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 24 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 12th, 2024. Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-4. 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. N.d. 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 Wetlands 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. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington :2014 Update (Version 2). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 23-06-009. Munsell Color, 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). N.d. Soil Data Access Hydric Soils List (Soil Data Access Live). Website: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316620.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. B-96 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 25 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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. B-97 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix A — Existing Conditions Map B-98 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! D D D D D D D D DD D D ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! D D D D D D D DDDD ! ! ! ! ! D D D D D D !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à ààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à ààààà à à à àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à ààààà à à à àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! XYXY XY XY XYXY XYXYXY XY XY XYXY XYXYXY '& '& '& '& '& '& '& '& '& '& '& '& '& '&'& '& '& '& '& '& '& '&'& '& '& '& '& '& '&'& '& Wetlad 1Category III110' Reduced Buffer Wetlad ACategory IV(~22,500 SF Onsite)40' Reduced Buffer Wetlad BCategory III(~1.2 Acres Onsite)110' Reduced Buffer Wetlad CCategory III(~30,080 SF Onsite)110' Reduced Buffer Wetlad DCategory IV(~110 SF Onsite)40' Reduced Buffer Wetlad ZType Ns50' Buffer Z-1A Z-10A DP-1 DP-2 DP-3 DP-4 DP-5 DP-6 DP-7 DP-8 DP-9 DP-10 DP-11 DP-12 DP-13 DP-14 DP-15 DP17 DP-18 DP-19 DP-20 DP-21 DP-22 DP-23DP-24 DP-25 DP-26 DP-27 DP-28 DP-29 DP-30 DP-31 DP-32 EXISTING CONDITIONS ¢ 0 260 520130 Feet PRELIMINARYINFORMATION ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NEARLINGTON, WA 98223 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, & 31052600102300 LINDSAY ANNEXATION DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. 4/11/2024 2419.0002 DDS 1 SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC ASSUMESNO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FORCONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, ORESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SET NOTE: REDUCED BUFFERS ASSUME MINIMIZATION MEASURES ARE FOLLOWED XY Culvert '&Data Point Stream Flag Wetland Flag ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Ditch D D OHW àààààààààà à à à à à à à à Wetland àààààààààà à à à à à à à à Offsite Wetland Reduced Wetland Buffer Stream Buffer !!!15' Building Setback Site Boundary 1 " = 260 ' C-1 C-31 C-17 A-22A-1 B-1B-41 D-1 B-99 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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). B-100 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix B1 – USGS Topographic Map Subject Property Location B-101 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix B2 – NRCS Soil Survey Map Subject Property Location B-102 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix B3 – DNR Stream Typing Map Subject Property Location B-103 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix B4 – WDFW and NWIFC-SWIFD Subject Property Location B-104 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix B5 – Snohomish County Stream and Wetland Inventory Map Subject Property Location B-105 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix B6 – USFWS NWI Map Subject Property Location B-106 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix B7 – WDFW PHS Map Subject Property Location B-107 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 B-108 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 B-109 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix C — Data Forms B-110 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-1 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Depression Concave 1% A2 48.150394 -122.11857935 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A 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. Alnus rubra 15 Yes FAC 3 3 15 100% Rubus armeniacus 25 Yes FAC 25 Phalaris arundinacea 80 Yes FACW Poa pratensis 15 No FAC Ranunculus repens 5 No FAC 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-111 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-1 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 N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 17" 14" No wetland hydrology criteria met. Saturation must be at or above 12" in order to meet for indicator A3. B-112 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-2 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Hillslope Linear 1% A2 48.150550 -122.11858108 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A 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. Pseudotsuga menziesii 30 Yes FACU 4 Alnus rubra 10 Yes FAC 5 40 80% Rubus armeniacus 15 Yes FAC 15 Ranunculus repens 45 Yes FAC Lamium galeobdolon 20 Yes FAC Poa pratensis 15 No FAC Scirpus microcarpus 15 No OBL 95 0 5 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-113 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-2 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 PL/M Si Silt N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 16" 13" No wetland hydrology criteria met. Saturation must be at or above 12" in order to meet for indicator A3. B-114 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-3 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Swale Concave 1% A2 48.150311 -122.11929330 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soils. Data collected 65 feet north of Wetland D. 2 2 0 100% Salix scouleriana 80 Yes FAC 80 Phalaris arundinacea 50 Yes FACW 50 0 50 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-115 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-3 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 N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 8" 4" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-116 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-4 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Swale Concave 1% A2 48.150473 -122.11934723 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met. Data collected approximately 130 feet north of Wetland D. 2 2 0 100% Salix scouleriana 80 Yes FAC 80 Phalaris arundinacea 45 Yes FAC Ranunculus repens 5 No FAC 50 0 50 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-117 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-4 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 N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 16" 13" No wetland hydrology criteria met. Saturation must be at or above 12" to meet for indicator A3. B-118 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-5 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 3% A2 48.150473 -122.11934723 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A 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. 2 2 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 40 Yes FAC Distichlis sp.30 Yes FAC Alnus rubra 5 No FAC Populus balsamifera 5 No FAC Veronica americana 5 No OBL 85 0 15 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-119 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-5 0 - 3 2.5Y 4/3 100 ----SiClLo Silty clay loam 3 - 7 2.5Y 5/2 60 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M SiClLo Silty clay loam. Mixed matrix. 5Y 5/1 25 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M SiClLo Silty clay loam. Mixed matrix. 7 - 15 2.5Y 4/2 92 7.5YR 4/6 8 C M SiClLo Silty clay loam N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicator F3. None None None No hydrology criteria met. No evidence of hydrology to 16 inches. B-120 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-6 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 3% A2 48.149495 -122.11949325 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met. Data collected approximately 30 feet north of Wetland A. 2 2 0 100% 0 Distichlis sp.50 Yes FAC Holcus lanatus 20 Yes FAC Lotus corniculatus 13 No FAC Taraxacum officinale 7 No FACU Alnus rubra 5 No FAC Populus balsamifera 5 No FAC 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-121 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-6 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 N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None None None No hydrology criteria met. No evidence of hydrology to 15 inches. B-122 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-7 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 2% A2 48.149308 -122.11943868 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within northern portion of Wetland A. 2 2 0 100% 0 Holcus lanatus 40 Yes FAC Distichlis sp.25 Yes FAC Lotus corniculatus 15 No FAC Alnus rubra 5 No FAC Populus balsamifera 5 No FAC 90 0 10 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-123 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-7 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 N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicator F3. None 12" 10" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-124 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-8 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 1% A2 48.149076 -122.11962163 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met. Data collected approximately 30 feet west of Wetland A. 2 2 0 100% Rubus armeniacus 10 Yes FAC 10 Holcus lanatus 70 Yes FAC Phalaris arundinacea 15 No FACW Lotus corniculatus 5 No FAC Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU 95 0 5 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-125 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-8 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 SiClLo 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 SiClLo Silty clay loam N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None None 16" No wetland hydrology criteria met. Saturation must be at or above 12" in order to meet for indicator A3. B-126 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-9 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 1% A2 48.148882 -122.11951702 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, missing wetland hydrology. Data collected approximately 15 feet north and west of Wetland A. 3 3 0 100% Spiraea douglasii 5 Yes FACW Rubus armeniacus 3 Yes FAC 8 Holcus lanatus 70 Yes FAC Lotus corniculatus 8 No FAC Hypochaeris radicata 7 No FACU Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACW Distichlis spicata 5 No FACW Schoenoplectus acutus 5 No OBL 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-127 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-9 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 wood50 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 N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicator F3. None 16" 13" No wetland hydrology criteria met. Saturation must be at or above 12" to meet for indicator A3. B-128 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-10 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 1% A2 48.148660 -122.11962865 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within Wetland A. 2 2 0 100% 0 Phalaris arundinacea 60 Yes FACW Poa pratensis 40 Yes FAC 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-129 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-10 0 - 2 2.5Y 3/1 100 ----SiClLo Silty clay loam 2 - 5 2.5Y 3/1 97 7.5YR 4/6 3 C M SiClLo Silty clay loam 5 - 13 5Y 4/1 80 7.5YR 5/6 10 C M SiClLo Silty clay loam. Mixed matrix. 2.5Y 3/1 10 ----SiClLo Silty clay loam. Mixed matrix. N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicator F3 and A11. None 14" 12" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicator A3. B-130 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-11 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 1% A2 48.148460 -122.11970352 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, missing wetland hydrology. Data collected approximately 30 feet west of Wetland A. 1 1 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 80 Yes FAC Phalaris arundinacea 10 No FACW Ranunculus repens 10 No FAC 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-131 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-11 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. N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicator A11 and F3. None None None No wetland hydrology criteria met. No hydrology observed to 16 inches. B-132 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-12 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 1% A2 48.148209 -122.11957655 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within Wetland A. 2 3 0 67% Populus balsamifera 5 Yes FAC 5 Holcus lanatus 30 Yes FAC Hypochaeris radicata 20 Yes FACU Juncus effusus 15 No FACW Lotus corniculatus 15 No FAC Taraxacum officinale 10 No FACU 90 0 10 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-133 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-12 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 N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicator A11 and F3. None 12" 9" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-134 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-13 Elisabeth Gonzalez / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Depressional Concave 1% A2 48.149873 -122.11997727 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A 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. 2 2 0 100% Rubus armeniacus 5 Yes FAC 5 Phalaris arundinacea 80 Yes FACW 80 0 20 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-135 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-13 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 N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 15" 12" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A3 and B4. B-136 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/3/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-15 William Bethel/ Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Concave 3% A2 48.150712 -122.12437506 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A 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. 3 3 0 100% Rubus armeniacus 20 Yes FAC 20 Poa pratensis 60 Yes FAC Juncus effusus 20 Yes FACW Phalaris arundinacea 10 No FACW 90 0 10 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-137 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-15 0 - 7 10YR 3/2 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam 7 - 14 10YR 3/2 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam with Gravel N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 4" 0" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-138 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/3/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-16 William Bethel/ Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Concave 3% A2 48.150795 -122.12428982 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soil. DP-16 is located to the north of Stream Z. 1 1 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 85 Yes FAC Lolium arundinaceum 10 No FAC Juncus effusus 5 No FACW 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-139 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-16 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 10R 3/4 4 C M Lo Loam N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 4" 0" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-140 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/3/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-17 Kramer Canup / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 1 A2 48.149001 -122.11903056 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soil. DP-17 is located to the north of Wetland B. Alnus rubra 40 Yes FAC 3 3 40 100% Rubus spectabilis 80 Yes FAC 80 Athyrium cyclosorum 5 Yes FAC 5 0 95 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-141 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-17 0 - 3 7.5YR 3/1 100 ----SiLo SIlty Loam 3 - 13 10YR 3/3 100 ----Lo Loam N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 12" 9" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-142 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-18 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Depression Concave 1% A2 48.148120 -122.11924842 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within Wetland B. Thuja plicata 25 Yes FAC 9 Alnus rubra 15 Yes FAC 9 40 100% Rubus spectabilis 40 Yes FAC 40 Lysichiton americanus 20 Yes OBL Tolmiea menziesii 20 Yes FAC Oenanthe sarmentosa 15 Yes OBL Ranunculus repens 15 Yes FAC Equisetum fluviatile 15 Yes OBL Carex obnupta 15 Yes OBL 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-143 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-18 0 - 8 10YR 2/1 100 ----ClLo Clay loam 8 - 14+10YR 4/2 93 7.5YR 4/4 7 C M ClGr Clay with gravel N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicators A11 and F3. None 0" 0" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-144 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-19 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Field Convex 2% A2 48.148814 -122.12037317 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, missing hydric soil. Data collected between Wetland C and Wetland A. 1 1 0 100% 0 Phalaris arundinacea 70 Yes FACW Poa pratensis 15 No FAC Ranunculus repens 5 No FAC 90 0 10 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-145 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-19 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 N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 10" 9" Hydrology criteria met through primary indicators A2 and A3. B-146 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-20 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Depression Concave 1% A2 48.148120 -122.11924842 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within Wetland C. 1 1 0 100% 0 Juncus effusus 55 Yes FACW Veronica americana 15 No OBL Ranunculus repens 10 No FAC Lotus corniculatus 10 No FAC Holcus lanatus 5 No FAC Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-147 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-20 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 N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicators A11 and F3. None 4" 0" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-148 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-21 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Hillslope Convex 2% A2 48.149252 -122.12048543 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, missing hydric soil. Data collected between approximately 23 feet east of Wetland C. 2 2 0 100% 0 Phalaris arundinacea 70 Yes FACW Poa pratensis 20 Yes FAC Ranunculus repens 5 No FAC Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-149 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-21 0 - 16 10YR 3/1 100 ----SiLo Silt loam N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 9" 7" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-150 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-22 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Depression Concave 2% A2 48.150102 -122.11885615 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, missing hydric soil. DP-22 is located on the eastern are of the property. 2 3 0 67% 0 Ranunculus repens 40 Yes FAC Poa pratensis 30 Yes FAC Taraxacum officinale 20 Yes FACU Juncus effusus 5 No FACW 95 0 5 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-151 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-22 0 - 8 10YR 3/2 100 ----SaClLo Sandy clay loam 8 - 16+10YR 4/6 100 ----Lo Loam N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 8" 5" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-152 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-23 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Flat Linear 0% A2 48.149671 -122.11822878 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met; only hydrophytic vegetation met. DP-23 is located in the eastern central portion of the property. 1 1 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 80 Yes FAC Ranunculus repens 10 No FAC Juncus effusus 5 No FACW Phalaris arundinacea 5 No FACW 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-153 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-23 0 - 9 10YR 3/2 100 ----SaClLo Sandy clay loam 9 - 16+10YR 4/6 70 Ash 30 N/A N/A Lo Loam N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 15" 13" No wetland hydrology criteria met. Saturation and water table must be at or above 12" in order to meet for indicators A2 and A3. B-154 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-24 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Flat Linear 1% A2 48.149719 -122.12062200 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soil. DP-24 is located to the north of Wetland C. 1 1 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 80 Yes FAC Trifolium repens 10 No FAC Lotus corniculatus 5 No FAC Phalaris arundinacea 5 No FACW 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-155 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-24 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 N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 7" 4" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-156 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-25 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Flat Linear 1% A2 48.149877 -122.12101087 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met. DP-25 is located northwest of Wetland C, adjacent to an onsite ditch. 1 1 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 80 Yes FAC Ranunculus repens 15 No FAC Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-157 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-25 0 - 18 10YR 3/2 100 ----Lo Loam N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None None 13" No wetland hydrology criteria met. Saturation must be at or above 12" to meet for indicator A3 as well as be accompanied by a water table. B-158 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-26 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Flat Concave 1% A2 48.150356 -122.12091190 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A 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. 2 2 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 60 Yes FAC Phalaris arundinacea 35 Yes FACW Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-159 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-26 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. N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None None 14" No wetland hydrology criteria met. Saturation must be at or above 12" in order to meet for indicator A3 as well as be accompanied by a water table. B-160 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-27 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Top of slope Convex 2% A2 48.150692 -122.12104042 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A 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. 1 1 0 100% 0 Phalaris arundinacea 74 Yes FACW Ranunculus repens 15 No FAC Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU Cardamine oligosperma 5 No FAC Urtica dioica 1 No FAC 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-161 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-27 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. N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None None None No wetland hydrology criteria met. B-162 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-28 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Flat Concave 1% A2 48.151389 -122.12249813 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met; only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met. DP-28 is located on the northwest area of the subject property. 1 1 0 100% 0 Juncus effusus 80 Yes FACW Poa pratensis 15 No FAC Schedonorus arundinaceus 5 No FAC 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-163 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-28 0 - 8 10YR 3/2 100 ----Lo Loam 8 - 16 10 YR 3/2 97 2.5YR 3/4 3 C PL Lo Loam N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. Layer two must have at least 5% redox concentrations in order to meet for indicator F6. None None None No wetland hydrology criteria met. B-164 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-29 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Slope Concave 5% A2 48.151105 -122.12355035 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A 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. 1 1 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 85 Yes FAC Distichlis spicata 8 No FACW Trifolium repens 5 No FAC Cirsium vulgare 2 No FACU 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-165 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-29 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 N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None None None No wetland hydrology criteria met. B-166 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-30 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Slope Concave 1% A2 48.150103 -122.11929476 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A All three wetland criteria met. DP-30 is located within Wetland D. Alnus rubra 50 Yes FAC 4 4 50 100% Rubus spectabilis 25 Yes FAC Rubus armeniacus 20 Yes FAC Oemleria cerasiformis 5 No FACU 50 Phalaris arundinacea 40 Yes FACW Athyrium cyclosorum 1 No FAC 41 0 59 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-167 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-30 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 N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicators A11 and F3. +1" 0" 0" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A1, A2, and A3. B-168 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-31 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Upland Concave 1% A2 48.150100 -122.11933280 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soil. DP-31 is located upland to the east of Wetland D. Alnus rubra 65 Yes FAC 4 5 65 80% Oemleria cerasiformis 40 Yes FACU Rubus armeniacus 35 Yes FAC Rubus spectabilis 15 No FAC 90 Maianthemum dilatatum 15 Yes FAC Phalaris arundinacea 10 Yes FACW 25 0 75 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-169 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-31 0 - 7 10YR 3/1 100 ----SiLo Silty Loam 7 - 16+10 YR 4/2 97 7.5YR 4/3 3 C M SiClLo Silty Clay Loam, Faint Redox N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. Redox in layer two not prominent must be at least 5% to meet depleted matrix requirements. None 7" 4" Redox is not prominent. Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-170 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-32 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Flat Concave 1% A2 48.150628 -122.11958033 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soils. DP-32 is located in the northeastern portion of the property within the mowed field. 1 1 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 77 Yes FAC Ranunculus repens 10 No FAC Juncus effusus 10 No FACW Taraxacum officinale 3 No FACU 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance test. B-171 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-32 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. N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 10" 6" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-172 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix D — Wetland Rating Forms B-173 Wetland name or number ______ 1 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ HGM Class used for rating_________________ 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 ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) 1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 _______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 _______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 _______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential Landscape Potential Value TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 1 1 4/3/2024 Kramer Canup 4 06/2022 Depressional 4 ESRI ArcGIS III 4 M L L M M H H M M 7 5 6 18 N/A B-174 Wetland name or number ______ 2 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 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 (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 1 B-175 Wetland name or number ______ 3 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? 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) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your 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. Groundwaterand surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your 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 anyplants on the surface at any time 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). NO – go to 4 YES – 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 fromseeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO – go to 5 YES – 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 thatstream or river, ____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 1 B-176 Wetland name or number ______ 4 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 thesurface, at some time 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 Depressional7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbankflooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to bemaintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious naturaloutlet.NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGMclasses. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a smallstream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFYWHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENTAREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify theappropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within thewetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% ormore of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of thetotal area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 1 B-177 Wetland name or number ______ 5 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. 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 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 > ½ of area points = 3 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 > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 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 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 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? Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 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 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 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 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 Rating of Value If score is: 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 1 1 0 1 4 6 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 3 B-178 Wetland name or number ______ 6 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 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. Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. Rating of Site Potential 12-16 = H 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? Rating of Landscape Potential 3 = H 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? 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 .   water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why __________________ 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? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L _____________________________________________________________________________ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 1 1 3 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 B-179 Wetland name or number ______ 13 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 ¼ 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 ____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 ¼ ac if the unit is at least 2.5 ac to count (see text for 4 or more types present: points = 3 2 points descriptions of hydroperiods). ____Permanently flooded or inundated ____Seasonally flooded or inundated ____Occasionally flooded or inundated ____Saturated only ____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Intermittently or seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Lake Fringe wetland ____Freshwater tidal wetland H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. = 0 points = 1 point = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 1 0 2 1 0 B-180 Wetland name or number ______ 14 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) ____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 ¼ 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) Rating of Site Potential 15-18 = H 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? only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit Calculate: % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% If total accessible habitat is: 1 3 H 2.2. Total habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Total habitat > 50% of Polygon Total habitat 0-50% and in 1-3 patches Total habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches Total habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon /2] = _______% points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 points = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential : 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? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. It has 3 or more Priority Habitats within 100 m (see next page) It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Rating of Value 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) Calculate: 1 0 3 22.12 16.71 30.475 2 40.44 33.88 57.379999999999995 3 0 5 1 B-181 Wetland name or number ______ 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 andwildlife. This habitat automatically counts if mapped on the online map within 100m of the wetland. IIf not mapped, adetermination 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 ispermanent and often deep, so that water, rather than air, is the principal medium within which the dominant organismslive. Substrate does not support emergent vegetation. Do not select if Instream habitat is also present, or if the entiredeepwater 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 providefunctional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Do not select if Fresh Deepwater habitat isalso present. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, andPuget 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 breastheight (dbh) or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in. (53 cm) dbh; crowncover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generallyless than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. 15133 http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 1 B-182 Wetland name or number ______ 16 Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oakcomponent is important. For single oaks or oak stands <0.4 ha in urban areas, WDFW’s ManagementRecommendations 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 ofboth 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 toenable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in. (51 cm) in westernWashington 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 wetprairie. 134 https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00030/wdfw00030.pdfWetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 1 B-183 Wetland name or number ______ 17 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= 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? The 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. At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. No = 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?135 No - Go to SC 2.2 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 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 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. Yes = Category I bog No = Is not a bog 135 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPdata136 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_nh_sighting_form.pdfWetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 Yes = Category I 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 = Category I Yes = Submit data to WA Natural Heritage Program for determination,136 Go to SC 2.3 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 No = Not a WHCV No = Not a WHCV 1 B-184 Wetland name or number ______ 18 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). Yes = Category I 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 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 ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland.  The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Category I Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. 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 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? Category III Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 1 B-185 Wetland name or number ______ 19 This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 1 B-186 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ HGM Class used for rating_________________ 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 ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) 1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 _______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 _______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 _______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential Landscape Potential Value TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 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 A A 4/3/2024 Kramer Canup 4 06/2022 Slope 4 ESRI ArcGIS IV 4 L L L L L H H M M 5 4 6 15 N/A B-187 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 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 (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 A B-188 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? 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) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your 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. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your 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 any time 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). NO – go to 4 YES – 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. 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. A B-189 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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 some time 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 being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. A B-190 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 SLOPE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal distance) Slope is 1% or less points = 3 Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2 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 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 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3 Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ 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 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6-11 = M 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? 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? Other sources _________________________________________________________________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential : 1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Rating of Value 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page A 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 B-191 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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 . 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 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstr eam 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 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? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 0 0 1 0 1 A B-192 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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 ¼ 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 ____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 or ¼ 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 ____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 ft 2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points A 0 0 1 0 B-193 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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) ____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 ¼ 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 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). [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + If total accessible habitat is: 1 3 [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2]= Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon ≤ Rating of Landscape Potential : 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? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated.      Rating of Value 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page A 0 1 22.12 16.71 30.475 2 3 40.44 33.88 57.379999999999995 0 5 1 B-194 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.  Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).  Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).  Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.  Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.  Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).  Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.  Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).  Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.  Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page).  Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.  Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.  Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.  Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. A B-195 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= 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?  The 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)  At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland.  The wetland has at least 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 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 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 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 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 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 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 A B-196 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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). Yes = Category I 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) Yes – Go to SC 5.1 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 on p. 100).  At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un- mowed grassland.  The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) 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 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 A B-197 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 This page left blank intentionally A B-198 Wetland name or number ______ 1 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ HGM Class used for rating_________________ 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 ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) 1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 _______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 _______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 _______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential Landscape Potential Value TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 B B 4/3/2024 Kramer Canup 4 06/2022 Depressional 4 ESRI ArcGIS III 4 M M M L L H H M M 6 5 7 18 N/A B-199 Wetland name or number ______ 2 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 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 (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 B B-200 Wetland name or number ______ 3 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? 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) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your 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. Groundwaterand surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your 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 anyplants on the surface at any time 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). NO – go to 4 YES – 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 fromseeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO – go to 5 YES – 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 thatstream or river, ____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 B B-201 Wetland name or number ______ 4 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 thesurface, at some time 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 Depressional7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbankflooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to bemaintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious naturaloutlet.NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGMclasses. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a smallstream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFYWHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENTAREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify theappropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within thewetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% ormore of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of thetotal area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 B B-202 Wetland name or number ______ 5 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. 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 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 > ½ of area points = 3 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 > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 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 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 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? Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 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 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 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 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 Rating of Value If score is: 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 B 1 0 5 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 B-203 Wetland name or number ______ 6 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 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. Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. Rating of Site Potential 12-16 = H 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? Rating of Landscape Potential 3 = H 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? 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 .   water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why __________________ 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? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L _____________________________________________________________________________ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 B 1 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 B-204 Wetland name or number ______ 13 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 ¼ 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 ____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 ¼ ac if the unit is at least 2.5 ac to count (see text for 4 or more types present: points = 3 2 points descriptions of hydroperiods). ____Permanently flooded or inundated ____Seasonally flooded or inundated ____Occasionally flooded or inundated ____Saturated only ____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Intermittently or seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Lake Fringe wetland ____Freshwater tidal wetland H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. = 0 points = 1 point = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 B 2 2 2 2 B-205 Wetland name or number ______ 14 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) ____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 ¼ 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) Rating of Site Potential 15-18 = H 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? only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit Calculate: % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% If total accessible habitat is: 1 3 H 2.2. Total habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Total habitat > 50% of Polygon Total habitat 0-50% and in 1-3 patches Total habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches Total habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon /2] = _______% points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 points = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential : 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? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. It has 3 or more Priority Habitats within 100 m (see next page) It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Rating of Value 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) Calculate: B 3 11 22.12 16.71 30.475 2 40.44 33.88 57.379999999999995 3 0 5 1 B-206 Wetland name or number ______ 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 andwildlife. This habitat automatically counts if mapped on the online map within 100m of the wetland. IIf not mapped, adetermination 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 ispermanent and often deep, so that water, rather than air, is the principal medium within which the dominant organismslive. Substrate does not support emergent vegetation. Do not select if Instream habitat is also present, or if the entiredeepwater 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 providefunctional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Do not select if Fresh Deepwater habitat isalso present. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, andPuget 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 breastheight (dbh) or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in. (53 cm) dbh; crowncover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generallyless than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. 15133 http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: B B-207 Wetland name or number ______ 16 Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oakcomponent is important. For single oaks or oak stands <0.4 ha in urban areas, WDFW’s ManagementRecommendations 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 ofboth 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 toenable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in. (51 cm) in westernWashington 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 wetprairie. 134 https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00030/wdfw00030.pdfWetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: B B-208 Wetland name or number ______ 17 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= 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? The 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. At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. No = 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?135 No - Go to SC 2.2 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 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 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. Yes = Category I bog No = Is not a bog 135 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPdata136 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_nh_sighting_form.pdfWetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 Yes = Category I 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 = Category I Yes = Submit data to WA Natural Heritage Program for determination,136 Go to SC 2.3 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 No = Not a WHCV No = Not a WHCV B B-209 Wetland name or number ______ 18 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). Yes = Category I 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 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 ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland.  The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Category I Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. 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 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? Category III Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: B B-210 Wetland name or number ______ 19 This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 B B-211 Wetland name or number ______ 1 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ HGM Class used for rating_________________ 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 ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) 1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 _______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 _______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 _______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential Landscape Potential Value TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 C C 4/3/24 Kramer Canup 4 6/2022 Depressional 4 ESRI ArcGIS III 4 L L L M L H H M M 6 4 6 16 N/A B-212 Wetland name or number ______ 2 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 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 (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 C B-213 Wetland name or number ______ 3 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? 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) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your 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. Groundwaterand surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your 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 anyplants on the surface at any time 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).NO – go to 4 YES – 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 fromseeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small andshallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ftdeep).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 thatstream or river,____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 C B-214 Wetland name or number ______ 4 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 thesurface, at some time 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 Depressional7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbankflooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to bemaintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious naturaloutlet.NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGMclasses. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a smallstream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFYWHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENTAREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify theappropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within thewetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% ormore of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of thetotal area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 C B-215 Wetland name or number ______ 5 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. 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 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 > ½ of area points = 3 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 > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 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 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 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? Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 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 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 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 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 Rating of Value If score is: 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 C 2 0 1 2 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 3 B-216 Wetland name or number ______ 6 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 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. Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. Rating of Site Potential 12-16 = H 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? Rating of Landscape Potential 3 = H 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? 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 .   water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why __________________ 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? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L _____________________________________________________________________________ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 C 2 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 B-217 Wetland name or number ______ 13 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 ¼ 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 ____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 ¼ ac if the unit is at least 2.5 ac to count (see text for 4 or more types present: points = 3 2 points descriptions of hydroperiods). ____Permanently flooded or inundated ____Seasonally flooded or inundated ____Occasionally flooded or inundated ____Saturated only ____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Intermittently or seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Lake Fringe wetland ____Freshwater tidal wetland H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. = 0 points = 1 point = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 C 0 1 1 0 B-218 Wetland name or number ______ 14 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) ____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 ¼ 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) Rating of Site Potential 15-18 = H 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? only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit Calculate: % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% If total accessible habitat is: 1 3 H 2.2. Total habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Total habitat > 50% of Polygon Total habitat 0-50% and in 1-3 patches Total habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches Total habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon /2] = _______% points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 points = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential : 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? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. It has 3 or more Priority Habitats within 100 m (see next page) It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Rating of Value 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) Calculate: C 0 2 22.12 16.71 30.475 2 40.44 33.88 57.379999999999995 3 0 5 1 B-219 Wetland name or number ______ 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 andwildlife. This habitat automatically counts if mapped on the online map within 100m of the wetland. IIf not mapped, adetermination 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 ispermanent and often deep, so that water, rather than air, is the principal medium within which the dominant organismslive. Substrate does not support emergent vegetation. Do not select if Instream habitat is also present, or if the entiredeepwater 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 providefunctional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Do not select if Fresh Deepwater habitat isalso present. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, andPuget 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 breastheight (dbh) or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in. (53 cm) dbh; crowncover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generallyless than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. 15133 http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: C B-220 Wetland name or number ______ 16 Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oakcomponent is important. For single oaks or oak stands <0.4 ha in urban areas, WDFW’s ManagementRecommendations 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 ofboth 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 toenable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in. (51 cm) in westernWashington 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 wetprairie. 134 https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00030/wdfw00030.pdfWetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: C B-221 Wetland name or number ______ 17 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= 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? The 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. At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. No = 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?135 No - Go to SC 2.2 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 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 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. Yes = Category I bog No = Is not a bog 135 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPdata136 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_nh_sighting_form.pdfWetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 Yes = Category I 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 = Category I Yes = Submit data to WA Natural Heritage Program for determination,136 Go to SC 2.3 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 No = Not a WHCV No = Not a WHCV C B-222 Wetland name or number ______ 18 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). Yes = Category I 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 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 ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland.  The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Category I Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. 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 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? Category III Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: C B-223 Wetland name or number ______ 19 This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 C B-224 Wetland name or number ______ 1 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ HGM Class used for rating_________________ 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 ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) 1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 _______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 _______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 _______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential Landscape Potential Value TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 D D 4/4/24 Kramer Canup 4 06/2022 Depressional 4 ESRI ArcGIS IV 4 M L L L L H H M L 6 4 5 15 N/A B-225 Wetland name or number ______ 2 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 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 (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 D B-226 Wetland name or number ______ 3 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? 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) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your 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. Groundwaterand surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your 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 anyplants on the surface at any time 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).NO – go to 4 YES – 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 fromseeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small andshallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ftdeep).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 thatstream or river,____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 D B-227 Wetland name or number ______ 4 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 thesurface, at some time 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 Depressional7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbankflooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to bemaintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious naturaloutlet.NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGMclasses. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a smallstream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFYWHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENTAREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify theappropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within thewetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% ormore of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of thetotal area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 D B-228 Wetland name or number ______ 5 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. 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 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 > ½ of area points = 3 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 > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 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 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 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? Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 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 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 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 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 Rating of Value If score is: 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 D 2 0 5 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 B-229 Wetland name or number ______ 6 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 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. Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. Rating of Site Potential 12-16 = H 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? Rating of Landscape Potential 3 = H 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? 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 .   water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why __________________ 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? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L _____________________________________________________________________________ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 D 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 B-230 Wetland name or number ______ 13 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 ¼ 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 ____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 ¼ ac if the unit is at least 2.5 ac to count (see text for 4 or more types present: points = 3 2 points descriptions of hydroperiods). ____Permanently flooded or inundated ____Seasonally flooded or inundated ____Occasionally flooded or inundated ____Saturated only ____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Intermittently or seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Lake Fringe wetland ____Freshwater tidal wetland H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. = 0 points = 1 point = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 D 1 1 1 0 B-231 Wetland name or number ______ 14 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) ____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 ¼ 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) Rating of Site Potential 15-18 = H 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? only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit Calculate: % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% If total accessible habitat is: 1 3 H 2.2. Total habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Total habitat > 50% of Polygon Total habitat 0-50% and in 1-3 patches Total habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches Total habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon /2] = _______% points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 points = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential : 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? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. It has 3 or more Priority Habitats within 100 m (see next page) It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Rating of Value 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) Calculate: D 0 3 22.12 16.71 30.475 2 40.44 33.88 57.379999999999995 3 0 5 0 B-232 Wetland name or number ______ 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 andwildlife. This habitat automatically counts if mapped on the online map within 100m of the wetland. IIf not mapped, adetermination 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 ispermanent and often deep, so that water, rather than air, is the principal medium within which the dominant organismslive. Substrate does not support emergent vegetation. Do not select if Instream habitat is also present, or if the entiredeepwater 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 providefunctional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Do not select if Fresh Deepwater habitat isalso present. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, andPuget 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 breastheight (dbh) or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in. (53 cm) dbh; crowncover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generallyless than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. 15133 http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: D B-233 Wetland name or number ______ 16 Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oakcomponent is important. For single oaks or oak stands <0.4 ha in urban areas, WDFW’s ManagementRecommendations 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 ofboth 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 toenable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in. (51 cm) in westernWashington 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 wetprairie. 134 https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00030/wdfw00030.pdfWetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: D B-234 Wetland name or number ______ 17 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= 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? The 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. At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. No = 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?135 No - Go to SC 2.2 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 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 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. Yes = Category I bog No = Is not a bog 135 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPdata136 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_nh_sighting_form.pdfWetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 Yes = Category I 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 = Category I Yes = Submit data to WA Natural Heritage Program for determination,136 Go to SC 2.3 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 No = Not a WHCV No = Not a WHCV D B-235 Wetland name or number ______ 18 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). Yes = Category I 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 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 ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland.  The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Category I Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. 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 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? Category III Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: D B-236 Wetland name or number ______ 19 This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 D B-237 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix E — Wetland Rating Maps B-238 Wetland A Wetland 1 Wetland C Wetland D Wetland B COWARDIN MAP ¢ 0 250 500125 Feet DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 7 4/11/2024 2419.0002 DDS 11 " = 250 ' 330' Boundary Emergent Forested Scrub-Shrub 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NEARLINGTON, WA 98223 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, & 31052600102300 LINDSAY ANNEXATION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC 1 " = 20 ' Wetland D B-239 Wetland A Wetland 1 Wetland C Wetland D Wetland B HYDROPERIOD MAP ¢ 0 240 480120 Feet DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 7 4/11/2024 2419.0002 DDS 21 " = 240 ' 150' Boundary Saturated Only Occassionally Flooded Seasonally Flooded Permanently Flooded XY Outlet D D OHW 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NEARLINGTON, WA 98223 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, & 31052600102300 LINDSAY ANNEXATION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC 1 " = 20 ' Wetland D Saturated Seasonally Flooded B-240 àààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à ààààààààààà à à à à à à à à àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à ààààà àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à àWetland A Wetland 1 Wetland C Wetland D Wetland B CONTRIBUTING BASIN MAP ¢ 0 450 900225 Feet DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 7 4/11/2024 2419.0002 DDS 31 " = 440 ' àààààààààà à à à à à à à à Wetland ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !Intensive Land Use Contributing Basin 10' Contour 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NEARLINGTON, WA 98223 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, & 31052600102300 LINDSAY ANNEXATION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC B-241 CONTRIBUTING BASIN DATA DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: NONE FIGURE NO. of 7 4/11/2024 2419.0002 DDS 4 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NEARLINGTON, WA 98223 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, & 31052600102300 LINDSAY ANNEXATION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC 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% D.4.0 - D.5.3 B-242 ààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à ààààà à à à àààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à ààààà à àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à HABITAT MAP ¢ 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 7 4/11/2024 2419.0002 DDS 51 " = 1,000 ' 1 KM Polygon Accessible Habitat Moderate & Low Intensity Relatively Undisturbed High Intensity 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NEARLINGTON, WA 98223 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, & 31052600102300 LINDSAY ANNEXATION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC B-243 HABITAT DATA DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: NONE FIGURE NO. of 7 4/11/2024 2419.0002 DDS 6 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NEARLINGTON, WA 98223 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, & 31052600102300 LINDSAY ANNEXATION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC All Wetlands Abutting Undisturbed Habitat 22.12% Abutting Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 16.71% Accessible Habitat 30.47% Undisturbed Habitat 40.44% Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 33.88% Undisturbed Habitat in 1 KM Polygon 57.38% High Intensity Land Use in 1 KM Polygon 25.68% H.2.2 H.2.3 H.2.0 H.2.1 B-244 303(D) MAP ¢ DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 7 4/11/2024 2419.0002 DDS 7 Subwatershed Water Quality Improvement Project Category 5 Assessed Waters 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NEARLINGTON, WA 98223 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, & 31052600102300 LINDSAY ANNEXATION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC Name Pollutants TMDL ID WRIA Year ApprovedSnohomish River Tributaries Bacteria TMDL Bacteria 34 7 2001Snohomish River Estuary Multiparameter TMDL Ammonia-N, CBOD, Dissolved Oxygen 48 7 2002 1 " = 1.5 mi 0 1.5 30.75 Miles SITE B-245 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix F — Site Photographs General site conditions in the southeast portion of the site on 04/02/2024 (facing west). General site conditions in the southeast portion of the site around Wetland A on 04/02/2024 (facing east). Ditch conditions in the southeast portion of the site on 04/02/24 (facing south). General site conditions in the north portion of the site on 04/02/24 (facing east). B-246 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 General site conditions around Stream Z on 04/03/24 (facing west). General site conditions in north ditch of the site on 04/02/24 (facing south). General site conditions in Wetland B on 04/02/24 (facing south). General site conditions around Wetland C on 04/02/24 (facing south). B-247 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 Report prepared for the Lindsay Annexation 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 B-248 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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. B-249 City of Arlington | Lindsay Subarea Utilities & Public Services Existing Conditions Report September 2025 Prepared by: MAKERS architecture and urban design Land Technologies B-250 Public Services Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 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. 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 80th Ave NE and SR 531 (172nd St NE). From here it ‘spiderwebs” its way through Gleneagle to the NW corner at Woodlands Way and 67th 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. B-251 Utilities & Public Services Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 Exhibit 1. Existing offsite infrastructure and optional routes Source: City of Arlington, Land Technologies, 2025 B-252 Utilities & Public Services Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 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 79th Ave NE; pipes “spiderweb” through Gleneagle before returning to SR 531 (172nd St NE). B-253 Utilities & Public Services Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 Exhibit 2. Offsite water system Source: City of Arlington, Land Technologies, 2025 Pressures at the hydrants along 172nd St NE along the Lindsay Subarea have been listed between 55 psi in the hydrant at the east end of the Subarea and as high as 101 psi at the hydrant at the NW corner of the site. This is currently adequate capacity for fighting fires. The difference in pressure may be attributed to the 100-foot difference in hydrant elevations. 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 79th 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. B-254 Utilities & Public Services Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 This section describes current conditions for parks, schools, police, and fire/emergency services. See Exhibit 3 for the location of parks, schools, police and fire facilities in the city and near Lindsay. Exhibit 3. Public Services in Arlington Source: City of Arlington, MAKERS, 2025 B-255 Utilities & Public Services Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 There are currently no existing parks in Lindsay. North of the Subarea are neighborhood subdivisions, Gleneagle and Northern Hilltop, with public and HOA parks, a golf course, and open space lands, interwoven within the neighborhood. See below for the inventory of parks within one mile from the Subarea and Exhibit 4 for park locations. Exhibit 4. Parks and Trails within 1 mile of Lindsay Parks Location Acreage Ownership Description Pioneer Elementary and Open Space 8213 Eaglefield Dr 15 acre1 Arlington School District School playground, multipurpose hall, and athletic field, adjacent to wooded riparian habitat with natural trails and exhibits Forest Trail Park 18005 Oxford Dr 2 acre Arlington Park with picnic tables, play area, and sport court Wedgewood & Woodway Park 17510 Gleneagle Blvd 2.5 acre Arlington Wooded park land with picnic tables and play area Whitehawk Tot Lot Whitehawk Dr 0.09 acre HOA Minipark with playground Crossing at Edgecomb Creek 1 172nd Ave NE 2.48 acre HOA Wooded minipark with two tennis courts Crossing at Edgecomb Creek 2 73rd Dr NE 0.29 acre HOA Minipark with playground and basketball court Playworld Park 174th Pl NE 0.30 acre1 HOA Minipark with playground and basketball court Eagle Heights Park 179th Pl NE 0.35 acre1 HOA Minipark with playground, basketball court, and picnic shelter Gleneagle Golf Course 7619 E County Club 138.2 acre Private Opened in 1993 with driving range, a shop, and a restaurant Source: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2044 1 Site area estimate excluding, if present, the building and parking footprint. B-256 Utilities & Public Services Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 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. B-257 Utilities & Public Services Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 Based on this feedback and an assessment of existing facilities, the PRMP recommends conceptual projects focused on expanding trail and park capacity. Exhibit 5. PRMP Planned Improvements Proposed1 Description SR 531/172nd St NE Trail Extend Airport Trail east on 172nd St NE to SR-9; 1.7 miles SR-9 Trail Develop trail on SR-9 from Centennial Trail south to SR 531/172nd St NE Skate Dots at Forest Trail Park Install skate dot in park activity area Sport court at Wedgewood Park Install sports court in park activity area Source: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2044 1Note: The park proposals are conceptual and subject to further study and coordination with public and private partnerships to refine and develop. The SR 531 (172nd St NE) Trail (67th Ave to Highway 9) is a planned 12-foot-wide multi-use trail along the north side of SR 531 from 67th Ave to SR 9. The trail will be grade-separated and will include landscaping and street and pedestrian lighting. The trail will provide non- motorized access to the Cascade Industrial Center and the Centennial Trail at 67th Ave on the west end, and access to a future trail north of SR 9 that will access Old Town Arlington and other retail centers on the east end. 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 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. B-258 Utilities & Public Services Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 Every residential development must dedicate at least 10% of the total area (minus critical areas) as usable open space. As outlined in Section Error! Reference source not found., the fourth element of the AMC 2 0.44.032 Subarea Plans supersedes the above two requirements, and similarly requires 10% of the total land area (excluding the Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA)) to be dedicated to recreational facilities, open spaces, and a trail system. This must include areas proposed to be dedicated to the city as public spaces. All dedicated parks must be a minimum of two acres in size and coordinated with the city prior to approval. The proposed trail system must be paved and connect the sidewalk network to all recreation facilities and open spaces. The public schools that serve the City of Arlington and portions of unincorporated Snohomish County are part of Arlington Public Schools (the “District”). The District serves a student population of 5,466 with four elementary schools (K-5), two middle schools (grades 6-8), and one high school (grades 9-12). The District prepared the Six Year Capital Facilities Plan (2024 - 2029) to plan for future needs. The educational service standards outlined below reflect the standards set by the District. The outlined standards apply only to regular classrooms and do not include special education rooms, labs, gyms, or other special-use spaces. For the school years of 2022- 2023, the District’s compliance with the minimum educational service standards was as follows. Exhibit 6. Average Class Size based on Educational Service Standards 2022-2023 Grade level Minimum Average Class Size Reported Average Class Size Elementary school 26 20.7 Middle school 26 19.3 High school 32 28.6 Source: Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan, 2024 B-259 Utilities & Public Services Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 The Arlington School District operates 11 public schools within the City of Arlington. The Stillaguamish Valley School and Weston High School are housed in separate District- owned facilities and not included in the District’s capital facilities plan. The table below provides an inventory of schools owned and operated by the Arlington School District within the City of Arlington. Pioneer Elementary School and Arlington High School are located within a mile of Lindsay. Exhibit 7. Public School Serving the City of Arlington School Building Area (sq ft) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Eagle Creek Elementary School 57,362 28 630 Kent Prairie Elementary School 57,362 28 630 Presidents Elementary School 60,977 31 680 Pioneer Elementary School* 61,530 25 562 Post Middle School 76,323 361 9072 Hailer Middle School 86,002 311 612 Arlington High School* 273,871 63 2,0363 Source: Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan, 2024 *Schools within 1-mile of Lindsay. 1Includes a total of six special education classroom between Post and Hailer Middle School 2Includes 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. 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 B-260 Utilities & Public Services Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 North County Fire & EMS 2019-2044 Strategic Plan—Arlington will maintain current service levels and effectively support future growth. 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. On February 9, 2021, voters overwhelmingly approved the annexation of the Arlington Fire Department into the North County Regional Fire Authority (NCFA), also known as “North County Fire & EMS”, which provide service to 25,000 people over 110 square miles, including community members of Arlington, Stanwood, and Snohomish County unincorporated areas. As of August 2021, NCFA provides fire and emergency services to the City of Arlington, including: • Emergency fire suppression, including wildland firefighting • Emergency medical services and transport • Fire prevention, inspections, and plan reviews • Public education and outreach Arlington is served by two fire stations: Station 46 in downtown Arlington, equipped with a medic unit, engine, and brush truck; and Station 48 at the Arlington Airport, which houses a medic unit, ladder truck, and aid unit. (See Exhibit ) For emergency and medical services, the City of Arlington relies on Skagit Regional Health and Cascade Valley Hospital. B-261 Utilities & Public Services Existing Conditions Report ▪ Lindsay Subarea Plan ▪ September 2025 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. B-262 Lindsay Subarea Plan Appendices ▪ Appendices ▪ November 2025 C-1 C Conceptual Mitigation Plan CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN LINDSAY ANNEXATION JUNE 2025 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 8th Street, Suite 200 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 PREPARED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 (253) 514-8952 C-3 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation i Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 ¼ 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, 100-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 C-4 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation ii Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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. Feature Name Size (Onsite) Category1 Regulated Under KCC Chapter 11.06 Regulated Under RCW 90.48 Regulated Under Clean 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 feet Type Ns Yes Yes Likely 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. Impact Type 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 Type Mitigation Area Wetland 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 C-5 2419.0002 Lindsay Annexation iii Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 Site Map C-6 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation iv Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Critical Area Findings ............................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Regulatory Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 2. 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 Chapter 4. Closure .......................................................................................................................................... 24 Chapter 5. References .................................................................................................................................... 25 Figures Figure 1. Subject Property. ............................................................................................................................... 1 Tables Table 1. Wetland Buffer Summary. ................................................................................................................. 3 Table 2. Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands ................................................................. 3 Table 3. 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 C-7 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 1 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 ¼ 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 Location C-8 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 2 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment: 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. C-9 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 3 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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. Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands Disturbance Examples of Activities and Uses that Cause Disturbances Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Lights • Parking lots, warehouses, manufacturing, residential, parks • Direct lights away from critical areas and buffers • Day use only regulations preventing the need for lights • Timer on lights Noise • Manufacturing • Residential • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetlands • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation planting adjacent to noise source • For activities that generate relatively continuous, 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 Toxic runoff* • Parking lots, roads, manufacturing, residential areas, application of agricultural pesticides, landscaping • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of critical area or buffer • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff • Parking lots, roads, manufacturing, residential areas, commercial, landscaping • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use Low Intensity Development technique Change in water regime • Impermeable surfaces • Lawns • Tilling • Forest and forest duff removal • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns • Retain minimum forest and forest duff Pets and human disturbance • Residential areas and parks • Use privacy fencing; plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the 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 C-10 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 4 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 Disturbance Examples of Activities and Uses that Cause Disturbances Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Disruption of corridors or connections • Roads, residential, commercial, manufacturing, landscaping, stormwater • Maintain connection to offsite areas that are undisturbed • 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. C-11 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 5 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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) Waters 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 under paragraph (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) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters: (i) Waters 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: (1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act; (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 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; (5) 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 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) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, 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 C-12 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 6 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 (8) Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow. 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). C-13 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 7 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 or parts 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. C-14 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 8 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 b. Minimize 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. Rectifying 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 or providing substitute resources or environments. C-15 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 9 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 hazard 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 environmentally 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 waterway 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 C-16 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 10 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 low intensity, passive recreational activities such as low impact trails in the outer twenty -five percent, non-permanent wildlife watching blinds, short -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 cl earing, mowing, and the encroachment of non-native invasive species. (B) With 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) With 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. C-17 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 11 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 in 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 Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment 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. C-18 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 12 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 • 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. Summary of Wetland Impacts Wetland HGM Cowardin1 WSDOE Ratings2 Onsite Wetland Area Impact Type Impact Area A Slope PEMB IV 22,644 SF (0.52 ac) Direct (fill) 1,499 SF (0.034 ac) C Depressional PEMBC III 29,723 SF (0.68 ac) Direct (fill) 9,783 SF (0.225 ac) D Depressional PSS/EMBC IV 117 SF (0.003 ac) Direct (fill) 117 SF (0.003 ac) Total Direct Wetland Impacts 11,399 SF (0.262 ac) A Slope PEMB IV 22,644 SF (0.52 ac) Indirect 690 SF (0.016 ac) C Depressional PEMBC III 29,723 SF (0.68 ac) Indirect 11,313 SF (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). C-19 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 13 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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. C-20 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 14 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 Table 5. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Summary for Wetland Impacts Wetland WSDOE Rating1 Impact Type Impact Area (acre) Compensation Creation/Re- Establishment Ratio Area (acre) 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. C-21 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 15 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 C-22 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 16 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 C-23 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 17 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual and the 2010 Western 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. C-24 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 18 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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. C-25 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 19 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 C-26 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 20 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 ½- inch to 1-inch in size and ½-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 C-27 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 21 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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. Temporary Irrigation 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. C-28 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 22 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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. C-29 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 23 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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. C-30 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 24 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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. C-31 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 25 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 Chapter 5. References Arlington Municipal Code (AMC). 2025. Chapter 20.93 – Critical Areas Ordinances. Website: https://www.arlingtonwa.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 Rating 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. C-32 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 Appendix A – Existing Conditions and Site Plans C-33 LI N D S A Y A N N E X A T I O N - PE N D I N G P R O J E C T 80 1 4 , 8 2 2 8 , 8 2 1 0 , 8 3 2 6 1 7 2 N D S T R E E T N E , AR L I N G T O N , W A 9 8 2 2 3 SN O H O M I S H C O U N T Y P A R C E L N U M B E R ( S ) : 31 0 5 2 5 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 , 31 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 APPLICANT/OWNER NAME:MJS INVESTORS ADDRESS:11400 SE 8TH STREET, SUITE 200, BELLEVUE, WA 98004 CONTACT: ROB RISINGER PHONE:(425) 417-6004 E-MAIL:ROBR@MJSINVESTORS.COM LOCATION THE NE 1 4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 31N, RANGE 5E, WM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE GIG HARBOR, WA 98355 (253) 514-8952 SITE NOTES 1.SURVEY PROVIDED BY COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER. 2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY LAND TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 18820 3RD AVE NE ARLINGTON WA 98223, 360-652-9727 3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. Know what's below. Call before you dig. OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP OHP OHP OHP OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD W W SDSDSDSD SDSDSDSD SDSD SD SD GGG W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W T T T T T T T T T T T T T T G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G G G T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GT 85 t h A v e . N . E . 40 0 Z-9AZ-10A Z-8AZ-8B Z-7B Z-7A Z-6A Z-6B Z-1B Z-1A Z-2A Z-2B Z-3A Z-3B Z-4B Z-4A Z-5B Z-9A Z-5A C-24 C-26 C-27 C-28 C-29 C-23 C-22 C-21 C-20 C-19 C-18 C-17 C-16 C-15 C-14 C-13 C-12 C-10 C-9 C-8 C-7 C-6 C-5 C-4C-3 C-2 C-1 C-31 C-11 A-13 A-12 A-14 A-15 A-11 A-10 A-9 A-8A-7 A-5 A-4 A-3 A-2 A-1 A-22 A-21 A-20 A-19 A-16 A-17 A-18 B-14 B-13 B-12 B-10 B-15 B-16 B-17B-8 B-7 B-6 B-5 B-20B-19 B-18 B-21 B-22 B-23 B-24 B-25 B-26 B-27 B-28 B-29 B-31 B-32B-33 B-35 B-36 B-37 B-38 B-39 B-41 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-30 D-3 D-2 D-1 D-4 C-25 B-30 B-34 B-11 B-9 172ND STREET NE WETLAND A CATEGORY IV 40-FT BUFFER 22,644 SF WETLAND D CATEGORY IV 40-FT BUFFER 117 SF 50' 40' 110' 11 0 ' DP-15 DP-28 DP-29 DP-26 DP-32 DP-27 DP-22 DP-1 DP-2 DP-4 DP-3 DP-13 DP-6 DP-23 DP-17 DP-3 DP-19 DP-9 DP-11 DP-5 DP-30 DP-31 DP-24 DP-21 DP-10 DP-7 DP-12 DP-25 DP-14 DP-18 WETLAND C CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER 29,723 SF (ONSITE) STREAM Z TYPE NS 50-FT BUFFER WETLAND 1 OFFSITE CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER WETLAND B CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER 45,715 SF (ONSITE) 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 1"= 100 200 400 100' VICINITY MAP SHEET INDEX SHEET SHEET TITLE M1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS M2.0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN & MPACTS M3.0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN & MITIGATION M3.1 PLANT SCHEDULE M4.0 DETAILS SOURCE: ESRI (ACCESSED 01/27/2025) So u n d v i e w C o n s u l t a n t s WW W . S O U N D V I E W C O N S U L T A N T S . C O M GI G H A R B O R , W A S H I N G T O N 9 8 3 3 5 29 0 7 H A R B O R V I E W D R I V E FP En v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 4 . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 2 Pl a n n i n g L a n d U s e S o l u t i o n s DATE: SHEET: BY: SCALE: 8/4/2025 2419.0002 MW AS SHOWN JOB #: RE V I S I O N S : BY DA T E EXISTING CONDITIONS M1.0 PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY APPROXIMATED WETLAND BOUNDARY (NOT SURVEYED) STANDARD WETLAND BUFFER WETLAND FLAG LOCATION DATA PLOT LOCATION STREAM CENTERLINE STREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE (OHW) STREAM BUFFER STREAM OHW (ORDINARY HIGH WATER) FLAG LOCATION DITCH CENTERLINE EXISTING CONTOUR O-# DP-# W-# DP-# W-# C-34 LI N D S A Y A N N E X A T I O N - PE N D I N G P R O J E C T 80 1 4 , 8 2 2 8 , 8 2 1 0 , 8 3 2 6 1 7 2 N D S T R E E T N E , AR L I N G T O N , W A 9 8 2 2 3 SN O H O M I S H C O U N T Y P A R C E L N U M B E R ( S ) : 31 0 5 2 5 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 , 31 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 343332 85 t h A v e . N . E . 37 47 14 13 16 15 19 222120 25 26 24 36 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 51 48 49 50 53 52 28 27 55 5459585756 12 8 12 9 38 35 29 30 15 7 15 0 31 23 2 15 6 15 5 15 4 15 3 14 8 14 915 2 15 1 121110987654 1 3 15 9 16 7 16 0 16 1 16 2 16 3 16 4 16 5 15 8 16 6 66 74 67 75 60 68 61 69 62 70 63 71 64 72 65 73 11 2 12 3 11 3 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 11 8 11 9 12 0 12 1 12 2 12 5 12 7 94 12 4 12 6 80 13 3 14 0 87 79 10 7 13 5 13 2 10 4 13 4 136 86 78 10 6 10 010 3 14 7 131 93 85 77 10 5 13 9 13 8 14 6 130 92 84 76 9899 137 10 2 14 5 91 83 11 1 9710 1 14 4 90 82 11 0 96 14 3 14 1 89 81 10 9 95 14 2 88 10 8 OS 974 1,243 sf OS 978 1,357 sf OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP OHP OHP OHP OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P SD SD SD W W GGG W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W T T T T T T T T T T T T T T G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G G G T T T T T T T T T T T T T G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GT 85 t h A v e . N . E . 172ND STREET NE WETLAND A CATEGORY IV 110-FT BUFFER 22,644 SF WETLAND D CATEGORY IV 40-FT BUFFER 117 SF FILLED WETLAND C CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER 29,723 SF (ONSITE) STREAM Z TYPE NS 50-FT BUFFER WETLAND 1 OFFSITE CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER WETLAND B CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER 45,715 SF (ONSITE) 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 1"= 100 200 400 100' So u n d v i e w C o n s u l t a n t s WW W . S O U N D V I E W C O N S U L T A N T S . C O M GI G H A R B O R , W A S H I N G T O N 9 8 3 3 5 29 0 7 H A R B O R V I E W D R I V E FP En v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 4 . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 2 Pl a n n i n g L a n d U s e S o l u t i o n s DATE: SHEET: BY: SCALE: 8/4/2025 2419.0002 MW AS SHOWN JOB #: RE V I S I O N S : BY DA T E PROPOSED SITE PLAN & IMPACTS M2.0 PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE WETLAND BOUNDARY APPROXIMATED WETLAND BOUNDARY (NOT SURVEYED) STREAM CENTERLINE STREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE (OHW) EXISTING DITCH CENTERLINE POST-CONSTRUCTION BUFFER PROPOSED CLEARING LIMIT IMPACTS LEGEND WETLAND IMPACTS TOTAL WETLAND FILL 11,399 SF FILL -- WETLAND A 1,499 SF FILL -- WETLAND C 9,783 SF FILL -- WETLAND D 117 SF INDIRECT WETLAND IMPACTS 12,003 SF INDIRECT IMPACTS -- WETLAND A 690 SF INDIRECT IMPACTS -- WETLAND C 11,313 SF BUFFER IMPACTS TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS 7,379 SF (FOR GRADING AND UTILITIES; TO BE RESTORED) PERMANENT BUFFER IMPACTS 2,467 SF (FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAIL) C-35 LI N D S A Y A N N E X A T I O N - PE N D I N G P R O J E C T 80 1 4 , 8 2 2 8 , 8 2 1 0 , 8 3 2 6 1 7 2 N D S T R E E T N E , AR L I N G T O N , W A 9 8 2 2 3 SN O H O M I S H C O U N T Y P A R C E L N U M B E R ( S ) : 31 0 5 2 5 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 , 31 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 343332 37 47 14 13 16 15 19 222120 25 26 24 36 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 51 48 49 50 53 52 28 27 55 5459585756 12 8 12 9 38 35 29 30 15 7 15 0 31 23 2 15 6 15 5 15 4 15 3 14 8 14 915 2 15 1 121110987654 1 3 15 9 16 7 16 0 16 1 16 2 16 3 16 4 16 5 15 8 16 6 66 74 67 75 60 68 61 69 62 70 63 71 64 72 65 73 11 2 12 3 11 3 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 11 8 11 9 12 0 12 1 12 2 12 5 12 7 94 12 4 12 6 80 13 3 14 0 87 79 10 7 13 5 13 2 10 4 13 4 13 6 86 78 10 6 10 010 3 14 7 131 93 85 77 10 5 13 9 13 8 14 6 130 92 84 76 9899 137 10 2 14 5 91 83 11 1 9710 1 14 4 90 82 11 0 96 14 3 14 1 89 81 10 9 95 14 2 88 10 8 OS 974 1,243 sf OS 978 1,357 sf 172ND STREET NE WETLAND A CATEGORY IV 110-FT BUFFER 22,644 SF WETLAND C CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER 29,723 SF (ONSITE) STREAM Z TYPE NS 50-FT BUFFER WETLAND 1 OFFSITE CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER WETLAND B CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER 45,715 SF (ONSITE) PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE WETLAND BOUNDARY APPROXIMATED WETLAND BOUNDARY (NOT SURVEYED) POST CONSTRUCTION BUFFER STREAM CENTERLINE STREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE (OHW) EXISTING DITCH CENTERLINE So u n d v i e w C o n s u l t a n t s WW W . S O U N D V I E W C O N S U L T A N T S . C O M GI G H A R B O R , W A S H I N G T O N 9 8 3 3 5 29 0 7 H A R B O R V I E W D R I V E FP En v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 4 . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 2 Pl a n n i n g L a n d U s e S o l u t i o n s DATE: SHEET: BY: SCALE: 8/4/2025 2419.0002 MW AS SHOWN JOB #: RE V I S I O N S : BY DA T E PROPOSED SITE PLAN & MITIGATION M3.0 MITIGATION LEGEND WETLAND MITIGATION WETLAND ENHANCEMENT 29,086 SF WETLAND CREATION 69,115 SF FENCES & SIGNS POST-CONSTRUCTION BUFFER/ CRITICAL AREA FENCE 1,235 SF CRITICAL AREA SIGN 23 SIGNS 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 1"= 100 200 400 100' BUFFER MITIGATION WETLAND AS BUFFER ENHANCEMENT (INDIRECT WETLAND IMPACTS) 12,003 SF BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 101,308 SF BUFFER RESTORATION (FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS) 6,379 SF BUFFER CREATION 8,684 SF C-36 LI N D S A Y A N N E X A T I O N - PE N D I N G P R O J E C T 80 1 4 , 8 2 2 8 , 8 2 1 0 , 8 3 2 6 1 7 2 N D S T R E E T N E , AR L I N G T O N , W A 9 8 2 2 3 SN O H O M I S H C O U N T Y P A R C E L N U M B E R ( S ) : 31 0 5 2 5 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 , 31 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 So u n d v i e w C o n s u l t a n t s WW W . S O U N D V I E W C O N S U L T A N T S . C O M GI G H A R B O R , W A S H I N G T O N 9 8 3 3 5 29 0 7 H A R B O R V I E W D R I V E FP En v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 4 . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 2 Pl a n n i n g L a n d U s e S o l u t i o n s DATE: SHEET: BY: SCALE: 8/4/2025 2419.0002 MW AS SHOWN JOB #: RE V I S I O N S : BY DA T E PLANT SCHEDULE M3.1 PLANT SCHEDULE C-37 LI N D S A Y A N N E X A T I O N - PE N D I N G P R O J E C T 80 1 4 , 8 2 2 8 , 8 2 1 0 , 8 3 2 6 1 7 2 N D S T R E E T N E , AR L I N G T O N , W A 9 8 2 2 3 SN O H O M I S H C O U N T Y P A R C E L N U M B E R ( S ) : 31 0 5 2 5 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 , 31 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 So u n d v i e w C o n s u l t a n t s WW W . S O U N D V I E W C O N S U L T A N T S . C O M GI G H A R B O R , W A S H I N G T O N 9 8 3 3 5 29 0 7 H A R B O R V I E W D R I V E FP En v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 4 . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 2 Pl a n n i n g L a n d U s e S o l u t i o n s DATE: SHEET: BY: SCALE: 8/4/2025 2419.0002 MW AS SHOWN JOB #: RE V I S I O N S : BY DA T E DETAILS M4.0 STORAGE OF LIVE STAKES: ALL WOODY PLANT CUTTINGS COLLECTED MORE THAN 12 HR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, MUST BE CAREFULLY BOUND, SECURED, AND STORED OUT OF DIRECT SUNLIGHT AND SUBMERGED IN CLEAN FRESH WATER 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 THE DORMANT SEASON, CUT DURING THE DORMANT SEASON AND HOLD IN COLD STORAGE AT TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 33 AND 39 DEGREES F FOR UP TO 2 MONTHS. NOTES: 1. LIVE STAKES TO BE A MIN. 1/2 INCH DIAMETER; MIN. 48 INCH LENGTH. 2. USE 1/2 INCH MIN. DIAMETER REBAR OR ROCK BAR TO MAKE PILOT HOLE WHEN PLANTING IN DENSE OR GRAVELY SOILS TO A MIN. DEPTH OF 18 INCHES. 3. MANUALLY INSERT LIVE STAKE INTO PILOT HOLE TAPERED END UP AND TEMP SOIL AROUND BASE. CUTTINGS SHOULD BE INSERTED TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 18 INCHES. LEAVE A MIN. OF 30" OF THE CUTTING ABOVE GROUND SURFACE TO ALLOW FOR SUCCESSFUL FOLIAGE DEVELOPMENT. 4. MINUMUM TWO BUDS ABOVE GRADE. 5. SET LIVE STAKES WITH DEAD-BLOW HAMMER. 6. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION. NOT TO SCALE LIVE STAKE PLANTING DETAIL (TYPICAL) min. 18 in. below grade min. 30 in. above grade NOTES: 1. PLANT SHRUBS OF THE SAME SPECIES IN GROUPS OF 3 to 9 AS APPROPRIATE, OR AS SHOWN ON PLAN. AVOID INSTALLING PLANTS IN STRAIGHT LINES TO ACHIEVE A NATURAL-LOOKING LAYOUT. 2. EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTH OF ROOT MASS AND 2 X ROOT MASS DIAMETER. SPREAD ROOTS TO FULL WIDTH OF CANOPY. SCARIFY SIDES OF PIT. 3. MIDWAY THROUGH PLANTING ADD AGROFORM TABLET AND WATER THOROUGHLY. 4. BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTED USING WATER ONLY. 5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION. LOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED) 3 to 4 INCH LAYER OF MULCH - KEEP MULCH MIN. 3" AWAY FROM TRUNK OF SHRUB SET TOP OF ROOT MASS / ROOT BALL FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SUBGRADE NOT TO SCALE TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL, TYP. NOTES: 1. POSTS AND RAILINGS PRE-CUT FOR ASSEMBLY. 2. 3-RAIL DESIGNS ARE PERMITTED. 3. FENCE SHALL BE PLACED AT APPROVED BUFFER EDGE. NOT TO SCALE SPLIT RAIL FENCE DETAIL 12" DIAM. 8'-0" 1'-6" 3'-0" 2'-0" MIN. 6" COMPACTED GRANULAR SUB-BASE 4-6" CONCRETE FOOTING NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL FINISHED GRADE PITCH SURFACE TO DRAIN 4 TO 6" SPLIT CEDAR RAILS, TYP. 6x6" SPLIT CEDAR POSTS C-38 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 C-39 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 (Punto 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. C-40 Lindsay Subarea Plan Appendices ▪ Appendices ▪ November 2025 D-1 D Updated Pending Project Area Site Plan and Mitigation OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP OHP OHP OHP OHPOHPOHPOHP OHP OHP OHP OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSD SD SD T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T 24 25 23 26 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SS SS W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N89° 15' 35"W331.12' N86° 29' 57"W1275.23' L5 L3 N87° 14' 13"W 2584.34' N89° 10' 12"W 330.87' N0 0 ° 3 4 ' 3 9 " E 13 0 1 . 0 2 ' L4 RUOS-986 RUOS-985 Residential Usable Open Space-983 RUOS-989 OS - 9 6 9 OS - 9 7 6 Lo t 1 4 3 Lo t 4 Lo t 1 4 2 Lo t 1 1 8 OS - 9 7 9 Lo t 7 3 Lo t 1 3 7 Lo t 2 1 Lo t 1 2 2 Lo t 6 1 Lo t 1 2 3 Lo t 1 4 1 Lo t 3 7 Lot 131 Lo t 1 0 2 Lo t 8 Lo t 6 Lo t 1 2 6 Lo t 3 5 Lo t 1 8 Lo t 7 2 Lo t 1 0 5 Lo t 1 2 7 Lo t 2 0 Lot 14 Lo t 1 3 2 Lo t 1 6 0 Lo t 3 4 Lo t 1 4 6 Lo t 7 4 Lo t 5 4 Lot 43 Lo t 1 1 4 Lo t 1 5 4 Lo t 1 5 9 Lo t 5 9 Lo t 1 4 5 Lo t 9 0 Lo t 1 3 9 Lot 42 Lo t 1 0 Lo t 1 5 8 Lo t 1 4 8 Lo t 9 1 Lo t 9 9 Lo t 1 1 6 Lo t 3 1 Lo t 5 Lo t 3 0 Lo t 6 4 OS - 9 7 0 Lo t 2 9 Lo t 3 3 Lo t 7 8 Lot 40 Lo t 7 5 Lo t 7 9 Lot 53 Lo t 2 7 Lot 52 Lo t 8 1 Lot 51 Lo t 6 5 Lo t 3 8 Lo t 1 6 6 Lo t 6 7 Lot 41 Lo t 1 6 5 Lo t 6 6 Lo t 8 4 Lot 48 Lo t 6 3 Lo t 1 6 4 Lo t 8 5 Lo t 1 6 3 Lo t 1 0 4 Lo t 1 6 2 Lo t 3 Lo t 8 7 Lo t 1 1 2 Lo t 1 6 1 Lot 44 Lo t 1 5 0 Lo t 9 2 Lo t 1 1 7 Lot 13 Lot 130 Lo t 1 5 6 Lo t 1 3 6 Lo t 7 Lo t 6 0 Lo t 1 1 9 Lot 15 Lo t 1 2 0 Lo t 7 1 Lo t 1 0 1 Lo t 1 2 1 Lo t 1 1 0 RUOS-987 Lo t 7 7 Lo t 1 2 Lo t 1 0 9 Lo t 5 7 Lo t 5 5 Lo t 1 4 9 Lo t 9 6 Lo t 1 3 8 Lo t 1 2 4 Lo t 9 8 Lo t 1 2 5 Lo t 3 6 Lo t 1 1 RU O S - 9 8 2 Lo t 3 2 Lo t 1 9 Lo t 6 2 Lo t 1 2 8 Lo t 1 5 7 Lo t 2 2 Lo t 9 3 Lo t 1 2 9 Lo t 1 5 5 Lo t 8 9 Lo t 1 0 3 Lo t 9 Lo t 5 6 Lo t 1 1 5 Lo t 1 0 7 Lo t 1 5 3 Lo t 1 4 4 Lo t 1 4 0 Lot 3 9 Lo t 1 0 6 Lo t 1 5 2 Lo t 9 4 Lo t 9 7 966 Lo t 7 6 Lo t 1 3 5 Lo t 1 3 4 OS-978 Lo t 1 0 0 Lo t 2 8 Lo t 1 5 1 Lo t 2 Lo t 7 0 Lo t 8 0 Lo t 2 6 Lo t 1 0 8 Lot 16 Lo t 6 9 Lo t 2 5 Lo t 1 6 7 Lo t 6 8 Lo t 8 2 Lot 50 Lo t 2 4 Lo t 8 3 Lot 49 Tract 999 Lo t 5 8 Lot 47 Lo t 1 3 3 Lo t 9 5 Lo t 8 6 Lot 46 Lot 45 Lo t 1 4 7 Lo t 8 8 Lo t 1 1 3 Lo t 1 Lo t 2 3 RUOS-893 RUOS-892 Lot 17 Tr a c t 9 9 8 Lo t 2 2 4 Lo t 2 1 8 Lo t 2 0 2 OS-859 Lo t 2 0 1 OS - 8 7 7 Lo t 2 1 9 Lo t 1 6 8 RUOS-889 OS-876 848 Tract 895 OS-858 849 Tract 896 RUOS-891 Tract 897 Lo t 1 9 7 Lo t 2 1 3 Lo t 1 7 9 Lo t 2 0 8 Lot 1 8 1 Lot 1 7 3 Lo t 2 0 7 Lot 225 Lo t 2 0 9 Lo t 1 9 6 Lot 304 Lo t 2 2 3 Lot 189 Lot 1 7 7 Lo t 1 6 9 Lot 1 8 2 Lot 1 8 4 Lot 1 8 0 Lo t 1 9 2 Lo t 2 1 2 Lo t 2 1 5 Lo t 2 1 1 Lot 190 Lo t 2 1 7 Lo t 2 0 4 Lo t 2 2 1 Lo t 1 9 3 Lot 226 Lot 188 Lot 1 8 6 Lo t 1 9 5 Lot 303 Lo t 1 7 8 Lo t 1 7 0 Lo t 2 0 5 Lot 228 Lo t 2 1 6 Lot 1 8 5 Lo t 1 9 1 Lo t 2 1 4 Lo t 2 1 0 Lot 18 7 Lo t 1 9 4 Lo t 2 2 2 Lot 1 7 5 Lot 1 7 1 Lo t 2 2 0 Lo t 1 9 8 Lo t 2 0 0 Lot 229 Lo t 2 0 3 Lo t 2 0 6 Lot 227 Lot 17 4 Lot 1 7 6 Lot 1 7 2 Lot 305 Lot 1 8 3 Lo t 1 9 9 Lot 23 0 322,983 sf 4, 1 7 4 s f 19,081 sf 63,155 sf 19,248 sf 2, 3 4 2 s f 1,368 sf 1,758 sf 1,758 sf 1, 7 6 0 s f 1,799 sf 25,708 sf 54,603 sf 236,051 sf 1, 3 5 7 s f 1, 2 1 8 s f 10,007 sf 14,994 sf Lo t 1 1 1 OS - 9 7 1 OS - 9 7 3 OS - 9 7 2 OS - 9 7 4 OS - 9 7 5 1, 2 1 9 s f 1, 4 6 2 s f 1, 2 3 9 s f 1, 2 1 6 s f 1, 2 1 8 s f OS - 8 7 0 OS - 8 7 1 RUOS-890 OS - 8 7 3 OS - 8 7 4 OS - 8 7 5 13,917 sf 90 2 s f 5,882 sf 12,718 sf 7, 9 3 4 s f 10 , 4 4 1 s f 10,158 sf 90 0 s f 90 1 s f 90 1 s f OS - 8 7 2 90 5 s f 1, 5 9 7 s f Tract 89415,042 sf Tract 997 Tract 996 10,266 sf 7,290 sf 36,362 sf 49,679 sf OS-9773,625 sf Wetland Z Type Ns Ex. 30' Road and Utility Easement A.F.N. 1423077 Ex. 30' Distribution Easement A.F.N. 7708020302 Ex. 30' Ingress, Egress and Utility Easement A.F.N. 7708180120, 9104290759 and 9006190629 Edg e c o m b C r e e k Ed g e c o m b C r e e k ( f i s h h a b i t a t ) no n - f i s h h a b i t a t s e a s o n a l s t r e a m Wetland B Wetland C We t l a n d A Category III Ca t e g o r y I V Category III Wetland 1 Category III City of Arlington Snohomish County OS-877 171st St NE Road C Road A Ro a d B Ro a d A Road D 79 t h A v e . N . E . Wetland Creation Wetland A & C Combined Edge c o m b Creek RUOS-9851,758 sf RUOS-988989 sf OS-873902 sfRoad F Road G Road E 168th St. NE Concept Vault Concept Vault Concept Vault Bioretention (typ) 310526-001-018-00 Judith A Leger 7808 172nd St. N.E. Arlington, WA 98223 310526-001-019-00Jonathan & Kaitlyn Rickseck e r 7807 168th St. N.E. Arlington, WA 98223 Edg e c o m b C r e e k Approximate Location of E x . 5 0 ' Ex. 50' Stream Buffer Ex. 50' Stream Buffer CALL AT LEAST 2 BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 00 100'200' Scale: 1"=100' EXHIBIT PROJECT AREA Property in Contract Existing Section Line Existing Right-of-Way Line Existing Lot Line Existing Easement Line Existing Road Centerline Existing Edge of Asphalt LEGEND Existing Wetland Wetland Addition Existing Wetland Removed Existing Wetland Buffer Existing Wetland Excavation Existing Wetland Buffer Removed Boundary Line Residential Usable Open Space (RUOS) Private Open Space Wetland Buffer Addition Unqualified Open Space (OS) SUBAREA WITH PENDING PROJECT Z: \ M J S I n v e s t o r s - L i n d s a y A n n e x a t i o n M a s t e r P l a n n i n g \ S h e e t s \ E 1 E x h i b i t P r o j e c t A r e a . d w g 9/ 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 3 9 A M SHEET of SHEET of 24x36 18 8 2 0 T h i r d A v e n u e , N . E . Ar l i n g t o n , W A 9 8 2 2 3 36 0 - 6 5 2 - 9 7 2 7 c Co p y r i g h t 1 9 9 3 - 20 2 5 MA K I N G A " W A Y " O U T O F " N O W A Y " PR O J E C T L E A D : CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : DA T E : RE V I S I O N 1 : RE V I S I O N 2 : RE V I S I O N 3 : RE V I S I O N 4 : AS - B U I L T : A P O R T I O N O F S E C T I O N 25 & 2 6 , T O W N S H I P 31 N O R T H , R A N G E 5 E A S T , W . M . A PORTION OF SECTION 25 & 26, TOWNSHIP 31 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. Me r l e Ty l e r Mie r , A l e x ------ - 25 109347 LDA E1 E1 75 3 0 1 7 2 n d S t . N . E . , Ev e r e t t , W A 9 8 2 0 4 Li n d s a y S u b a r e a P l a n EX H I B I T P R O J E C T A R E A - P E N D I N G P R O J E C T 11 2 0 1 S E 8 t h S t r e e t , Be l l e v u e , W A 9 8 0 0 4 - City of Arlington | Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement Volume I November 2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 i Cover Letter 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 43.21C.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. City of Arlington Community & Economic Development 18204 59th Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 ii Please see the Fact Sheet for more information. Thank you for your interest in the Lindsay Subarea Plan and EIS. Sincerely, Amy Rusko, Community & Economic Development Director and SEPA Official 18204 59th Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 iii Fact Sheet Project Title Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Proposed Action and Alternatives 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 43.21C.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 iv Lead Agency City of Arlington Location The Lindsay Master Plan Subarea is bounded by SR 531 (172nd St NE) on the north, the 84th Ave NE alignment on the east, the 168th St NE alignment on the south, and the 75th Ave NE alignment on the west, in the Hilltop neighborhood. Tentative Date of Implementation/Action Subarea Plan adoption expected Winter 2025 Responsible SEPA Officia l Amy Rusko, Community and Economic Development Director City of Arlington 18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98233 arusko@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 v 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 Issuance 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 O: 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 see the contact person above. Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 vi Purchase/Availability of EIS 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 vii Distribution List The following agencies and organizations are receiving a notice that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for review. Federal & Tribal Agencies • Arlington Postmaster & Office • Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians • Tulalip Tribes State Agencies • Department of Agriculture • Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation • WSDOT Aviation Division • Department of Commerce • Department of Corrections • Department of Ecology • Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) • Department of Fish and Wildlife • Department of Health • Department of Natural Resources • Parks and Recreation Commission • Department of Social and Health Services • Department of Transportation • Department of Transportation - Management of Mobility Division Regional & County Agencies • Puget Sound Partnership • Puget Sound Regional Council • Snohomish County – Public Works • Snohomish County – Planning Arlington, Adjacent Jurisdictions, Service Providers • Snohomish County • Snohomish County PUD • Snohomish Health District • Waste Management • Arlington Public Works • Arlington School District • Arlington Police Department • North County Regional Fire Authority • City of Marysville Community Organizations & Individuals • Property owners within 500 feet of the subarea Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 viii 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 ix 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 x 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 xi Exhibits 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. Alternative 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 xii 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 xiii 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 Chapter 1 | SUMMARY | Introduction Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action DEIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 1 1 SUMMARY Chapter 1 | SUMMARY Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 2 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 strikethrough, and new text is underlined. 1.2 Study Area 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 I-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. Chapter 1 | SUMMARY Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 3 • 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 67th 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 Source: MAKERS, 2025. Chapter 1 | SUMMARY Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 4 Exhibit 1.1-2. Lindsay Subarea Study Area 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 Chapter 1 | SUMMARY Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 5 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 43.21C.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. Chapter 1 | SUMMARY Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 6 1.4 SEPA Process 1.4.1 Environmental Review Under RCW 43.21C.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 1.4.2 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.. 1. Prepare & Issue Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)2. Consider Adoption of Planned Action Ordinance and Subarea Plan 3. Review Future Permits for Consistency with Ordinance and Subarea Plan Chapter 1 | SUMMARY Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 7 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 Chapter 1 | SUMMARY Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 8 1.5.2 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 Draft EIS. 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. 1.6 Key Issues & Options 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. Chapter 1 | SUMMARY Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 9 1.7 Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation of the Proposal 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 Summary of Impacts & Mitigation Measures This section highlights the impacts that would potentially result from the alternatives analyzed in this Draft EIS. This summary is not intended to be a substitute for the complete discussion of each element that is contained in Chapter 3. Chapter 1 | SUMMARY Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 10 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 Plans/Housing: Projected housing growth in Alternative 1 is much lower than the adopted growth targets in Arlington Comprehensive Plan. Aesthetics/Urban Form: Alternative 1’s gradual transition to a more developed landscape is not expected to have urban form impacts. Relationship to Existing Land Use Plans/Housing: Projected housing growth in Alternative 2 would meet the adopted growth targets in Arlington Comprehensive Plan. Redevelopment would be consistent with the Linsday Subarea Plan, the intent and goals of the Arlington’s Comprehensive plan, Puget Sound 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 or eliminate impacts Existing development code and design standards regulate urban form No mitigation measures to meet growth targets allow development that meets Arlington’s residential growth needs. Lindsay Design Standards will be applied to new development to encourage appearance. Chapter 1 | SUMMARY Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 11 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 development Loss of open field habitat Increased impervious surface Increased runoff Temporary buffer impacts due to grading Expansion of 79th Avenue NE Piecemeal development and implementation over extended time, which results in difficult-to- quantify cumulative impacts, and also limits the ability to 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 Grading to level site for development Loss of open field habitat Increased impervious surface Increased runoff Temporary buffer impacts due to grading Expansion of 79th Avenue NE Complete and/or partial fill of several low functioning wetlands onsite, resulting in direct and indirect wetland impacts Permanent and temporary buffer impacts for allowed uses Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts Avoid steep slopes Enhance degraded wetland buffers in vicinity of any proposed development per AMC 20.93.830 Protected critical areas tracts Stormwater treatment Restoration of temporarily impacted buffer areas Culvert replacement for 79th Avenue NE crossing Potential to avoid all direct wetland and stream impacts depending on proposed Avoid steep slopes Enhance degraded wetland buffers in vicinity of any proposed development per AMC 20.93.830 Protected critical areas tracts Stormwater treatment Restoration of temporarily impacted buffer areas Culvert replacement for 79th Avenue NE crossing Implementation of vegetated corridors Use of buffer averaging to ensure no Chapter 1 | SUMMARY Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 12 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposal 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 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposal Impacts All study intersections meet operational standards with planned improvements except for the SR 9/204th Street NE intersection and 80th Drive NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) intersection. All study intersections meet operational standards with planned improvements except for the SR 9/204th Street NE intersection. As part of the development of the Lindsay subarea, access will be Chapter 1 | SUMMARY Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 13 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposal 80th Drive NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) intersection. Two additional accesses would be required along SR 531 (172nd Street NE). Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts The SR 9/204th Street NE intersection is a WSDOT intersection, and it is assumed that WSDOT will assess and address operational deficiencies. To accommodate other planned improvements along SR 531 (172nd Street NE) and provide operations that meet LOS standards, a 2-lane roundabout would be installed at the 80th Drive NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) intersection. is a WSDOT intersection, and it is assumed that WSDOT will assess and address operational deficiencies. To accommodate other planned improvements along SR 531 (172nd Street NE) and provide operations that meet LOS standards, a 2-lane roundabout with an added south leg would be installed at the 80th Drive NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 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. 1.8.4 Public Services Exhibit 1.7-4. Summary of Potential Public Services Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposal Impacts Parks, schools, police, and fire/emergency services have adequate capacity for the expected level of growth. Residential growth could occur without a coordinated parks and trails system in new residential neighborhoods. demand for schools, police, and fire/emergency services, existing plans support the expected level of growth. Transportation investments enhance service delivery/emergency response times and access to community 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. Chapter 1 | SUMMARY Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 14 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposal Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts Plans are regularly updated to maintain alignment with evolving community needs, and should continue to do so. The City, School District, and Fire District should continue coordinating and updating their plans to maintain 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 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposal Impacts Demand for water, sewer, and dry utilities would increase modestly. With planned improvements, sewer and utility capacity likely sufficient. Less compact development patterns would result in less efficient utility infrastructure. Growth would increase demand for water, sewer, and dry utilities. With planned improvements, Arlington’s sewer and water system will have sufficient capacity to serve the additional homes anticipated in Lindsay. With coordination with dry utilities providers, no impacts are anticipated. Utility system would be designed for efficiency, maximizing homes served. Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts Planned water and sewer improvements, and ongoing coordination with dry utility providers will maintain adequate system capacity. Utilities will be designed to avoid and mitigate impacts to wetlands and streams, with review during project approval. All new utilities, including improvements along SR 531, will be placed underground. built to handle anticipated demand and designed for efficiency. Coordination with dry utility providers will maintain adequate system capacity. Offsite infrastructure upgrades depends on sewer and water modeling. Utilities will be designed to avoid and mitigate impacts to wetlands and streams, with review during project approval. All new utilities, including improvements along SR 531, will be placed underground. Chapter 1 | SUMMARY Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 15 1.9 Significant Adverse Impacts Based on the full analysis presented in Chapter 3 of the Draft 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. Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES | Significant Adverse Impacts Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action DEIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 16 2 PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 17 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 Impact Statement (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). Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 18 2.1.2 Study Area 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 168th St NE alignment on the south, and the 75th 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 Note: Replaced map; the Pending Project Area expanded to include additional properties. Source: MAKERS, 2025 Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 19 2.2 SEPA Process 2.2.1 Environmental Review Process Under RCW 43.21C.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, and will 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 Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 20 • 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 Draft 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. Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 21 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: Economic Development Natural 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. Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 22 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. Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 23 (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 43.21C.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) (B) Mixed-Use Development (vertical) (C) Multi-Family Apartments (D) Multi-Family Fourplex (E) Multi-Family Garden Apartments (F) Small Commercial iv. Fourth element shall be the location of Recreational Facilities, Open Space, and Trail System that consists of ten (10) percent of the total area of land, minus areas to be preserved as Native Growth Protection Areas (NGPA). (A) This designation shall include areas proposed to be dedicated to the city as public spaces. All dedicated parks shall be a minimum of two (2) acres in size and coordinated with the city prior to approval. (B) The trail system shall consist of a paved trail that connects the required sidewalk system and to all recreation facilities and open spaces. Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 24 (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 / Neighborhood Meeting March 20 – April 10, 2025/ April 7, 2025 Community members value the rural character of the area but there are conflicting visions for future land uses within the Subarea. Single-family homes and attached home styles are most preferred in the area. Some community members raised concerns about smaller lot sizes and higher housing density, noting they may not align with the character of surrounding neighborhoods. Others emphasized the importance of offering affordable housing options to support young 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 Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 25 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 Plan Public Engagement and Outreach – Housing Survey 2022-2024 48% of those surveyed are satisfied with the sense of community among residents. 12% of those surveyed believed there was an availability of affordable housing within the city. 47% of those surveyed had acceptance of residents of all backgrounds. Comprehensive Plan Public Engagement and Outreach – Hilltop Subarea Survey* 2022 -2024 Good appearance and has adequate lighting No essential services nearby No easy access to medical services No variety of housing types 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. Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES | Objectives and Alternatives Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action DEIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 27 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. Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES | Objectives and Alternatives Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 28 Exhibit 2.5-1. Alternative 1: No Action 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. Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES | Objectives and Alternatives Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 29 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 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. Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES | Objectives and Alternatives Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 30 Exhibit 2.5-4. Alternative 2: Proposal Example Site Plan 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). Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES | Objectives and Alternatives Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 31 Exhibit 2.5-5. Alternative 2, Preferred: Expected Housing Units Single family homes Townhomes Multifamily homes or other* Lindsay Subarea Pending Project Area 167 (38%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 167 (38%) Future Development Area 138 (32%) 87 (20%) 44 (10%) 269 (62%) Subarea Total 305 (70%) 87 (20%) 44 (10%) 436 Single family homes Townhomes Multifamily homes or other1 Total Pending Project Area 224 (51%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 224 (51%) Future Development Area2 81 (19%) 87 (20%) 44 (10%) 212 (49%) Lindsay Subarea 305 (70%) 87 (20%) 44 (10%) 436 1. Mixed-use, small commercial, and ADUs are allowed, but not included in draft proposal. 2. Example land use mix meeting AMC 20.44.032 and aligning with Pending Project Area development. Additional housing types not explicitly mentioned in the chart (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, stacked flats) would also be allowed. 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. Gross area (acres) 87.5 Gross density (units per acre) 5.0 Pending Project Area gross area (acres) 48.2 Pending Project Area gross density (units per acre) 4.6 Future Development Area gross area (acres) 39.3 Future Development Area gross density (units per acre) 5.4 Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES | Objectives and Alternatives Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 32 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 Density Future Development Area Minimum Residential Density Future Development Area gross area (acres) 39 Unbuildable land - critical areas, buffers, and easements (acres) 20 Gross buildable land (acres) 19 Residential Density Expected units/gross buildable land acres (units/acre) 11 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. Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES | Objectives and Alternatives Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 33 Exhibit 2.5-8. Alternative 2, Preferred: Housing Types 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 Source: Land Technologies, MAKERS, 2025 Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES | Objectives and Alternatives Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 34 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 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 Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES | Objectives and Alternatives Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 35 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 Area (sf) % of Gross Total Lindsay Subarea Gross Area 3,810,914 Required Open Space (10% of (gross area minus NGPA)) 268,223 Native Growth Protection Areas (NGPA) 1,128,685 30% Open Space 142,307 4% Parks: Storm Management, Recreation Areas 462,564 12% Pending Project Area NGPA 337,425 9% Open Space 35,530 1% Parks: Storm Management, Recreation Areas 115,192 3% Future Development Area NGPA 791,260 21% Open Space 106,777 3% Parks: Storm Management, Recreation Areas 348,372 9% Area (sf) % of Gross Total Lindsay Subarea Gross Area 3,810,914 Required Open Space (10% of (gross area minus NGPA)) 268,223 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 Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES | Objectives and Alternatives Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 36 Area (sf) % of Gross NGPA 791,258 21% Open Space1 64,410 3% Parks: Storm Management, Recreation Areas1 348,350 9% 1. Example of open space and parks dedication to meet AMC 20.44.032 Exhibit 2.5-12. Shared Open Space Illustrations Sources: Land Technologies, 2025 Transportation The proposed street system includes a north-south connection—79th 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 80th Dr NE, depending on timing of development, and the developer would improve SR 531 (172nd St NE) along the Subarea. Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES | Objectives and Alternatives Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 37 Exhibit 2.5-13. Alternative 2, Preferred: Street Types 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 Chapter 2 | PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES | Objectives and Alternatives Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 38 Exhibit 2.5-14. Street type examples Source: Land Technologies, MAKERS, 2025 Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action DEIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 39 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 40 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 41 Exhibit 3.1-1. Summary of City and Regional Planning Framework Planning Framework Growth Strategy & Development Pattern Accommodate future growth in alignment with the PSRC Regional Growth 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. Refer to Public Services for the 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 42 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 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 43 Exhibit 3.1-3. RULC Density and Dimension Standards Zone Residential Ultra Low Capacity Minimum Lot Size (square feet) 9,600 or larger Minimum Residential Densities 1-4 Du/AC Minimum Lot Width (feet) 70 Building Setback Requirements – Minimum Distance, in feet from: Non-Arterial Street Right of Way Line Building 25 Freestanding Sign 10 Arterial Street Right of Way Line Building 40 Freestanding Sign 10 Rear Lot Boundary Line Building Primary – 20 Accessory – 5 Side Lot Boundary Line or Alley Building and Freestanding Sign 5 ECA Buffer 15 Height Limit (feet) 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 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 44 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 Plan PSRC1 Comprehensive Plan PSRC1 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 1 PSRC targets are included only for informational purposes. Source: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Forecasts Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 45 Exhibit 3.1-5. Lindsay Subarea Full TAZs Map 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 46 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 47 Exhibit 3.1-6. Noise levels near Lindsay Subarea Note: Map includes road and rail-related noise. Aviation noise data is not available. Source: National Transportation Noise Map, 2020 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 48 Exhibit 3.1-7. Arlington Municipal Airport Traffic Patterns Source: Traffic Patterns, City of Arlington, 2025 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 49 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:  70% single-family residential or cottage housing, with a lot size of 3,600-4,500 square feet  20% attached residential, such as town homes, row houses, or duplexes  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 Planning Framework Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposal Notes Growth Strategy & Development Pattern Accommodate future growth in alignment with the PSRC Regional Growth Strategy by encouraging the development of walkable, healthy, and equitable communities, while preserving rural and resource lands and fostering a strong sense of community ✓ ✓+ Alternatives would see residential growth within neighborhoods with nearby amenities and opportunities. Alternative 2 would increase the potential for denser development, improve community connectivity, include updated design standards for walkability, and create gathering spaces such as parks and shared courtyards to strengthen sense of community. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 50 Planning Framework Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposal Notes 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. ✓- ✓+ Alternatives support increasing housing stock. Alternative 1 would be unlikely to increase housing type diversity or increase housing stock to the same extent as Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would accommodate planned residential growth and allow a variety of home types. 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. ✓ ✓+ Alternatives would adhere to City “Complete Streets”, “Vision Zero”, and “Safe Routes to School” guidelines to enhance walkability and streetscape. Alternative 2 would connect more residences to active transportation infrastructure and make use of updated street standards. 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. ✓- ✓+ Alternative 2 would increase the potential for publicly accessible parks and recreation while protecting critical areas. 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 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 51 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 Existing Net New Housing Total Housing Units Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposal Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposal Lindsay 17 85 419 102 436 Source: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Forecasts, Land Technologies, 2025 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 52 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 53 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- Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 54 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 55 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 Single-family houses, cottage housing, or townhouses Maximum Height 35 feet Building Setbacks Front – minimum: 10 feet* Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 56 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 57 Exhibit 3.1-11. Lindsay Design Standards Overview Citywide Development Design Standards Subarea Plan Reference Relevant Codes Street Character and Liveliness Inhabited Streets Pedestrian-Oriented Façade Pedestrian Environment Access to Buildings from the Street Screening Blank Walls and Retaining Walls Pedestrian-Oriented Façade Service Element Screening Screening Parking Lots Screening Parking Garages Parking Garage Entries and Driveways Vehicular Entrances and Driveways Lighting Design Lighting Landscape Design Continuity Along the Street 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 Public to Private Space Transitions 20.46.080 Walls and Fences Neighborhood Character Creating Streetscape Compatibility Orienting the Building to the Street Orienting to Public Spaces Compatibility within Emerging Centers Adjacent Properties Retaining Privacy and Solar Access Solar Access Parking Adjacent to Residences 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 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 58 Citywide Development Design Standards Subarea Plan Reference Relevant Codes Creating Usable Open Space Residential Open Space 20.44.032 Subarea Plans and 20.52.030 Residential Usable Open Space Siting Parking Areas Parking Lots Location Vehicular Entrances and Driveways Chapter 20.72 Parking, 20.76.130 Shade Trees in 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 Complexes Parking Lots Location Chapter 20.72 Parking, 20.76.130 Shade Trees in Parking Areas, and 20.76.110 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 Mixed-Use Buildings Site and Building Design Legend: = Applicable citywide Development Design Standard = Refined design standard for the Lindsay Subarea = New topic for the Lindsay Subarea Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Land Use and Urban Form Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 59 • 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 60 • 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. 3.2 Natural Environment 3.2.1 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 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 61 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 Source: Soundview, 2024 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 62 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 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 63 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 79th 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 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 64 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 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 65 an existing culvert conveying Stream Z under 79th 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 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 66 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 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 67 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 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 68 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 0 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. Mitigation Strategies for more information. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 69 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 70 3.2.3 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 71 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 Allowance1 Mitigation Sequencing2 Requirements3 Mitigation Options4 Proposed Condition5 Natural Buffer Retention AMC 20.93.330 Avoid Retain natural buffer condition None required. Buffers remain degraded Standard Buffer Requirements AMC 20.93.830(a) Avoid Increase buffer width None required Buffer width increased, but remains degraded Implement mitigation measures and improve degraded buffer Enhancement Avoid and/or limit impacts to critical areas and their buffers while improving buffer condition Buffer Impacts (Temporary) AMC 20.93.330 Minimize and rectify Where disturbed, revegetate Restoration Impacted buffers are restored, in areas where the buffers are currently degraded, this will result in improved conditions Buffer Impacts (Permanent) Minimize and compensate Onsite in-kind, presumed 1:1 replacement Creation Replace impacted buffer area onsite, degraded areas will be Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 72 Code Allowance1 Mitigation Sequencing2 Requirements3 Mitigation Options4 Proposed Condition5 AMC 20.93.820 improved through enhancement measures. Offsite replacement Mitigation Bank Impacted buffer will be compensated through the purchase of credits from a mitigation bank within the same watershed Buffer Averaging AMC 20.93.320 Avoid Buffer width reduction up to 25%, net zero loss of buffer area Enhancement (if degraded) Average buffer to avoid impacts and improve buffer conditions for any part of the existing buffer that is degraded Mitigation Wetland Impacts AMC 20.93.840 Rectify Restore areas temporarily impacted by construction activities Restoration Ensures temporarily impacted areas are restored with native vegetation, may provide improvement over existing degraded condition Compensate Onsite in-kind replacement according to Table 20.93-7 Creation, restoration, and/or enhancement Impacted critical area will be replaced onsite at a higher ratio resulting in overall net increase of that critical area onsite Compensate Offsite replacement Mitigation Bank Impacted critical areas will be 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 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 73 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 79th Ave NE for site access. Stream Z is currently conveyed beneath 79th 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 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 74 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 75 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 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 76 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Natural Environment Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 77 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 78 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: 67th Ave NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) SR 9/204th St NE SR 9/SR 531 (172nd St NE) A map of the subarea location and study area intersections is shown on Exhibit 3.3-1. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 79 Exhibit 3.3-1. Subarea Location and Study Intersections Locations Source: Transpo Group, 2025 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 80 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 67th 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 (67th Ave to Highway 9) is a planned 12-foot-wide multi-use trail along the north side of SR 531 from 67th Ave to SR 9. The trail will be grade-separated and will include landscaping and street and pedestrian lighting. The trail will provide non-motorized access to the Cascade Industrial Center and the Centennial Trail at 67th Ave on the west end, and access to a future trail north of SR-9 that will access Old Town Arlington and other retail centers on the east end. 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 I-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 67th 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 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 81 204th 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. 67th 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 67th Ave NE, providing bicycle and additional pedestrian facilities. 80th 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 67th 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 80th 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 67th Ave NE and 80th 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 82 Exhibit 3.3-2. Existing (2025) PM Peak Hour Volumes Source: Transpo Group, 2025 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 83 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 Intersection Jurisdiction LOS Standard Traffic Control LOS1 Delay2 WM3 1. 67th Ave NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D Signal D 47 - 2. 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D Two Way Stop C 20 SB 3. SR 9/204th St NE WSDOT D Signal C 33 - 4. SR 9/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D Round- about A 7 - 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 84 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 Control 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Annual Average Collisions per MEV1 Intersections 1. 67th Ave NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) Signal 8 4 8 2 5 27 5.40 0.74 2. 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) Two- Way Stop 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.20 0.06 3. SR 9/204th St NE Signal 6 5 4 6 2 23 4.60 0.58 4. SR 9/SR 531 (172nd St NE) Round- about 2 2 3 2 0 9 1.80 0.30 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 85 3.3.2 Potential Impacts 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 59th 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 51st Ave NE and 59th 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 59th Ave NE and SR 9 to a four-lane facility with two travel lanes in each direction is listed in the WSDOT STIP. In addition, there will be a roundabout constructed at 67th 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 86 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 87 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) 1 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 204th 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 67th 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 88 Exhibit 3.3-6. 2044 Alternative 1 PM Peak Hour Volumes Source: Transpo Group, 2025 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 89 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 Intersection Jurisdiction LOS Standard Traffic Control LOS1 Delay 2 WM 3 or V/C4 1. 67th Ave NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D Round- about B 11.5 0.70 2. 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D TWSC5 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- about B 11.0 0.68 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 3.3-7, all study intersections operate at LOS D or better with planned improvements except for the SR 9/204th St NE intersection and 80th 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 90 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 (LUC 210) 186 110 296 Single-Family Attached Housing (LUC 215) 30 21 51 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 91 Exhibit 3.3-9. 2044 Alternative 2 PM Peak Hour Volumes Source: Transpo Group, 2025 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 92 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 access would be provided west of 80th Dr NE, and 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 Standard Traffic Control LOS1 Delay2 WM3 or V/C4 2044 Alternative 2: Proposal 1. 67th Ave NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D Round- about B 10.7 0.73 2. 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D Round- about A 6.9 0.84 3. SR 9/204th St NE WSDOT D Signal F 90.0 - 4. SR 9/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D Round- about B 10.8 0.69 2044 Alternative 1: No Action 1. 67th Ave NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D Round- about B 11.5 0.70 2. 80th Dr NE/SR 531 (172nd St NE) WSDOT D TWSC5 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- about B 11.0 0.68 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 93 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 2 1. 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 Strategies 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 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. 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Transportation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 94 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Public Services Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 95 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 Source: City of Arlington, MAKERS, 2025 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Public Services Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 96 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 Pioneer Elementary and Open Space 8213 Eaglefield Dr 15 acre1 Arlington School District School playground, multipurpose hall, and athletic field, adjacent to wooded riparian habitat with natural trails and exhibits Forest Trail Park 18005 Oxford Dr 2 acre Arlington Park with picnic tables, play area, and sport court Wedgewood & Woodway Park 17510 Gleneagle Blvd 2.5 acre Arlington Wooded park land with picnic tables and play area Whitehawk Tot Lot Whitehawk Dr 0.09 acre HOA Minipark with playground Crossing at Edgecomb Creek 1 172nd Ave NE 2.48 acre HOA Wooded minipark with two tennis courts Crossing at Edgecomb Creek 2 73rd Dr NE 0.29 acre HOA Minipark with playground and basketball court Playworld Park 174th Pl NE 0.30 acre1 HOA Minipark with playground and basketball court Eagle Heights Park 179th Pl NE 0.35 acre1 HOA Minipark with playground, basketball court, and picnic shelter Gleneagle Golf Course 7619 E County Club 138.2 acre Private Opened in 1993 with driving range, a shop, and a restaurant Source: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2044 1 Site area estimate excluding, if present, the building and parking footprint. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Public Services Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 97 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Public Services Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 98 Exhibit 3.4-3. PRMP Planned Improvements Proposed1 Description SR 531/172nd St NE Trail Extend Airport Trail east on 172nd St NE to SR-9; 1.7 miles SR-9 Trail Develop trail on SR-9 from Centennial Trail south to SR 531/172nd St NE Skate Dots at Forest Trail Park Install skate dot in park activity area Sport court at Wedgewood Park Install sports court in park activity area Source: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2044 1Note: 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Public Services Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 99 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 (sq ft) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Eagle Creek Elementary School 57,362 28 630 Kent Prairie Elementary School 57,362 28 630 Presidents Elementary School 60,977 31 680 Pioneer Elementary School* 61,530 25 562 Post Middle School 76,323 361 9072 Hailer Middle School 86,002 311 612 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Public Services Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 100 School Building Area (sq ft) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Arlington High School* 273,871 63 2,0363 Source: Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan, 2024 *Schools within 1-mile of Lindsay. 1Includes a total of six special education classroom between Post and Hailer Middle School 2Includes 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Public Services Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 101 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Public Services Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 102 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 Students 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Public Services Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 103 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 Officers Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposal 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 Firefighters Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposal 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Public Services Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 104 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Public Services Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 105 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Public Services Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 106 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). Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Public Services Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 107 • 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Utilities Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 108 3.5 Utilities 3.5.1 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 80th Ave NE and SR 531 (172nd St NE). From here it ‘spiderwebs” its way through Gleneagle to the NW corner at Woodlands Way and 67th 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Utilities Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 109 Exhibit 3.5-1. Existing offsite infrastructure and optional routes Source: City of Arlington, Land Technologies, 2025 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Utilities Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 110 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 79th Ave NE; pipes “spiderweb” through Gleneagle before returning to SR 531 (172nd St NE). Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Utilities Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 111 Exhibit 3.5-2. Offsite water system Source: City of Arlington, Land Technologies, 2025 Pressures at the hydrants along 172nd St NE along the Lindsay Subarea have been listed between 55 psi in the hydrant at the east end of the Subarea and as high as 101 psi at the hydrant at the NW corner of the site. This is currently adequate capacity for fighting fires. The difference in pressure may be attributed to the 100-foot difference in hydrant elevations. Dry Utilities Electricity. Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) provides electricity. The PUD has 3-phase power along the north side of SR 531 (172nd St NE) and along 79th 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Utilities Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 112 3.5.2 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 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Utilities Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 113 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. Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Utilities Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 114 3.5.3 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:  Project SM27 – Primary Interceptor (67th Ave Trunkline) Improvements (Phase 1 & 2), horizon year 2025 Chapter 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, & MITIGATION MEASURES | Utilities Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 115  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 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 DEIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 116 4 CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATION Chapter 4 | CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATION | Introduction Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 117 4.1 Introduction Corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIS are listed in this section and tracked with underlines (added text) and strikethroughs (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”. 4.2 Chapter 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 & Alternatives 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. Chapter 4 | CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATION | Chapter 3 Affected Environment, Impacts & Mitigation Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 118 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 Section 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. 4.4.3 Section 3.3 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. Chapter 4 | CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATION | Appendices Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 119 4.4.5 Section 3.5 Utilities No corrections or clarifications. 4.5 Appendices Appendix H: Added updated Pending Project Area site plan and mitigation. Chapter 5 | COMMENTS AND RESPONSES | Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 120 5 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Chapter 5 | COMMENTS AND RESPONSES | Introduction Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 121 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 Agencies and Tribes 1 Tamela Smart Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1a 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 your comments; comments noted. 2 Kelli Price Washington State Department of Ecology 2a 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. Thank you for your comments; comments noted. Chapter 5 | COMMENTS AND RESPONSES | Introduction Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 122 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 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: 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 (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). Thank you for your comments; comments noted. 3 Dawn Anderson Washington State Department of Transportation 3a 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. Thank you for your comments. No stormwater from the project site will be routed to or within the WSDOT right-of-way (SR 531). All stormwater 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. Chapter 5 | COMMENTS AND RESPONSES | Introduction Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 123 No Comment Responses 3b 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.” The Preferred Alternative’s Planned Improvements (see page 92) and Subarea Plan have been updated to note that prior to SR 531 planned improvements, the 79th Ave NE intersection may include full access. However, when SR 531 is improved with the roundabout at 80th Dr NE, the 79th Ave NE access must convert to right-in-right-out only. 4 Liz Voytas Department of Fish and Wildlife 4a 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). Only the parcels east of 79th Ave NE within the Pending Project Area have been fully assessed on the ground for critical areas and steep slopes. The 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. Chapter 5 | COMMENTS AND RESPONSES | Introduction Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 124 No Comment Responses 4b 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.” 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). Removal of fish passage barriers is recommended to add to the mitigation plan. 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. The headwaters of Edgecomb Creek located on parcels 31052600101400, 31052600101500, 31052600100300, and 31052600100800 on the western area—the Future Development Area—is considered to be a Type F fish bearing stream throughout the stream’s entire reach within the Lindsay Subarea. However, Stream Z located on the northcentral and eastern portion of the Lindsay Subarea is considered a Type Ns stream due to a natural fish passage barrier on parcel 31052600100300 where there is a steep slope with no defined bed or bank that precludes fish passage. Additionally, there is a large, approximately 260-foot long elevated culvert that prevents fish passage upstream on parcel 31052600100800, and communication with the 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 79th 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 great to hear that the 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 species on site. Himalayan blackberries, Scotch broom, Canada thistle are noted. We recommend adding invasive species removal to the mitigation plan. Intensive invasive plant removal and control, along with the installation of native plantings is planned to be implemented within any mitigation areas within the Lindsay Subarea (see Subarea 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. Chapter 5 | COMMENTS AND RESPONSES | Introduction Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 125 No Comment Responses Individuals 5 Annet Gamble-Olson 5a I am objecting to another huge development being allowed in Arlington that has insufficient roads and services before the houses are put in. Thank you for your comments. The planned transportation system, as analyzed in section 3.3 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 is going in and how it will affect me at [address redacted] Thank you for your interest. All notice requirements have been and will continue to be 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 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 are removed. Thank you for your comments. The City of Arlington is required to plan for projected population growth, and Arlington’s growth trends show that additional development is needed to house the growing population (see the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Forecasts). Though there are some vacancies in Arlington, these are due to unique circumstances or typical 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. Chapter 5 | COMMENTS AND RESPONSES | Introduction Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 126 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 impacts that such building is having on the citizens of Arlington. Refer to Gamble-Olson comment 5a regarding traffic impacts. 6c 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 Refer to Oquist comment 6a regarding wildlife, trees, and habitat. Chapter 6 | ACRONYMS & REFERENCES | Introduction Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 127 6 ACRONYMS & REFERENCES Chapter 6 | ACRONYMS & REFERENCES | Acronyms Linsdsay Subarea Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume I ▪ November 2025 128 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 City of Arlington | Lindsay Subarea Planned Action Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume II – Appendices November 2025 Volume II Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume II ▪ November 2025 2 Appendices Volume II Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume II ▪ November 2025 3 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 II Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume II ▪ November 2025 A-1 A Scoping Notice & Comment Summary A-1 PLN #1315 March 18, 2025 March 20, 2025 February 10, 2025 March 10, 2025 City of Arlington Amy Rusko, Deputy Director, arusko@arlingtonwa.gov, (360) 403-3551 MJS Investors, Inc 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 43.21C.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 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will assess two alternatives. The No Action alternative assumes no development within the subarea would occur under the 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. 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-2 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 43.21C.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 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 59th Avenue NE Arlington, WA, 98233 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 59th 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. 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 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 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223. City of Arlington | Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 A-3 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 43.21C.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 City of Arlington | Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 A-4 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. City of Arlington | Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 A-5 Survey Response Images Visioning Question 1. I’m interested in the Lindsay Subarea because (Select all that apply) Question 2. What makes the Hilltop Area (including the Linsday Subarea) special? (Select your top 3) City of Arlington | Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 A-6 Question 3. What do you value most about living or working in your community? (Enter one word responses) Question 4. What are you interested in seeing as this part of Arlington develops? (Select all that apply) City of Arlington | Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 A-7 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? City of Arlington | Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 A-8 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) Parks Question 7. What amenities would you like to see in the parks? (Select your top 4) City of Arlington | Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 A-9 Question 8. If you lived in the area, which parks would you likely use the most Transportation Question 9. What street elements would you prioritize? City of Arlington | Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 A-10 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? City of Arlington | Lindsay Subarea Plan Public Neighborhood Meeting April 7, 2025 A-11 Question 11. If you selected “Other “, what topic would you like to add for the environmental analysis? Note: Participants were informed that a transportation analysis model will be completed as part of the EIS. Volume II Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume II ▪ November 2025 B-1 B Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report for Lindsay Annexation WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT LINDSAY ANNEXATION JUNE 2024 B-2 WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT LINDSAY ANNEXATION JUNE 21, 2024 PROJECT LOCATION 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND 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 B-3 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation i Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 ¼, 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. Critical Area Name Size Onsite Category/ Type1 Regulated Under AMC Chapter 20.93 Regulated Under RCW 90.48 Regulated Under Clean 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 feet Type Ns Yes Yes Likely 1.Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) wetland rating system (Hruby and Yahnke 2023) per AMC 20.93.800 and AMC 20.93.730 B-4 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation ii Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Proposed Project Location .......................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Location ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 3. Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 4. 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 Chapter 5. 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 Chapter 7. Closure .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 8. References .................................................................................................................................... 24 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Aerial Image of the Subject Area .................................................................................. 4 Tables Table 1. Precipitation Summary1. ................................................................................................. 5 Table 2. Wetland Summary .......................................................................................................... 7 Table 3. Wetland A Summary. ...................................................................................................... 9 Table 4. Wetland B Summary. .................................................................................................... 10 Table 5. Wetland C Summary. .................................................................................................... 12 Table 6. Wetland D Summary. ................................................................................................... 13 Table 7. Edgecomb Creek (Stream Z) Summary. ........................................................................ 15 Table 8. 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 B-5 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation iii Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix D — Wetland Rating Forms Appendix E — Wetland Rating Maps Appendix F — Site Photographs Appendix G — Qualifications B-6 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 1 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 ¼, 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. B-7 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 2 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 ¼, 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 172nd Street Northeast and 79th Avenue Northeast. Figure 1. Vicinity Map Subject Property Location B-8 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 3 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 (NRCS) 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) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) as modified according to the guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western 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 Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington- 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 Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington 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. B-9 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 4 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 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) Subject Property Location B-10 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 5 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 (NRCS, 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 B6) 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 Summary1. Date Day Of Day Before 1 Week Prior 2 Weeks Prior Last 30 days (Observed/Normal) Year-to-Date2 (Observed/Normal) Percent of Normal (month/year) 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 B-11 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 6 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 2nd). Such conditions were considered in making professional wetland determinations. B-12 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 7 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 officinale). 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 (Rubus armeniacus), salmonberry (Rubus spectabalis), western sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and trailing blackberry (Rubus 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 Wetland Predominant Wetland Classification / Rating Wetland Size Onsite (SF) Cowardin1 HGM2 City of Arlington3 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. B-13 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 8 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 effusus), 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 A11 (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. B-14 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 9 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Table 3. Wetland A Summary. 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 (Rubus spectabilis), skunk cabbage (Lysticium americanum), youth WETLAND A Local Jurisdiction City of Arlington 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 Water Quality (Scores 5 out of 9 points) • Low site potential to trap sediments and pollutants and remove nitrogen due moderate slopes and lack of uncut vegetation. • Low landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due to the lack of surrounding land uses that produce pollutants. • High societal value for water quality functions due to degraded waters within the sub-basin. Hydrologic (Scores 4 out of 9 points) • Low site potential to reduce flooding and erosion due lack of dense uncut plants capable of reducing surface flow velocity. • Low landscape potential to support hydrologic functions due to the lack of excess surface runoff within 150 feet upslope. • Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to flooding problems within the sub-basin Habitat (Scores 6 out of 9 points) • Low site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat as the wetland consists of one plant community, one hydroperiod, moderate species richness, no interspersion, and no special habitat features. • High landscape potential to support habitat use due to accessible and undisturbed habitat within 1 kilometer. • Moderate societal value for habitat functions due one to nearby WDFW Priority Habitat. B-15 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 10 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 on age (Tolmiea menziesii), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), creeping buttercup, water horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). Hydric soil indicators A11 (Depleted below dark surface) and F3 (Depleted Matrix) were observed. Wetland boundaries were determined by a transition to wetland 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. WETLAND B Local Jurisdiction City of Arlington City of Arlington Rating III Wetland Size (Onsite) 1.2 acres Cowardin Classification PFO/SSBCH HGM Classification Depressional Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-18 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP-17 Wetland Functions Summary Water Quality (Scores 6 out of 9 points) • 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. • Low landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due to the wetland 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. Hydrologic (Scores 5 out of 9 points) • 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. • Low landscape potential to provide flood protection due to the minimal pollutant discharges in the contributing basin. • Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to flooding problems within the sub-basin. Habitat (Scores 7 out of 9 points) • Moderate site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat as the wetland consists of two plant communities, three hydroperiods, high species richness, moderate interspersion, and three special habitat features. • High landscape potential to support habitat use due to accessible and undisturbed habitat within 1 kilometer. • Moderate societal value for habitat functions due to one nearby WDFW Priority Habitat. B-16 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 11 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 A11 (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. B-17 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 12 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Table 5. Wetland C Summary. 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 cerasiformis), false WETLAND C Local Jurisdiction City of Arlington 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 Water Quality (Scores 6 out of 9 points) • Low site potential to trap sediments and pollutants and remove nitrogen due to the lack of persistent, ungrazed vegetation and moderate seasonal ponding. • Moderate landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due septic systems within 250 feet. • High societal value for water quality functions due to degraded waters within the sub-basin. Hydrologic (Scores 4 out of 9 points) • 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. • Low landscape potential to provide flood protection due to the less intensive land uses within the contributing basin. • Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to flooding problems within the sub-basin. Habitat (Scores 6 out of 9 points) • Low site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat as the wetland consists of one plant community, two hydroperiods, moderate species richness, no interspersion, and no special habitat features. • High landscape potential to support habitat use due to accessible and undisturbed habitat and within 1 kilometer. • Moderate societal value for habitat functions due to one nearby WDFW Priority Habitat. B-18 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 13 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 A11 (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 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 Water Quality (Scores 6 out of 9 points) • Moderate site potential to trap sediments and pollutants and remove nitrogen due to a permanently flowing outlet, greater than 95% cover of persistent, ungrazed vegetation, and a moderate area of seasonal ponding. • Low landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due to the lack of surrounding land uses that produce pollutants. • High societal value for water quality functions due to degraded waters within the sub-basin. Hydrologic (Scores 4 out of 9 points) • 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 basin. • Low landscape potential to provide flood protection due to the lack of intensive land uses within the contributing basin. • Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to flooding problems within the sub-basin. Habitat (Scores 5 out of 9 points) • Low site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat as the wetland consists of two plant communities, two hydroperiods, moderate species richness, no interspersion, and no special habitat features. • High landscape potential to support habitat use due to the accessible and 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 B-19 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 14 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 (PEMAC). 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 79th 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 April 2024 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. B-20 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 15 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 Documented Fish Use per WDFW and NWIFC-SWIFD Gradient accessible reaches for steelhead, pink, and chinook. Presumed presence of bull trout. Documented spawning of coho. Location of Feature Stream Z crosses through the northwestern portion of the subject property. Connectivity (where water flows from/to) 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 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. Riparian/Buffer Condition The onsite stream channel is degraded, consisting 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. B-21 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 16 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 ditches, 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 and/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 (Coccyzus 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 B-22 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 17 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 (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. B-23 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 18 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 RCW 77.09.020), including those planted under the auspices of a federal, state, local, or tribal programs, or which support priority fish species as identified by the department of fish 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. F.Habitats or species of local importance; No habitats or species of local importance were identified on or within 300 feet of the subject property. B-24 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 19 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 20.93.800(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 Category1 Habitat Score Standard Buffer Width2 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. B-25 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 20 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Table 9. Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands Disturbance Examples of Activities and Uses that Cause Disturbances Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Lights •Parking lots •Warehouses •Manufacturing •Residential •Parks •Direct lights away from critical areas and buffers •Day use only regulations preventing the need for lights •Timer on lights Noise •Manufacturing •Residential •Locate activity that generates noise away from wetlands •Seasonal limitations on hours of operation Toxic runoff* •Parking lots •Roads •Manufacturing •Residential areas •Application of agricultural pesticides •Landscaping •Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered •Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 ft of critical area or buffer •Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff •Parking lots •Roads •Manufacturing •Residential areas •Commercial •Landscaping •Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development •Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer Change in water regime •Impermeable surfaces •Lawns •Tilling •Forest and forest duff removal •Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns •Retain minimum forest and forest duff Pets and human disturbance •Residential areas •Parks •Use privacy fencing; plant dense vegetation to 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 corridors or connections •Roads •Residential •Commercial •Manufacturing •Landscaping •Stormwater •Maintain connection to offsite areas that are undisturbed •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. B-26 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 21 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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) Waters 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 under paragraph (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) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters: (i) Waters 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: (1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act; (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 B-27 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 22 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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; (5) 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 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) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, 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 (8) Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized 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. B-28 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 23 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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. B-29 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 24 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 12th, 2024. Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-4. 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. N.d. 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 Wetlands 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. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington :2014 Update (Version 2). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 23-06-009. Munsell Color, 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). N.d. Soil Data Access Hydric Soils List (Soil Data Access Live). Website: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316620.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. B-30 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation 25 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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. B-31 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix A — Existing Conditions Map B-32 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! D D D D D D D D DD D D ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! D D D D D D D DDDD ! ! ! ! ! D D D D D D !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à ààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à ààààà à à à àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à ààààà à à à àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! XYXY XY XY XYXY XYXYXY XY XY XYXY XYXYXY '& '& '& '& '& '& '& '& '& '& '& '& '& '&'& '& '& '& '& '& '& '&'& '& '& '& '& '& '&'& '& Wetlad 1Category III110' Reduced Buffer Wetlad ACategory IV(~22,500 SF Onsite)40' Reduced Buffer Wetlad BCategory III(~1.2 Acres Onsite)110' Reduced Buffer Wetlad CCategory III(~30,080 SF Onsite)110' Reduced Buffer Wetlad DCategory IV(~110 SF Onsite)40' Reduced Buffer Wetlad ZType Ns50' Buffer Z-1A Z-10A DP-1 DP-2 DP-3 DP-4 DP-5 DP-6 DP-7 DP-8 DP-9 DP-10 DP-11 DP-12 DP-13 DP-14 DP-15 DP17 DP-18 DP-19 DP-20 DP-21 DP-22 DP-23DP-24 DP-25 DP-26 DP-27 DP-28 DP-29 DP-30 DP-31 DP-32 EXISTING CONDITIONS ¢ 0 260 520130 Feet PRELIMINARYINFORMATION ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NEARLINGTON, WA 98223 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, & 31052600102300 LINDSAY ANNEXATION DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. 4/11/2024 2419.0002 DDS 1 SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC ASSUMESNO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FORCONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, ORESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SET NOTE: REDUCED BUFFERS ASSUME MINIMIZATION MEASURES ARE FOLLOWED XY Culvert '&Data Point Stream Flag Wetland Flag ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Ditch D D OHW àààààààààà à à à à à à à à Wetland àààààààààà à à à à à à à à Offsite Wetland Reduced Wetland Buffer Stream Buffer !!!15' Building Setback Site Boundary 1 " = 260 ' C-1 C-31 C-17 A-22A-1 B-1B-41 D-1 B-33 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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). B-34 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix B1 – USGS Topographic Map Subject Property Location B-35 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix B2 – NRCS Soil Survey Map Subject Property Location B-36 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix B3 – DNR Stream Typing Map Subject Property Location B-37 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix B4 – WDFW and NWIFC-SWIFD Subject Property Location B-38 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix B5 – Snohomish County Stream and Wetland Inventory Map Subject Property Location B-39 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix B6 – USFWS NWI Map Subject Property Location B-40 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix B7 – WDFW PHS Map Subject Property Location B-41 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 B-42 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 B-43 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix C — Data Forms B-44 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-1 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Depression Concave 1% A2 48.150394 -122.11857935 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A 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. Alnus rubra 15 Yes FAC 3 3 15 100% Rubus armeniacus 25 Yes FAC 25 Phalaris arundinacea 80 Yes FACW Poa pratensis 15 No FAC Ranunculus repens 5 No FAC 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-1 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 N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 17" 14" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-2 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Hillslope Linear 1% A2 48.150550 -122.11858108 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A 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. Pseudotsuga menziesii 30 Yes FACU 4 Alnus rubra 10 Yes FAC 5 40 80% Rubus armeniacus 15 Yes FAC 15 Ranunculus repens 45 Yes FAC Lamium galeobdolon 20 Yes FAC Poa pratensis 15 No FAC Scirpus microcarpus 15 No OBL 95 0 5 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-2 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 PL/M Si Silt N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 16" 13" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-3 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Swale Concave 1% A2 48.150311 -122.11929330 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soils. Data collected 65 feet north of Wetland D. 2 2 0 100% Salix scouleriana 80 Yes FAC 80 Phalaris arundinacea 50 Yes FACW 50 0 50 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-3 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 N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 8" 4" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-4 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Swale Concave 1% A2 48.150473 -122.11934723 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met. Data collected approximately 130 feet north of Wetland D. 2 2 0 100% Salix scouleriana 80 Yes FAC 80 Phalaris arundinacea 45 Yes FAC Ranunculus repens 5 No FAC 50 0 50 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-4 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 N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 16" 13" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-5 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 3% A2 48.150473 -122.11934723 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A 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. 2 2 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 40 Yes FAC Distichlis sp.30 Yes FAC Alnus rubra 5 No FAC Populus balsamifera 5 No FAC Veronica americana 5 No OBL 85 0 15 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-5 0 - 3 2.5Y 4/3 100 ----SiClLo Silty clay loam 3 - 7 2.5Y 5/2 60 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M SiClLo Silty clay loam. Mixed matrix. 5Y 5/1 25 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M SiClLo Silty clay loam. Mixed matrix. 7 - 15 2.5Y 4/2 92 7.5YR 4/6 8 C M SiClLo Silty clay loam N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicator F3. None None None 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-6 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 3% A2 48.149495 -122.11949325 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met. Data collected approximately 30 feet north of Wetland A. 2 2 0 100% 0 Distichlis sp.50 Yes FAC Holcus lanatus 20 Yes FAC Lotus corniculatus 13 No FAC Taraxacum officinale 7 No FACU Alnus rubra 5 No FAC Populus balsamifera 5 No FAC 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-6 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 N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None None None 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-7 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 2% A2 48.149308 -122.11943868 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within northern portion of Wetland A. 2 2 0 100% 0 Holcus lanatus 40 Yes FAC Distichlis sp.25 Yes FAC Lotus corniculatus 15 No FAC Alnus rubra 5 No FAC Populus balsamifera 5 No FAC 90 0 10 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-7 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 N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicator F3. None 12" 10" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-8 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 1% A2 48.149076 -122.11962163 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met. Data collected approximately 30 feet west of Wetland A. 2 2 0 100% Rubus armeniacus 10 Yes FAC 10 Holcus lanatus 70 Yes FAC Phalaris arundinacea 15 No FACW Lotus corniculatus 5 No FAC Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU 95 0 5 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-8 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 SiClLo 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 SiClLo Silty clay loam N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None None 16" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-9 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 1% A2 48.148882 -122.11951702 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, missing wetland hydrology. Data collected approximately 15 feet north and west of Wetland A. 3 3 0 100% Spiraea douglasii 5 Yes FACW Rubus armeniacus 3 Yes FAC 8 Holcus lanatus 70 Yes FAC Lotus corniculatus 8 No FAC Hypochaeris radicata 7 No FACU Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACW Distichlis spicata 5 No FACW Schoenoplectus acutus 5 No OBL 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-9 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 wood50 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 N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicator F3. None 16" 13" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-10 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 1% A2 48.148660 -122.11962865 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within Wetland A. 2 2 0 100% 0 Phalaris arundinacea 60 Yes FACW Poa pratensis 40 Yes FAC 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-10 0 - 2 2.5Y 3/1 100 ----SiClLo Silty clay loam 2 - 5 2.5Y 3/1 97 7.5YR 4/6 3 C M SiClLo Silty clay loam 5 - 13 5Y 4/1 80 7.5YR 5/6 10 C M SiClLo Silty clay loam. Mixed matrix. 2.5Y 3/1 10 ----SiClLo Silty clay loam. Mixed matrix. N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicator F3 and A11. None 14" 12" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-11 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 1% A2 48.148460 -122.11970352 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, missing wetland hydrology. Data collected approximately 30 feet west of Wetland A. 1 1 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 80 Yes FAC Phalaris arundinacea 10 No FACW Ranunculus repens 10 No FAC 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-11 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. N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicator A11 and F3. None None None 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-12 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 1% A2 48.148209 -122.11957655 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within Wetland A. 2 3 0 67% Populus balsamifera 5 Yes FAC 5 Holcus lanatus 30 Yes FAC Hypochaeris radicata 20 Yes FACU Juncus effusus 15 No FACW Lotus corniculatus 15 No FAC Taraxacum officinale 10 No FACU 90 0 10 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-12 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 N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicator A11 and F3. None 12" 9" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-13 Elisabeth Gonzalez / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Depressional Concave 1% A2 48.149873 -122.11997727 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A 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. 2 2 0 100% Rubus armeniacus 5 Yes FAC 5 Phalaris arundinacea 80 Yes FACW 80 0 20 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-13 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 N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 15" 12" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/3/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-15 William Bethel/ Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Concave 3% A2 48.150712 -122.12437506 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A 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. 3 3 0 100% Rubus armeniacus 20 Yes FAC 20 Poa pratensis 60 Yes FAC Juncus effusus 20 Yes FACW Phalaris arundinacea 10 No FACW 90 0 10 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-15 0 - 7 10YR 3/2 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam 7 - 14 10YR 3/2 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam with Gravel N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 4" 0" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/3/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-16 William Bethel/ Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Slope Concave 3% A2 48.150795 -122.12428982 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soil. DP-16 is located to the north of Stream Z. 1 1 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 85 Yes FAC Lolium arundinaceum 10 No FAC Juncus effusus 5 No FACW 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-16 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 10R 3/4 4 C M Lo Loam N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 4" 0" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/3/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-17 Kramer Canup / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Slope Linear 1 A2 48.149001 -122.11903056 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soil. DP-17 is located to the north of Wetland B. Alnus rubra 40 Yes FAC 3 3 40 100% Rubus spectabilis 80 Yes FAC 80 Athyrium cyclosorum 5 Yes FAC 5 0 95 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-17 0 - 3 7.5YR 3/1 100 ----SiLo SIlty Loam 3 - 13 10YR 3/3 100 ----Lo Loam N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 12" 9" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-18 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Depression Concave 1% A2 48.148120 -122.11924842 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within Wetland B. Thuja plicata 25 Yes FAC 9 Alnus rubra 15 Yes FAC 9 40 100% Rubus spectabilis 40 Yes FAC 40 Lysichiton americanus 20 Yes OBL Tolmiea menziesii 20 Yes FAC Oenanthe sarmentosa 15 Yes OBL Ranunculus repens 15 Yes FAC Equisetum fluviatile 15 Yes OBL Carex obnupta 15 Yes OBL 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-18 0 - 8 10YR 2/1 100 ----ClLo Clay loam 8 - 14+10YR 4/2 93 7.5YR 4/4 7 C M ClGr Clay with gravel N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicators A11 and F3. None 0" 0" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-19 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Field Convex 2% A2 48.148814 -122.12037317 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, missing hydric soil. Data collected between Wetland C and Wetland A. 1 1 0 100% 0 Phalaris arundinacea 70 Yes FACW Poa pratensis 15 No FAC Ranunculus repens 5 No FAC 90 0 10 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-19 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 N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 10" 9" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-20 Elisabeth Gonzales / Kramer Canup 26, 31N, 5E Depression Concave 1% A2 48.148120 -122.11924842 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within Wetland C. 1 1 0 100% 0 Juncus effusus 55 Yes FACW Veronica americana 15 No OBL Ranunculus repens 10 No FAC Lotus corniculatus 10 No FAC Holcus lanatus 5 No FAC Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-20 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 N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicators A11 and F3. None 4" 0" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-21 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Hillslope Convex 2% A2 48.149252 -122.12048543 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, missing hydric soil. Data collected between approximately 23 feet east of Wetland C. 2 2 0 100% 0 Phalaris arundinacea 70 Yes FACW Poa pratensis 20 Yes FAC Ranunculus repens 5 No FAC Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-21 0 - 16 10YR 3/1 100 ----SiLo Silt loam N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 9" 7" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors WA DP-22 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Depression Concave 2% A2 48.150102 -122.11885615 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, missing hydric soil. DP-22 is located on the eastern are of the property. 2 3 0 67% 0 Ranunculus repens 40 Yes FAC Poa pratensis 30 Yes FAC Taraxacum officinale 20 Yes FACU Juncus effusus 5 No FACW 95 0 5 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-22 0 - 8 10YR 3/2 100 ----SaClLo Sandy clay loam 8 - 16+10YR 4/6 100 ----Lo Loam N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 8" 5" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-23 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Flat Linear 0% A2 48.149671 -122.11822878 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met; only hydrophytic vegetation met. DP-23 is located in the eastern central portion of the property. 1 1 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 80 Yes FAC Ranunculus repens 10 No FAC Juncus effusus 5 No FACW Phalaris arundinacea 5 No FACW 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-23 0 - 9 10YR 3/2 100 ----SaClLo Sandy clay loam 9 - 16+10YR 4/6 70 Ash 30 N/A N/A Lo Loam N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 15" 13" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-24 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Flat Linear 1% A2 48.149719 -122.12062200 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soil. DP-24 is located to the north of Wetland C. 1 1 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 80 Yes FAC Trifolium repens 10 No FAC Lotus corniculatus 5 No FAC Phalaris arundinacea 5 No FACW 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-24 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 N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 7" 4" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-25 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Flat Linear 1% A2 48.149877 -122.12101087 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met, only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met. DP-25 is located northwest of Wetland C, adjacent to an onsite ditch. 1 1 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 80 Yes FAC Ranunculus repens 15 No FAC Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-25 0 - 18 10YR 3/2 100 ----Lo Loam N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None None 13" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-26 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Flat Concave 1% A2 48.150356 -122.12091190 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A 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. 2 2 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 60 Yes FAC Phalaris arundinacea 35 Yes FACW Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-26 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. N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None None 14" 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-27 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Top of slope Convex 2% A2 48.150692 -122.12104042 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A 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. 1 1 0 100% 0 Phalaris arundinacea 74 Yes FACW Ranunculus repens 15 No FAC Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU Cardamine oligosperma 5 No FAC Urtica dioica 1 No FAC 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-27 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. N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None None None 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-28 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Flat Concave 1% A2 48.151389 -122.12249813 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met; only hydrophytic vegetation criteria met. DP-28 is located on the northwest area of the subject property. 1 1 0 100% 0 Juncus effusus 80 Yes FACW Poa pratensis 15 No FAC Schedonorus arundinaceus 5 No FAC 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-28 0 - 8 10YR 3/2 100 ----Lo Loam 8 - 16 10 YR 3/2 97 2.5YR 3/4 3 C PL Lo Loam N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. Layer two must have at least 5% redox concentrations in order to meet for indicator F6. None None None 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-29 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Slope Concave 5% A2 48.151105 -122.12355035 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A 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. 1 1 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 85 Yes FAC Distichlis spicata 8 No FACW Trifolium repens 5 No FAC Cirsium vulgare 2 No FACU 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-29 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 N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None None None 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-30 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Slope Concave 1% A2 48.150103 -122.11929476 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A All three wetland criteria met. DP-30 is located within Wetland D. Alnus rubra 50 Yes FAC 4 4 50 100% Rubus spectabilis 25 Yes FAC Rubus armeniacus 20 Yes FAC Oemleria cerasiformis 5 No FACU 50 Phalaris arundinacea 40 Yes FACW Athyrium cyclosorum 1 No FAC 41 0 59 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-30 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 N/A -- Hydric soil criteria met through indicators A11 and F3. +1" 0" 0" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A1, 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-31 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Upland Concave 1% A2 48.150100 -122.11933280 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soil. DP-31 is located upland to the east of Wetland D. Alnus rubra 65 Yes FAC 4 5 65 80% Oemleria cerasiformis 40 Yes FACU Rubus armeniacus 35 Yes FAC Rubus spectabilis 15 No FAC 90 Maianthemum dilatatum 15 Yes FAC Phalaris arundinacea 10 Yes FACW 25 0 75 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-31 0 - 7 10YR 3/1 100 ----SiLo Silty Loam 7 - 16+10 YR 4/2 97 7.5YR 4/3 3 C M SiClLo Silty Clay Loam, Faint Redox N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. Redox in layer two not prominent must be at least 5% to meet depleted matrix requirements. None 7" 4" Redox is not prominent. 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: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) Dominance Test worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 1 1 1 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Arlington / Snohomish 4/2/24 MJS Investors / Rob Risinger WA DP-32 Elisabeth Gonzalez / William Bethel 26, 31N, 5E Flat Concave 1% A2 48.150628 -122.11958033 WGS 84 Tokul gravelly medial loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes N/A Not all three wetland criteria met; missing hydric soils. DP-32 is located in the northeastern portion of the property within the mowed field. 1 1 0 100% 0 Poa pratensis 77 Yes FAC Ranunculus repens 10 No FAC Juncus effusus 10 No FACW Taraxacum officinale 3 No FACU 100 0 0 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: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-32 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. N/A -- No hydric soil criteria met. None 10" 6" Wetland hydrology criteria met through indicators A2 and A3. B-106 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix D — Wetland Rating Forms B-107 Wetland name or number ______ 1 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ HGM Class used for rating_________________ 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 ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) 1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 _______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 _______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 _______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential Landscape Potential Value TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 1 1 4/3/2024 Kramer Canup 4 06/2022 Depressional 4 ESRI ArcGIS III 4 M L L M M H H M M 7 5 6 18 N/A B-108 Wetland name or number ______ 2 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 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 (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 1 B-109 Wetland name or number ______ 3 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? 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) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your 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. Groundwaterand surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your 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 anyplants on the surface at any time 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). NO – go to 4 YES – 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 fromseeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO – go to 5 YES – 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 thatstream or river, ____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 1 B-110 Wetland name or number ______ 4 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 thesurface, at some time 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 Depressional7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbankflooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to bemaintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious naturaloutlet.NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGMclasses. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a smallstream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFYWHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENTAREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify theappropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within thewetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% ormore of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of thetotal area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 1 B-111 Wetland name or number ______ 5 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. 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 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 > ½ of area points = 3 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 > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 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 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 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? Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 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 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 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 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 Rating of Value If score is: 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 1 1 0 1 4 6 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 3 B-112 Wetland name or number ______ 6 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 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. Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. Rating of Site Potential 12-16 = H 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? Rating of Landscape Potential 3 = H 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? 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 .   water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why __________________ 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? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L _____________________________________________________________________________ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 1 1 3 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 B-113 Wetland name or number ______ 13 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 ¼ 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 ____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 ¼ ac if the unit is at least 2.5 ac to count (see text for 4 or more types present: points = 3 2 points descriptions of hydroperiods). ____Permanently flooded or inundated ____Seasonally flooded or inundated ____Occasionally flooded or inundated ____Saturated only ____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Intermittently or seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Lake Fringe wetland ____Freshwater tidal wetland H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. = 0 points = 1 point = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 1 0 2 1 0 B-114 Wetland name or number ______ 14 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) ____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 ¼ 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) Rating of Site Potential 15-18 = H 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? only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit Calculate: % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% If total accessible habitat is: 1 3 H 2.2. Total habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Total habitat > 50% of Polygon Total habitat 0-50% and in 1-3 patches Total habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches Total habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon /2] = _______% points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 points = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential : 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? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. It has 3 or more Priority Habitats within 100 m (see next page) It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Rating of Value 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) Calculate: 1 0 3 22.12 16.71 30.475 2 40.44 33.88 57.379999999999995 3 0 5 1 B-115 Wetland name or number ______ 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 andwildlife. This habitat automatically counts if mapped on the online map within 100m of the wetland. IIf not mapped, adetermination 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 ispermanent and often deep, so that water, rather than air, is the principal medium within which the dominant organismslive. Substrate does not support emergent vegetation. Do not select if Instream habitat is also present, or if the entiredeepwater 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 providefunctional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Do not select if Fresh Deepwater habitat isalso present. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, andPuget 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 breastheight (dbh) or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in. (53 cm) dbh; crowncover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generallyless than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. 15133 http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 1 B-116 Wetland name or number ______ 16 Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oakcomponent is important. For single oaks or oak stands <0.4 ha in urban areas, WDFW’s ManagementRecommendations 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 ofboth 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 toenable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in. (51 cm) in westernWashington 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 wetprairie. 134 https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00030/wdfw00030.pdfWetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 1 B-117 Wetland name or number ______ 17 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= 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? The 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. At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. No = 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?135 No - Go to SC 2.2 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 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 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. Yes = Category I bog No = Is not a bog 135 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPdata136 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_nh_sighting_form.pdfWetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 Yes = Category I 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 = Category I Yes = Submit data to WA Natural Heritage Program for determination,136 Go to SC 2.3 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 No = Not a WHCV No = Not a WHCV 1 B-118 Wetland name or number ______ 18 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). Yes = Category I 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 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 ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland.  The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Category I Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. 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 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? Category III Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 1 B-119 Wetland name or number ______ 19 This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 1 B-120 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ HGM Class used for rating_________________ 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 ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) 1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 _______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 _______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 _______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential Landscape Potential Value TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 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 A A 4/3/2024 Kramer Canup 4 06/2022 Slope 4 ESRI ArcGIS IV 4 L L L L L H H M M 5 4 6 15 N/A B-121 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 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 (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 A B-122 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? 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) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your 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. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your 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 any time 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). NO – go to 4 YES – 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. 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. A B-123 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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 some time 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 being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. A B-124 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 SLOPE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal distance) Slope is 1% or less points = 3 Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2 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 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 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3 Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ 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 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6-11 = M 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? 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? Other sources _________________________________________________________________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential : 1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Rating of Value 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page A 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 B-125 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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 . 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 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstr eam 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 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? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 0 0 1 0 1 A B-126 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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 ¼ 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 ____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 or ¼ 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 ____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 ft 2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points A 0 0 1 0 B-127 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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) ____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 ¼ 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 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). [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + If total accessible habitat is: 1 3 [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2]= Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon ≤ Rating of Landscape Potential : 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? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated.      Rating of Value 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page A 0 1 22.12 16.71 30.475 2 3 40.44 33.88 57.379999999999995 0 5 1 B-128 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.  Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).  Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).  Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.  Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.  Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).  Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.  Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).  Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.  Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page).  Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.  Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.  Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.  Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. A B-129 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= 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?  The 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)  At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland.  The wetland has at least 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 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 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 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 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 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 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 A B-130 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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). Yes = Category I 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) Yes – Go to SC 5.1 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 on p. 100).  At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un- mowed grassland.  The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) 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 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 A B-131 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 This page left blank intentionally A B-132 Wetland name or number ______ 1 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ HGM Class used for rating_________________ 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 ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) 1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 _______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 _______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 _______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential Landscape Potential Value TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 B B 4/3/2024 Kramer Canup 4 06/2022 Depressional 4 ESRI ArcGIS III 4 M M M L L H H M M 6 5 7 18 N/A B-133 Wetland name or number ______ 2 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 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 (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 B B-134 Wetland name or number ______ 3 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? 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) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your 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. Groundwaterand surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your 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 anyplants on the surface at any time 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). NO – go to 4 YES – 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 fromseeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO – go to 5 YES – 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 thatstream or river, ____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 B B-135 Wetland name or number ______ 4 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 thesurface, at some time 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 Depressional7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbankflooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to bemaintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious naturaloutlet.NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGMclasses. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a smallstream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFYWHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENTAREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify theappropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within thewetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% ormore of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of thetotal area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 B B-136 Wetland name or number ______ 5 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. 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 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 > ½ of area points = 3 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 > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 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 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 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? Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 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 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 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 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 Rating of Value If score is: 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 B 1 0 5 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 B-137 Wetland name or number ______ 6 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 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. Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. Rating of Site Potential 12-16 = H 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? Rating of Landscape Potential 3 = H 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? 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 .   water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why __________________ 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? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L _____________________________________________________________________________ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 B 1 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 B-138 Wetland name or number ______ 13 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 ¼ 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 ____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 ¼ ac if the unit is at least 2.5 ac to count (see text for 4 or more types present: points = 3 2 points descriptions of hydroperiods). ____Permanently flooded or inundated ____Seasonally flooded or inundated ____Occasionally flooded or inundated ____Saturated only ____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Intermittently or seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Lake Fringe wetland ____Freshwater tidal wetland H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. = 0 points = 1 point = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 B 2 2 2 2 B-139 Wetland name or number ______ 14 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) ____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 ¼ 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) Rating of Site Potential 15-18 = H 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? only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit Calculate: % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% If total accessible habitat is: 1 3 H 2.2. Total habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Total habitat > 50% of Polygon Total habitat 0-50% and in 1-3 patches Total habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches Total habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon /2] = _______% points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 points = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential : 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? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. It has 3 or more Priority Habitats within 100 m (see next page) It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Rating of Value 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) Calculate: B 3 11 22.12 16.71 30.475 2 40.44 33.88 57.379999999999995 3 0 5 1 B-140 Wetland name or number ______ 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 andwildlife. This habitat automatically counts if mapped on the online map within 100m of the wetland. IIf not mapped, adetermination 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 ispermanent and often deep, so that water, rather than air, is the principal medium within which the dominant organismslive. Substrate does not support emergent vegetation. Do not select if Instream habitat is also present, or if the entiredeepwater 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 providefunctional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Do not select if Fresh Deepwater habitat isalso present. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, andPuget 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 breastheight (dbh) or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in. (53 cm) dbh; crowncover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generallyless than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. 15133 http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: B B-141 Wetland name or number ______ 16 Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oakcomponent is important. For single oaks or oak stands <0.4 ha in urban areas, WDFW’s ManagementRecommendations 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 ofboth 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 toenable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in. (51 cm) in westernWashington 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 wetprairie. 134 https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00030/wdfw00030.pdfWetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: B B-142 Wetland name or number ______ 17 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= 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? The 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. At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. No = 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?135 No - Go to SC 2.2 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 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 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. Yes = Category I bog No = Is not a bog 135 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPdata136 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_nh_sighting_form.pdfWetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 Yes = Category I 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 = Category I Yes = Submit data to WA Natural Heritage Program for determination,136 Go to SC 2.3 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 No = Not a WHCV No = Not a WHCV B B-143 Wetland name or number ______ 18 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). Yes = Category I 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 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 ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland.  The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Category I Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. 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 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? Category III Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: B B-144 Wetland name or number ______ 19 This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 B B-145 Wetland name or number ______ 1 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ HGM Class used for rating_________________ 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 ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) 1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 _______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 _______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 _______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential Landscape Potential Value TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 C C 4/3/24 Kramer Canup 4 6/2022 Depressional 4 ESRI ArcGIS III 4 L L L M L H H M M 6 4 6 16 N/A B-146 Wetland name or number ______ 2 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 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 (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 C B-147 Wetland name or number ______ 3 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? 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) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your 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. Groundwaterand surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your 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 anyplants on the surface at any time 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).NO – go to 4 YES – 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 fromseeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small andshallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ftdeep).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 thatstream or river,____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 C B-148 Wetland name or number ______ 4 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 thesurface, at some time 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 Depressional7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbankflooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to bemaintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious naturaloutlet.NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGMclasses. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a smallstream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFYWHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENTAREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify theappropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within thewetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% ormore of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of thetotal area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 C B-149 Wetland name or number ______ 5 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. 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 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 > ½ of area points = 3 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 > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 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 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 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? Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 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 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 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 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 Rating of Value If score is: 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 C 2 0 1 2 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 3 B-150 Wetland name or number ______ 6 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 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. Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. Rating of Site Potential 12-16 = H 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? Rating of Landscape Potential 3 = H 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? 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 .   water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why __________________ 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? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L _____________________________________________________________________________ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 C 2 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 B-151 Wetland name or number ______ 13 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 ¼ 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 ____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 ¼ ac if the unit is at least 2.5 ac to count (see text for 4 or more types present: points = 3 2 points descriptions of hydroperiods). ____Permanently flooded or inundated ____Seasonally flooded or inundated ____Occasionally flooded or inundated ____Saturated only ____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Intermittently or seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Lake Fringe wetland ____Freshwater tidal wetland H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. = 0 points = 1 point = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 C 0 1 1 0 B-152 Wetland name or number ______ 14 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) ____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 ¼ 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) Rating of Site Potential 15-18 = H 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? only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit Calculate: % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% If total accessible habitat is: 1 3 H 2.2. Total habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Total habitat > 50% of Polygon Total habitat 0-50% and in 1-3 patches Total habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches Total habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon /2] = _______% points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 points = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential : 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? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. It has 3 or more Priority Habitats within 100 m (see next page) It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Rating of Value 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) Calculate: C 0 2 22.12 16.71 30.475 2 40.44 33.88 57.379999999999995 3 0 5 1 B-153 Wetland name or number ______ 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 andwildlife. This habitat automatically counts if mapped on the online map within 100m of the wetland. IIf not mapped, adetermination 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 ispermanent and often deep, so that water, rather than air, is the principal medium within which the dominant organismslive. Substrate does not support emergent vegetation. Do not select if Instream habitat is also present, or if the entiredeepwater 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 providefunctional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Do not select if Fresh Deepwater habitat isalso present. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, andPuget 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 breastheight (dbh) or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in. (53 cm) dbh; crowncover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generallyless than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. 15133 http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: C B-154 Wetland name or number ______ 16 Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oakcomponent is important. For single oaks or oak stands <0.4 ha in urban areas, WDFW’s ManagementRecommendations 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 ofboth 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 toenable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in. (51 cm) in westernWashington 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 wetprairie. 134 https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00030/wdfw00030.pdfWetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: C B-155 Wetland name or number ______ 17 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= 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? The 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. At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. No = 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?135 No - Go to SC 2.2 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 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 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. Yes = Category I bog No = Is not a bog 135 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPdata136 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_nh_sighting_form.pdfWetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 Yes = Category I 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 = Category I Yes = Submit data to WA Natural Heritage Program for determination,136 Go to SC 2.3 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 No = Not a WHCV No = Not a WHCV C B-156 Wetland name or number ______ 18 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). Yes = Category I 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 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 ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland.  The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Category I Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. 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 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? Category III Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: C B-157 Wetland name or number ______ 19 This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 C B-158 Wetland name or number ______ 1 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ HGM Class used for rating_________________ 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 ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) 1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 _______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 _______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 _______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential Landscape Potential Value TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 D D 4/4/24 Kramer Canup 4 06/2022 Depressional 4 ESRI ArcGIS IV 4 M L L L L H H M L 6 4 5 15 N/A B-159 Wetland name or number ______ 2 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 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 (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 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 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 D B-160 Wetland name or number ______ 3 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? 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) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your 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. Groundwaterand surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your 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 anyplants on the surface at any time 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).NO – go to 4 YES – 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 fromseeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small andshallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ftdeep).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 thatstream or river,____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 D B-161 Wetland name or number ______ 4 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 thesurface, at some time 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 Depressional7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbankflooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to bemaintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious naturaloutlet.NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGMclasses. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a smallstream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFYWHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENTAREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify theappropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within thewetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% ormore of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of thetotal area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 D B-162 Wetland name or number ______ 5 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. 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 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 > ½ of area points = 3 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 > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 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 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 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? Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 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 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 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 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 Rating of Value If score is: 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 Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 D 2 0 5 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 B-163 Wetland name or number ______ 6 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 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. Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. Rating of Site Potential 12-16 = H 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? Rating of Landscape Potential 3 = H 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? 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 .   water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why __________________ 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? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L _____________________________________________________________________________ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 D 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 B-164 Wetland name or number ______ 13 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 ¼ 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 ____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 ¼ ac if the unit is at least 2.5 ac to count (see text for 4 or more types present: points = 3 2 points descriptions of hydroperiods). ____Permanently flooded or inundated ____Seasonally flooded or inundated ____Occasionally flooded or inundated ____Saturated only ____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Intermittently or seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Lake Fringe wetland ____Freshwater tidal wetland H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. = 0 points = 1 point = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 D 1 1 1 0 B-165 Wetland name or number ______ 14 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) ____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 ¼ 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) Rating of Site Potential 15-18 = H 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? only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit Calculate: % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% If total accessible habitat is: 1 3 H 2.2. Total habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Total habitat > 50% of Polygon Total habitat 0-50% and in 1-3 patches Total habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches Total habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon /2] = _______% points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 points = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential : 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? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. It has 3 or more Priority Habitats within 100 m (see next page) It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Rating of Value 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) Calculate: D 0 3 22.12 16.71 30.475 2 40.44 33.88 57.379999999999995 3 0 5 0 B-166 Wetland name or number ______ 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 andwildlife. This habitat automatically counts if mapped on the online map within 100m of the wetland. IIf not mapped, adetermination 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 ispermanent and often deep, so that water, rather than air, is the principal medium within which the dominant organismslive. Substrate does not support emergent vegetation. Do not select if Instream habitat is also present, or if the entiredeepwater 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 providefunctional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Do not select if Fresh Deepwater habitat isalso present. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, andPuget 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 breastheight (dbh) or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in. (53 cm) dbh; crowncover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generallyless than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. 15133 http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: D B-167 Wetland name or number ______ 16 Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oakcomponent is important. For single oaks or oak stands <0.4 ha in urban areas, WDFW’s ManagementRecommendations 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 ofboth 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 toenable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in. (51 cm) in westernWashington 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 wetprairie. 134 https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00030/wdfw00030.pdfWetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: D B-168 Wetland name or number ______ 17 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= 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? The 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. At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. No = 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?135 No - Go to SC 2.2 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 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 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. Yes = Category I bog No = Is not a bog 135 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPdata136 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_nh_sighting_form.pdfWetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 Yes = Category I 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 = Category I Yes = Submit data to WA Natural Heritage Program for determination,136 Go to SC 2.3 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 No = Not a WHCV No = Not a WHCV D B-169 Wetland name or number ______ 18 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). Yes = Category I 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 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 ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland.  The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Category I Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. 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 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? Category III Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: D B-170 Wetland name or number ______ 19 This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023 D B-171 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix E — Wetland Rating Maps B-172 Wetland A Wetland 1 Wetland C Wetland D Wetland B COWARDIN MAP ¢ 0 250 500125 Feet DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 7 4/11/2024 2419.0002 DDS 11 " = 250 ' 330' Boundary Emergent Forested Scrub-Shrub 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NEARLINGTON, WA 98223 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, & 31052600102300 LINDSAY ANNEXATION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC 1 " = 20 ' Wetland D B-173 Wetland A Wetland 1 Wetland C Wetland D Wetland B HYDROPERIOD MAP ¢ 0 240 480120 Feet DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 7 4/11/2024 2419.0002 DDS 21 " = 240 ' 150' Boundary Saturated Only Occassionally Flooded Seasonally Flooded Permanently Flooded XY Outlet D D OHW 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NEARLINGTON, WA 98223 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, & 31052600102300 LINDSAY ANNEXATION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC 1 " = 20 ' Wetland D Saturated Seasonally Flooded B-174 àààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à ààààààààààà à à à à à à à à àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à ààààà àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à àWetland A Wetland 1 Wetland C Wetland D Wetland B CONTRIBUTING BASIN MAP ¢ 0 450 900225 Feet DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 7 4/11/2024 2419.0002 DDS 31 " = 440 ' àààààààààà à à à à à à à à Wetland ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !Intensive Land Use Contributing Basin 10' Contour 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NEARLINGTON, WA 98223 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, & 31052600102300 LINDSAY ANNEXATION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC B-175 CONTRIBUTING BASIN DATA DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: NONE FIGURE NO. of 7 4/11/2024 2419.0002 DDS 4 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NEARLINGTON, WA 98223 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, & 31052600102300 LINDSAY ANNEXATION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC 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% D.4.0 - D.5.3 B-176 ààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à ààààà à à à àààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à ààààà à àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à HABITAT MAP ¢ 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 7 4/11/2024 2419.0002 DDS 51 " = 1,000 ' 1 KM Polygon Accessible Habitat Moderate & Low Intensity Relatively Undisturbed High Intensity 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NEARLINGTON, WA 98223 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, & 31052600102300 LINDSAY ANNEXATION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC B-177 HABITAT DATA DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: NONE FIGURE NO. of 7 4/11/2024 2419.0002 DDS 6 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NEARLINGTON, WA 98223 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, & 31052600102300 LINDSAY ANNEXATION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC All Wetlands Abutting Undisturbed Habitat 22.12% Abutting Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 16.71% Accessible Habitat 30.47% Undisturbed Habitat 40.44% Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 33.88% Undisturbed Habitat in 1 KM Polygon 57.38% High Intensity Land Use in 1 KM Polygon 25.68% H.2.2 H.2.3 H.2.0 H.2.1 B-178 303(D) MAP ¢ DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 7 4/11/2024 2419.0002 DDS 7 Subwatershed Water Quality Improvement Project Category 5 Assessed Waters 8014/8228/8210/8326 172ND STREET NEARLINGTON, WA 98223 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600100200, 31052600102200, & 31052600102300 LINDSAY ANNEXATION www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC Name Pollutants TMDL ID WRIA Year ApprovedSnohomish River Tributaries Bacteria TMDL Bacteria 34 7 2001Snohomish River Estuary Multiparameter TMDL Ammonia-N, CBOD, Dissolved Oxygen 48 7 2002 1 " = 1.5 mi 0 1.5 30.75 Miles SITE B-179 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 Appendix F — Site Photographs General site conditions in the southeast portion of the site on 04/02/2024 (facing west). General site conditions in the southeast portion of the site around Wetland A on 04/02/2024 (facing east). Ditch conditions in the southeast portion of the site on 04/02/24 (facing south). General site conditions in the north portion of the site on 04/02/24 (facing east). B-180 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 General site conditions around Stream Z on 04/03/24 (facing west). General site conditions in north ditch of the site on 04/02/24 (facing south). General site conditions in Wetland B on 04/02/24 (facing south). General site conditions around Wetland C on 04/02/24 (facing south). B-181 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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 Report prepared for the Lindsay Annexation 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 B-182 2419.0002 - Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report June 21, 2024 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. B-183 Volume II Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume II ▪ November 2025 C-1 C Conceptual Mitigation Plan CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN LINDSAY ANNEXATION JUNE 2025 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 8th Street, Suite 200 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 PREPARED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 (253) 514-8952 C-3 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation i Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 ¼ 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, 100-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 C-4 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation ii Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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. Feature Name Size (Onsite) Category1 Regulated Under KCC Chapter 11.06 Regulated Under RCW 90.48 Regulated Under Clean 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 feet Type Ns Yes Yes Likely 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. Impact Type 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 Type Mitigation Area Wetland 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 C-5 2419.0002 Lindsay Annexation iii Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 Site Map C-6 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation iv Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Critical Area Findings ............................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Regulatory Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 2. 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 Chapter 4. Closure .......................................................................................................................................... 24 Chapter 5. References .................................................................................................................................... 25 Figures Figure 1. Subject Property. ............................................................................................................................... 1 Tables Table 1. Wetland Buffer Summary. ................................................................................................................. 3 Table 2. Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands ................................................................. 3 Table 3. 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 C-7 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 1 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 ¼ 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 Location C-8 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 2 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment: 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. C-9 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 3 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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. Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands Disturbance Examples of Activities and Uses that Cause Disturbances Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Lights • Parking lots, warehouses, manufacturing, residential, parks • Direct lights away from critical areas and buffers • Day use only regulations preventing the need for lights • Timer on lights Noise • Manufacturing • Residential • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetlands • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation planting adjacent to noise source • For activities that generate relatively continuous, 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 Toxic runoff* • Parking lots, roads, manufacturing, residential areas, application of agricultural pesticides, landscaping • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of critical area or buffer • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff • Parking lots, roads, manufacturing, residential areas, commercial, landscaping • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use Low Intensity Development technique Change in water regime • Impermeable surfaces • Lawns • Tilling • Forest and forest duff removal • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns • Retain minimum forest and forest duff Pets and human disturbance • Residential areas and parks • Use privacy fencing; plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the 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 C-10 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 4 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 Disturbance Examples of Activities and Uses that Cause Disturbances Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Disruption of corridors or connections • Roads, residential, commercial, manufacturing, landscaping, stormwater • Maintain connection to offsite areas that are undisturbed • 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. C-11 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 5 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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) Waters 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 under paragraph (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) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters: (i) Waters 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: (1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act; (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 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; (5) 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 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) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, 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 C-12 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 6 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 (8) Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow. 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). C-13 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 7 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 or parts 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. C-14 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 8 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 b. Minimize 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. Rectifying 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 or providing substitute resources or environments. C-15 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 9 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 hazard 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 environmentally 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 waterway 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 C-16 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 10 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 low intensity, passive recreational activities such as low impact trails in the outer twenty -five percent, non-permanent wildlife watching blinds, short -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 cl earing, mowing, and the encroachment of non-native invasive species. (B) With 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) With 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. C-17 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 11 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 in 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 Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment 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. C-18 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 12 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 • 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. Summary of Wetland Impacts Wetland HGM Cowardin1 WSDOE Ratings2 Onsite Wetland Area Impact Type Impact Area A Slope PEMB IV 22,644 SF (0.52 ac) Direct (fill) 1,499 SF (0.034 ac) C Depressional PEMBC III 29,723 SF (0.68 ac) Direct (fill) 9,783 SF (0.225 ac) D Depressional PSS/EMBC IV 117 SF (0.003 ac) Direct (fill) 117 SF (0.003 ac) Total Direct Wetland Impacts 11,399 SF (0.262 ac) A Slope PEMB IV 22,644 SF (0.52 ac) Indirect 690 SF (0.016 ac) C Depressional PEMBC III 29,723 SF (0.68 ac) Indirect 11,313 SF (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). C-19 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 13 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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. C-20 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 14 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 Table 5. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Summary for Wetland Impacts Wetland WSDOE Rating1 Impact Type Impact Area (acre) Compensation Creation/Re- Establishment Ratio Area (acre) 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. C-21 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 15 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 C-22 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 16 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 C-23 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 17 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual and the 2010 Western 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. C-24 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 18 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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. C-25 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 19 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 C-26 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 20 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 ½- inch to 1-inch in size and ½-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 C-27 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 21 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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. Temporary Irrigation 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. C-28 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 22 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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. C-29 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 23 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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. C-30 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 24 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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. C-31 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation 25 Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 Chapter 5. References Arlington Municipal Code (AMC). 2025. Chapter 20.93 – Critical Areas Ordinances. Website: https://www.arlingtonwa.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 Rating 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. C-32 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 Appendix A – Existing Conditions and Site Plans C-33 LI N D S A Y A N N E X A T I O N - PE N D I N G P R O J E C T 80 1 4 , 8 2 2 8 , 8 2 1 0 , 8 3 2 6 1 7 2 N D S T R E E T N E , AR L I N G T O N , W A 9 8 2 2 3 SN O H O M I S H C O U N T Y P A R C E L N U M B E R ( S ) : 31 0 5 2 5 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 , 31 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 APPLICANT/OWNER NAME:MJS INVESTORS ADDRESS:11400 SE 8TH STREET, SUITE 200, BELLEVUE, WA 98004 CONTACT: ROB RISINGER PHONE:(425) 417-6004 E-MAIL:ROBR@MJSINVESTORS.COM LOCATION THE NE 1 4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 31N, RANGE 5E, WM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE GIG HARBOR, WA 98355 (253) 514-8952 SITE NOTES 1.SURVEY PROVIDED BY COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER. 2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY LAND TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 18820 3RD AVE NE ARLINGTON WA 98223, 360-652-9727 3. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. Know what's below. Call before you dig. OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP OHP OHP OHP OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD W W SDSDSDSD SDSDSDSD SDSD SD SD GGG W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W T T T T T T T T T T T T T T G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G G G T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GT 85 t h A v e . N . E . 40 0 Z-9AZ-10A Z-8AZ-8B Z-7B Z-7A Z-6A Z-6B Z-1B Z-1A Z-2A Z-2B Z-3A Z-3B Z-4B Z-4A Z-5B Z-9A Z-5A C-24 C-26 C-27 C-28 C-29 C-23 C-22 C-21 C-20 C-19 C-18 C-17 C-16 C-15 C-14 C-13 C-12 C-10 C-9 C-8 C-7 C-6 C-5 C-4C-3 C-2 C-1 C-31 C-11 A-13 A-12 A-14 A-15 A-11 A-10 A-9 A-8A-7 A-5 A-4 A-3 A-2 A-1 A-22 A-21 A-20 A-19 A-16 A-17 A-18 B-14 B-13 B-12 B-10 B-15 B-16 B-17B-8 B-7 B-6 B-5 B-20B-19 B-18 B-21 B-22 B-23 B-24 B-25 B-26 B-27 B-28 B-29 B-31 B-32B-33 B-35 B-36 B-37 B-38 B-39 B-41 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-30 D-3 D-2 D-1 D-4 C-25 B-30 B-34 B-11 B-9 172ND STREET NE WETLAND A CATEGORY IV 40-FT BUFFER 22,644 SF WETLAND D CATEGORY IV 40-FT BUFFER 117 SF 50' 40' 110' 11 0 ' DP-15 DP-28 DP-29 DP-26 DP-32 DP-27 DP-22 DP-1 DP-2 DP-4 DP-3 DP-13 DP-6 DP-23 DP-17 DP-3 DP-19 DP-9 DP-11 DP-5 DP-30 DP-31 DP-24 DP-21 DP-10 DP-7 DP-12 DP-25 DP-14 DP-18 WETLAND C CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER 29,723 SF (ONSITE) STREAM Z TYPE NS 50-FT BUFFER WETLAND 1 OFFSITE CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER WETLAND B CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER 45,715 SF (ONSITE) 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 1"= 100 200 400 100' VICINITY MAP SHEET INDEX SHEET SHEET TITLE M1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS M2.0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN & MPACTS M3.0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN & MITIGATION M3.1 PLANT SCHEDULE M4.0 DETAILS SOURCE: ESRI (ACCESSED 01/27/2025) So u n d v i e w C o n s u l t a n t s WW W . S O U N D V I E W C O N S U L T A N T S . C O M GI G H A R B O R , W A S H I N G T O N 9 8 3 3 5 29 0 7 H A R B O R V I E W D R I V E FP En v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 4 . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 2 Pl a n n i n g L a n d U s e S o l u t i o n s DATE: SHEET: BY: SCALE: 8/4/2025 2419.0002 MW AS SHOWN JOB #: RE V I S I O N S : BY DA T E EXISTING CONDITIONS M1.0 PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY APPROXIMATED WETLAND BOUNDARY (NOT SURVEYED) STANDARD WETLAND BUFFER WETLAND FLAG LOCATION DATA PLOT LOCATION STREAM CENTERLINE STREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE (OHW) STREAM BUFFER STREAM OHW (ORDINARY HIGH WATER) FLAG LOCATION DITCH CENTERLINE EXISTING CONTOUR O-# DP-# W-# DP-# W-# C-34 LI N D S A Y A N N E X A T I O N - PE N D I N G P R O J E C T 80 1 4 , 8 2 2 8 , 8 2 1 0 , 8 3 2 6 1 7 2 N D S T R E E T N E , AR L I N G T O N , W A 9 8 2 2 3 SN O H O M I S H C O U N T Y P A R C E L N U M B E R ( S ) : 31 0 5 2 5 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 , 31 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 343332 85 t h A v e . N . E . 37 47 14 13 16 15 19 222120 25 26 24 36 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 51 48 49 50 53 52 28 27 55 5459585756 12 8 12 9 38 35 29 30 15 7 15 0 31 23 2 15 6 15 5 15 4 15 3 14 8 14 915 2 15 1 121110987654 1 3 15 9 16 7 16 0 16 1 16 2 16 3 16 4 16 5 15 8 16 6 66 74 67 75 60 68 61 69 62 70 63 71 64 72 65 73 11 2 12 3 11 3 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 11 8 11 9 12 0 12 1 12 2 12 5 12 7 94 12 4 12 6 80 13 3 14 0 87 79 10 7 13 5 13 2 10 4 13 4 136 86 78 10 6 10 010 3 14 7 131 93 85 77 10 5 13 9 13 8 14 6 130 92 84 76 9899 137 10 2 14 5 91 83 11 1 9710 1 14 4 90 82 11 0 96 14 3 14 1 89 81 10 9 95 14 2 88 10 8 OS 974 1,243 sf OS 978 1,357 sf OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP OHP OHP OHP OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P SD SD SD W W GGG W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W T T T T T T T T T T T T T T G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G G G T T T T T T T T T T T T T G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GT 85 t h A v e . N . E . 172ND STREET NE WETLAND A CATEGORY IV 110-FT BUFFER 22,644 SF WETLAND D CATEGORY IV 40-FT BUFFER 117 SF FILLED WETLAND C CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER 29,723 SF (ONSITE) STREAM Z TYPE NS 50-FT BUFFER WETLAND 1 OFFSITE CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER WETLAND B CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER 45,715 SF (ONSITE) 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 1"= 100 200 400 100' So u n d v i e w C o n s u l t a n t s WW W . S O U N D V I E W C O N S U L T A N T S . C O M GI G H A R B O R , W A S H I N G T O N 9 8 3 3 5 29 0 7 H A R B O R V I E W D R I V E FP En v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 4 . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 2 Pl a n n i n g L a n d U s e S o l u t i o n s DATE: SHEET: BY: SCALE: 8/4/2025 2419.0002 MW AS SHOWN JOB #: RE V I S I O N S : BY DA T E PROPOSED SITE PLAN & IMPACTS M2.0 PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE WETLAND BOUNDARY APPROXIMATED WETLAND BOUNDARY (NOT SURVEYED) STREAM CENTERLINE STREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE (OHW) EXISTING DITCH CENTERLINE POST-CONSTRUCTION BUFFER PROPOSED CLEARING LIMIT IMPACTS LEGEND WETLAND IMPACTS TOTAL WETLAND FILL 11,399 SF FILL -- WETLAND A 1,499 SF FILL -- WETLAND C 9,783 SF FILL -- WETLAND D 117 SF INDIRECT WETLAND IMPACTS 12,003 SF INDIRECT IMPACTS -- WETLAND A 690 SF INDIRECT IMPACTS -- WETLAND C 11,313 SF BUFFER IMPACTS TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS 7,379 SF (FOR GRADING AND UTILITIES; TO BE RESTORED) PERMANENT BUFFER IMPACTS 2,467 SF (FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAIL) C-35 LI N D S A Y A N N E X A T I O N - PE N D I N G P R O J E C T 80 1 4 , 8 2 2 8 , 8 2 1 0 , 8 3 2 6 1 7 2 N D S T R E E T N E , AR L I N G T O N , W A 9 8 2 2 3 SN O H O M I S H C O U N T Y P A R C E L N U M B E R ( S ) : 31 0 5 2 5 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 , 31 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 343332 37 47 14 13 16 15 19 222120 25 26 24 36 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 51 48 49 50 53 52 28 27 55 5459585756 12 8 12 9 38 35 29 30 15 7 15 0 31 23 2 15 6 15 5 15 4 15 3 14 8 14 915 2 15 1 121110987654 1 3 15 9 16 7 16 0 16 1 16 2 16 3 16 4 16 5 15 8 16 6 66 74 67 75 60 68 61 69 62 70 63 71 64 72 65 73 11 2 12 3 11 3 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 11 8 11 9 12 0 12 1 12 2 12 5 12 7 94 12 4 12 6 80 13 3 14 0 87 79 10 7 13 5 13 2 10 4 13 4 13 6 86 78 10 6 10 010 3 14 7 131 93 85 77 10 5 13 9 13 8 14 6 130 92 84 76 9899 137 10 2 14 5 91 83 11 1 9710 1 14 4 90 82 11 0 96 14 3 14 1 89 81 10 9 95 14 2 88 10 8 OS 974 1,243 sf OS 978 1,357 sf 172ND STREET NE WETLAND A CATEGORY IV 110-FT BUFFER 22,644 SF WETLAND C CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER 29,723 SF (ONSITE) STREAM Z TYPE NS 50-FT BUFFER WETLAND 1 OFFSITE CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER WETLAND B CATEGORY III 110-FT BUFFER 45,715 SF (ONSITE) PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE WETLAND BOUNDARY APPROXIMATED WETLAND BOUNDARY (NOT SURVEYED) POST CONSTRUCTION BUFFER STREAM CENTERLINE STREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE (OHW) EXISTING DITCH CENTERLINE So u n d v i e w C o n s u l t a n t s WW W . S O U N D V I E W C O N S U L T A N T S . C O M GI G H A R B O R , W A S H I N G T O N 9 8 3 3 5 29 0 7 H A R B O R V I E W D R I V E FP En v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 4 . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 2 Pl a n n i n g L a n d U s e S o l u t i o n s DATE: SHEET: BY: SCALE: 8/4/2025 2419.0002 MW AS SHOWN JOB #: RE V I S I O N S : BY DA T E PROPOSED SITE PLAN & MITIGATION M3.0 MITIGATION LEGEND WETLAND MITIGATION WETLAND ENHANCEMENT 29,086 SF WETLAND CREATION 69,115 SF FENCES & SIGNS POST-CONSTRUCTION BUFFER/ CRITICAL AREA FENCE 1,235 SF CRITICAL AREA SIGN 23 SIGNS 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 1"= 100 200 400 100' BUFFER MITIGATION WETLAND AS BUFFER ENHANCEMENT (INDIRECT WETLAND IMPACTS) 12,003 SF BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 101,308 SF BUFFER RESTORATION (FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS) 6,379 SF BUFFER CREATION 8,684 SF C-36 LI N D S A Y A N N E X A T I O N - PE N D I N G P R O J E C T 80 1 4 , 8 2 2 8 , 8 2 1 0 , 8 3 2 6 1 7 2 N D S T R E E T N E , AR L I N G T O N , W A 9 8 2 2 3 SN O H O M I S H C O U N T Y P A R C E L N U M B E R ( S ) : 31 0 5 2 5 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 , 31 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 So u n d v i e w C o n s u l t a n t s WW W . S O U N D V I E W C O N S U L T A N T S . C O M GI G H A R B O R , W A S H I N G T O N 9 8 3 3 5 29 0 7 H A R B O R V I E W D R I V E FP En v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 4 . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 2 Pl a n n i n g L a n d U s e S o l u t i o n s DATE: SHEET: BY: SCALE: 8/4/2025 2419.0002 MW AS SHOWN JOB #: RE V I S I O N S : BY DA T E PLANT SCHEDULE M3.1 PLANT SCHEDULE C-37 LI N D S A Y A N N E X A T I O N - PE N D I N G P R O J E C T 80 1 4 , 8 2 2 8 , 8 2 1 0 , 8 3 2 6 1 7 2 N D S T R E E T N E , AR L I N G T O N , W A 9 8 2 2 3 SN O H O M I S H C O U N T Y P A R C E L N U M B E R ( S ) : 31 0 5 2 5 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 , 31 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 , 3 1 0 5 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 So u n d v i e w C o n s u l t a n t s WW W . S O U N D V I E W C O N S U L T A N T S . C O M GI G H A R B O R , W A S H I N G T O N 9 8 3 3 5 29 0 7 H A R B O R V I E W D R I V E FP En v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 4 . 25 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 2 Pl a n n i n g L a n d U s e S o l u t i o n s DATE: SHEET: BY: SCALE: 8/4/2025 2419.0002 MW AS SHOWN JOB #: RE V I S I O N S : BY DA T E DETAILS M4.0 STORAGE OF LIVE STAKES: ALL WOODY PLANT CUTTINGS COLLECTED MORE THAN 12 HR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, MUST BE CAREFULLY BOUND, SECURED, AND STORED OUT OF DIRECT SUNLIGHT AND SUBMERGED IN CLEAN FRESH WATER 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 THE DORMANT SEASON, CUT DURING THE DORMANT SEASON AND HOLD IN COLD STORAGE AT TEMPERATURES BETWEEN 33 AND 39 DEGREES F FOR UP TO 2 MONTHS. NOTES: 1. LIVE STAKES TO BE A MIN. 1/2 INCH DIAMETER; MIN. 48 INCH LENGTH. 2. USE 1/2 INCH MIN. DIAMETER REBAR OR ROCK BAR TO MAKE PILOT HOLE WHEN PLANTING IN DENSE OR GRAVELY SOILS TO A MIN. DEPTH OF 18 INCHES. 3. MANUALLY INSERT LIVE STAKE INTO PILOT HOLE TAPERED END UP AND TEMP SOIL AROUND BASE. CUTTINGS SHOULD BE INSERTED TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 18 INCHES. LEAVE A MIN. OF 30" OF THE CUTTING ABOVE GROUND SURFACE TO ALLOW FOR SUCCESSFUL FOLIAGE DEVELOPMENT. 4. MINUMUM TWO BUDS ABOVE GRADE. 5. SET LIVE STAKES WITH DEAD-BLOW HAMMER. 6. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION. NOT TO SCALE LIVE STAKE PLANTING DETAIL (TYPICAL) min. 18 in. below grade min. 30 in. above grade NOTES: 1. PLANT SHRUBS OF THE SAME SPECIES IN GROUPS OF 3 to 9 AS APPROPRIATE, OR AS SHOWN ON PLAN. AVOID INSTALLING PLANTS IN STRAIGHT LINES TO ACHIEVE A NATURAL-LOOKING LAYOUT. 2. EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTH OF ROOT MASS AND 2 X ROOT MASS DIAMETER. SPREAD ROOTS TO FULL WIDTH OF CANOPY. SCARIFY SIDES OF PIT. 3. MIDWAY THROUGH PLANTING ADD AGROFORM TABLET AND WATER THOROUGHLY. 4. BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTED USING WATER ONLY. 5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION. LOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED) 3 to 4 INCH LAYER OF MULCH - KEEP MULCH MIN. 3" AWAY FROM TRUNK OF SHRUB SET TOP OF ROOT MASS / ROOT BALL FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SUBGRADE NOT TO SCALE TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL, TYP. NOTES: 1. POSTS AND RAILINGS PRE-CUT FOR ASSEMBLY. 2. 3-RAIL DESIGNS ARE PERMITTED. 3. FENCE SHALL BE PLACED AT APPROVED BUFFER EDGE. NOT TO SCALE SPLIT RAIL FENCE DETAIL 12" DIAM. 8'-0" 1'-6" 3'-0" 2'-0" MIN. 6" COMPACTED GRANULAR SUB-BASE 4-6" CONCRETE FOOTING NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL FINISHED GRADE PITCH SURFACE TO DRAIN 4 TO 6" SPLIT CEDAR RAILS, TYP. 6x6" SPLIT CEDAR POSTS C-38 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 C-39 2419.0002 – Lindsay Annexation Soundview Consultants LLC Conceptual Mitigation Plan June 20, 2025 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 (Punto 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. C-40 Volume II Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume II ▪ November 2025 D-1 D Existing Traffic Counts Right 56 PHF HV 94 0.81 1.2%Right 0.88 3.1% 0.97 1.9% 0.88 5.8% 0.95 2.9% PHF = Peak Hour Factor HV = Heavy Vehicles 478 Bicycles = 0 Pe d s C r o s s i n g W e s t L e g = 0 Peds Crossing South Leg = 0Intersection SB Total = 448 Right Thru Left U-Turn PEAK HOUR SUMMARY 199 SB Total TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM Bicycles = 0 Heavy Vehicles = 4 331Approach SB Approach U-Turn Left Thru Right Thru Left Count Period Heavy Vehicles = 14 45 304 64 Bi c y c l e s = 0 WB T o t a l = 4 1 3 Pe d s C r o s s i n g E a s t L e g = 1 U-Turn EB Total He a v y V e h i c l e s = 2 4 Intersection 67th Avenue NE @ 172nd Street NE WB Approach 67 t h A v e n u e N E 172nd Street NE U-Turn Left Thru 0 503 260 0 654 EB Approach 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 0.95 2.9% 1992 NB Approach Bi c y c l e s = 0 EB T o t a l = 7 9 4 He a v y V e h i c l e s = 1 5 NB Total = 337 Arlington, WA WB Total 0 44 Date Time Tue 11/12/2024 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM 67 t h A v e n u e N E Peak Hour Volume PHF HV 172nd Street NE Peds Crossing North Leg = 0 NB Total 504822111550 D-2 LOCATION:67th Avenue NE @ 172nd Street NE TDG Arlington, WA 11/14/2024 DURATION OF COUNT (Hrs):2 TIME INTERVAL INTERVAL ENDING TOTALS AT 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 HV U-Turn Left Thru Right 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 0 0 14 0 82 211 155 0 0 4 0 44 199 94 1 0 24 0 64 304 45 0 0 15 0 260 478 56 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 1992 % HV 3.1%1.2%5.8%1.9%2.9% HV = Heavy Vehicle PHF = Peak Hour Factor 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 HV U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 14 0 82 211 155 0 0 4 0 44 199 94 1 0 24 0 64 304 45 0 0 15 0 260 478 56 1992 4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 13 0 82 195 158 0 0 4 0 43 188 103 3 0 22 0 46 280 46 0 0 15 0 267 489 60 1957 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 11 0 81 190 158 0 0 1 0 38 171 93 3 0 20 0 45 271 49 0 0 14 0 273 514 60 1943 4:45 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 11 0 69 166 170 0 0 4 0 34 155 80 3 0 18 0 47 258 47 0 0 15 0 269 527 61 1883 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 13 0 64 146 176 0 0 4 0 25 144 72 2 0 14 0 38 261 42 0 0 15 0 266 526 61 1821 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Total:0 0 27 0 146 357 331 0 0 8 0 69 343 166 3 0 38 0 102 565 87 0 0 30 0 526 1004 117 3813 172nd Street NE ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM NORTH ON (Southbound)FROM SOUTH ON (Northbound)FROM EAST ON (Westbound)FROM WEST ON (Eastbound) 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR:4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 67th Avenue NE 67th Avenue NE 172nd Street NE 0.95 448 337 413 0.88 0.81 0.88 0.97PEAK HOUR FACTOR PEAK HOUR TOTALS 67th Avenue NE 67th Avenue NE 794 COUNTED BY: DATE OF REDUCTION: INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET 172nd Street NE172nd Street NE FROM NORTH ON (Southbound)FROM SOUTH ON (Northbound)FROM EAST ON (Westbound)FROM WEST ON (Eastbound) DATE OF COUNT:Tue. 11/12/2024 START OF COUNT:4:00 PM TIME OF COUNT:4:00 PM - 6:00 PM D-3 80TH DR NE 80TH DR NE172ND ST NE 172ND ST NE (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location:1 80TH DR NE & 172ND ST NE PM Thursday, June 27, 2024Date: Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Motorized Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in CrosswalkHeavy Vehicles Peak Hour Peak Hour:04:00 PM - 05:00 PM Peak 15-Minutes:04:30 PM - 04:45 PM 36 71 368 488 00 541 386 0.93 N S EW 0.82 0.93 0.00 0.90 (126)(82) (738) (954) (784) (1,044) ()() 30 06 12 356 0 0 482 59 0 0 0 0 0 00 172ND ST NE 172ND ST NE 80TH DR NE 80TH DR NE 0 0 0 0 N S EW 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 00 0 2 N S EW 0 0 0 0 0 00 Interval Start Time RightLeft Thru Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound U-Turn Rolling HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn 4:00 PM 9450 13 110 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 2 0 2210007 4:15 PM 9400 17 118 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 1 0 23505010 4:30 PM 9370 17 134 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 1 0 2530404 4:45 PM 9180 12 120 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 2 0 2360309 5:00 PM 9190 6 109 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 1 0 21603010 5:15 PM 0 14 119 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 3 0 2320106 5:30 PM 0 14 118 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 2 0 23402010 5:45 PM 0 12 111 0 0 97 0 0 0 0 3 0 23703011 Count Total 0 105 939 0 0 717 0 0 0 0 15 0 1,864021067 Peak Hour 0 59 482 0 0 356 0 0 0 0 6 0 945012030 HV% PHF 0.90 0.93 0.00 0.82 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.93 EB WB NB SB All Heavy VehiclesInterval Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 1 0 1 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 1 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 3 0 3 Peak Hour 0 0 2 0 2 Bicycles on RoadwayInterval Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 D-4 Right 120 PHF HV 157 0.94 2.6%Right 0.92 3.4% 0.82 1.6% 0.93 1.6% 0.95 2.2% PHF = Peak Hour Factor HV = Heavy Vehicles 356 Bicycles = 0 Pe d s C r o s s i n g W e s t L e g = 0 Peds Crossing South Leg = 7Intersection SB Total = 465 Right Thru Left U-Turn PEAK HOUR SUMMARY 316 SB Total TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM Bicycles = 0 Heavy Vehicles = 14 575Approach SB Approach U-Turn Left Thru Right Thru Left Count Period Heavy Vehicles = 16 155 233 161 Bi c y c l e s = 0 WB T o t a l = 5 4 9 Pe d s C r o s s i n g E a s t L e g = 1 U-Turn EB Total He a v y V e h i c l e s = 9 Intersection SR-9 @ 204th Street NE WB Approach SR - 9 204th Street NE U-Turn Left Thru 0 409 154 1 576 EB Approach 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 0.95 2.2% 2185 NB Approach Bi c y c l e s = 0 EB T o t a l = 6 3 1 He a v y V e h i c l e s = 1 0 NB Total = 540 Arlington, WA WB Total 0 67 Date Time Tue 11/12/2024 4:00 PM - 6:00 PMSR - 9 Peak Hour Volume PHF HV 204th Street NE Peds Crossing North Leg = 4 NB Total 625632941080 D-5 LOCATION:SR-9 @ 204th Street NE TDG Arlington, WA 11/14/2024 DURATION OF COUNT (Hrs):2 TIME INTERVAL INTERVAL ENDING TOTALS AT 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 HV U-Turn Left Thru Right 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 0 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 16 444 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 4 0 16 0 63 294 108 7 0 14 0 67 316 157 1 0 9 0 161 233 155 0 0 10 1 154 356 120 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 2185 % HV 3.4%2.6%1.6%1.6%2.2% HV = Heavy Vehicle PHF = Peak Hour Factor 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 HV U-Turn Left Thru Right 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 1 154 356 120 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 1 138 352 131 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 0 140 351 118 2060 4:45 PM - 5:45 PM 1 0 9 0 54 270 90 7 0 4 0 59 316 152 0 0 6 0 140 203 137 0 0 2 0 123 308 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 0 104 324 84 1847 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Total:4 0 22 0 117 539 195 9 0 14 0 118 609 293 1 0 12 0 292 453 273 0 0 16 1 258 680 204 4032 204th Street NE ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM NORTH ON (Southbound)FROM SOUTH ON (Northbound)FROM EAST ON (Westbound)FROM WEST ON (Eastbound) 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR:4:00 PM - 5:00 PM SR-9 SR-9 204th Street NE 0.95 465 540 549 0.92 0.94 0.93 0.82PEAK HOUR FACTOR PEAK HOUR TOTALS SR-9 SR-9 631 COUNTED BY: DATE OF REDUCTION: INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET 204th Street NE204th Street NE FROM NORTH ON (Southbound)FROM SOUTH ON (Northbound)FROM EAST ON (Westbound)FROM WEST ON (Eastbound) DATE OF COUNT:Tue. 11/12/2024 START OF COUNT:4:00 PM TIME OF COUNT:4:00 PM - 6:00 PM D-6 Right 278 PHF HV 6 0.92 4.8%Right 0.90 2.1% 0.89 2.4% 0.84 1.0% 0.97 3.1% PHF = Peak Hour Factor HV = Heavy Vehicles 1 187 Date Time Tue 11/12/2024 4:00 PM - 6:00 PMSR - 9 Peak Hour Volume PHF HV 172nd Street NE Peds Crossing North Leg = 0 NB Total 499303711110 SR-9 @ 172nd Street NE WB Approach SR - 9 172nd Street NE U-Turn Left Thru 0 360 95 0 130 EB Approach 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 0.97 3.1% 1654 NB Approach Bi c y c l e s = 0 EB T o t a l = 4 6 6 He a v y V e h i c l e s = 1 1 NB Total = 579 Arlington, WA WB Total U-Turn Left Thru Right Thru Left Count Period Heavy Vehicles = 11 18 62 16 Bi c y c l e s = 1 WB T o t a l = 9 7 Pe d s C r o s s i n g E a s t L e g = 0 U-Turn EB Total He a v y V e h i c l e s = 1 Intersection PEAK HOUR SUMMARY 386 SB Total TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM Bicycles = 0 Heavy Vehicles = 28 665Approach SB Approach 93 Bicycles = 0 Pe d s C r o s s i n g W e s t L e g = 0 Peds Crossing South Leg = 0Intersection SB Total = 512 Right Thru Left U-Turn D-7 LOCATION:SR-9 @ 172nd Street NE TDG Arlington, WA 11/14/2024 DURATION OF COUNT (Hrs):2 TIME INTERVAL INTERVAL ENDING TOTALS AT 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 HV U-Turn Left Thru Right 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 0 0 11 0 30 371 111 0 0 28 0 187 386 6 0 1 1 1 16 62 18 0 0 11 0 95 93 278 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 1654 % HV 2.1%4.8%1.0%2.4%3.1% HV = Heavy Vehicle PHF = Peak Hour Factor 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 HV U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 11 0 30 371 111 0 0 28 0 187 386 6 0 1 1 1 16 62 18 0 0 11 0 95 93 278 1654 4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 0 1 7 0 27 355 116 0 0 30 0 186 386 4 0 1 0 0 12 46 22 0 0 7 0 100 94 280 1628 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 0 1 8 0 25 335 115 0 0 26 0 184 366 7 0 1 0 0 10 45 18 0 0 7 0 112 100 274 1591 4:45 PM - 5:45 PM 0 1 7 0 25 320 110 0 0 19 0 184 355 8 0 0 2 0 3 38 25 0 0 6 0 123 107 227 1525 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 0 1 5 1 18 286 105 0 0 15 0 179 334 12 0 0 2 0 2 38 22 0 0 7 0 126 103 214 1440 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Total:0 1 16 1 48 657 216 0 0 43 0 366 720 18 0 1 3 1 18 100 40 0 0 18 0 221 196 492 3094 COUNTED BY: DATE OF REDUCTION: INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET 172nd Street NE172nd Street NE FROM NORTH ON (Southbound)FROM SOUTH ON (Northbound)FROM EAST ON (Westbound)FROM WEST ON (Eastbound) DATE OF COUNT:Tue. 11/12/2024 START OF COUNT:4:00 PM TIME OF COUNT:4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR FACTOR PEAK HOUR TOTALS SR-9 SR-9 466 0.97 512 579 97 0.90 0.92 0.84 0.89 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR:4:00 PM - 5:00 PM SR-9 SR-9 172nd Street NE 172nd Street NE ROLLING HOUR COUNT FROM NORTH ON (Southbound)FROM SOUTH ON (Northbound)FROM EAST ON (Westbound)FROM WEST ON (Eastbound) D-8 Volume II Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume II ▪ November 2025 E-1 E LOS Definitions 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 Level of Service Average Control Delay (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) F1 >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 F1 >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 Volume II Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume II ▪ November 2025 F-1 F LOS Worksheets HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Lindsay Sub Area 2: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St NE)Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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/ln 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/ln4.4 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 (Gmax), s30.5 55.1 20.5 35.1 30.5 55.1 20.5 35.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.8 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 F-2 HCM 7th TWSC Lindsay Sub Area 4: SR 531 (172nd St NE) & 80th Dr NE Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 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 Major1 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 F-3 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Lindsay Sub Area 1: SR 9 & 204th St NE Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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/ln 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/ln 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/ln 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. F-4 MOVEMENT SUMMARY 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 Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of Queue Mov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: SR 9 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 East: 172nd St NE 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 specif ied 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 (Akçelik 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 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | 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 NE/67th 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 drawin gs. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Created: Monday, September 22, 2025 4:31:05 P M Project: M:\24\1.24222.00 -Lindsay Sub Area\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\EIS\From TE\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 F-6 MOVEMENT SUMMARY 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 Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of Queue Mov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph 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 specif ied 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 (Akçelik 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 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | 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 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 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 Major1 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 SBLn1 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 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 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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/ln 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/ln 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/ln 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+I1), 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. 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 drawin gs. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Created: Monday, September 22, 2025 4:31:59 P M 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 Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of Queue Mov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph 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 specif ied 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 (Akçelik 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 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | 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 drawin gs. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | 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 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 Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of Queue Mov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph 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 specif ied 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 (Akçelik 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 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | 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 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 drawin gs. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | 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 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 Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of Queue Mov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph 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 specif ied 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 (Akçelik 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 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | 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 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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/ln 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/ln 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/ln 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. 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 drawin gs. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | 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 Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of Queue Mov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph 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 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 specif ied 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 (Akçelik 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 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | 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 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 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 Major1 Major2 Minor1 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 - F-19 HCM 7th TWSC Lindsay Subarea EIS 6: East Access & SR 531 (172nd St NE)Future (2044) Lindsay Subarea Plan PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 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 Major1 Major2 Minor1 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 - - - F-20 Volume II Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume II ▪ November 2025 G-1 G Updated Pending Project Area Site Plan and Mitigation OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP OHP OHP OHP OHPOHPOHPOHP OHP OHP OHP OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSD SD SD T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T 24 25 23 26 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SS SS W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N89° 15' 35"W331.12' N86° 29' 57"W1275.23' L5 L3 N87° 14' 13"W 2584.34' N89° 10' 12"W 330.87' N0 0 ° 3 4 ' 3 9 " E 13 0 1 . 0 2 ' L4 RUOS-986 RUOS-985 Residential Usable Open Space-983 RUOS-989 OS - 9 6 9 OS - 9 7 6 Lo t 1 4 3 Lo t 4 Lo t 1 4 2 Lo t 1 1 8 OS - 9 7 9 Lo t 7 3 Lo t 1 3 7 Lo t 2 1 Lo t 1 2 2 Lo t 6 1 Lo t 1 2 3 Lo t 1 4 1 Lo t 3 7 Lot 131 Lo t 1 0 2 Lo t 8 Lo t 6 Lo t 1 2 6 Lo t 3 5 Lo t 1 8 Lo t 7 2 Lo t 1 0 5 Lo t 1 2 7 Lo t 2 0 Lot 14 Lo t 1 3 2 Lo t 1 6 0 Lo t 3 4 Lo t 1 4 6 Lo t 7 4 Lo t 5 4 Lot 43 Lo t 1 1 4 Lo t 1 5 4 Lo t 1 5 9 Lo t 5 9 Lo t 1 4 5 Lo t 9 0 Lo t 1 3 9 Lot 42 Lo t 1 0 Lo t 1 5 8 Lo t 1 4 8 Lo t 9 1 Lo t 9 9 Lo t 1 1 6 Lo t 3 1 Lo t 5 Lo t 3 0 Lo t 6 4 OS - 9 7 0 Lo t 2 9 Lo t 3 3 Lo t 7 8 Lot 40 Lo t 7 5 Lo t 7 9 Lot 53 Lo t 2 7 Lot 52 Lo t 8 1 Lot 51 Lo t 6 5 Lo t 3 8 Lo t 1 6 6 Lo t 6 7 Lot 41 Lo t 1 6 5 Lo t 6 6 Lo t 8 4 Lot 48 Lo t 6 3 Lo t 1 6 4 Lo t 8 5 Lo t 1 6 3 Lo t 1 0 4 Lo t 1 6 2 Lo t 3 Lo t 8 7 Lo t 1 1 2 Lo t 1 6 1 Lot 44 Lo t 1 5 0 Lo t 9 2 Lo t 1 1 7 Lot 13 Lot 130 Lo t 1 5 6 Lo t 1 3 6 Lo t 7 Lo t 6 0 Lo t 1 1 9 Lot 15 Lo t 1 2 0 Lo t 7 1 Lo t 1 0 1 Lo t 1 2 1 Lo t 1 1 0 RUOS-987 Lo t 7 7 Lo t 1 2 Lo t 1 0 9 Lo t 5 7 Lo t 5 5 Lo t 1 4 9 Lo t 9 6 Lo t 1 3 8 Lo t 1 2 4 Lo t 9 8 Lo t 1 2 5 Lo t 3 6 Lo t 1 1 RU O S - 9 8 2 Lo t 3 2 Lo t 1 9 Lo t 6 2 Lo t 1 2 8 Lo t 1 5 7 Lo t 2 2 Lo t 9 3 Lo t 1 2 9 Lo t 1 5 5 Lo t 8 9 Lo t 1 0 3 Lo t 9 Lo t 5 6 Lo t 1 1 5 Lo t 1 0 7 Lo t 1 5 3 Lo t 1 4 4 Lo t 1 4 0 Lot 3 9 Lo t 1 0 6 Lo t 1 5 2 Lo t 9 4 Lo t 9 7 966 Lo t 7 6 Lo t 1 3 5 Lo t 1 3 4 OS-978 Lo t 1 0 0 Lo t 2 8 Lo t 1 5 1 Lo t 2 Lo t 7 0 Lo t 8 0 Lo t 2 6 Lo t 1 0 8 Lot 16 Lo t 6 9 Lo t 2 5 Lo t 1 6 7 Lo t 6 8 Lo t 8 2 Lot 50 Lo t 2 4 Lo t 8 3 Lot 49 Tract 999 Lo t 5 8 Lot 47 Lo t 1 3 3 Lo t 9 5 Lo t 8 6 Lot 46 Lot 45 Lo t 1 4 7 Lo t 8 8 Lo t 1 1 3 Lo t 1 Lo t 2 3 RUOS-893 RUOS-892 Lot 17 Tr a c t 9 9 8 Lo t 2 2 4 Lo t 2 1 8 Lo t 2 0 2 OS-859 Lo t 2 0 1 OS - 8 7 7 Lo t 2 1 9 Lo t 1 6 8 RUOS-889 OS-876 848 Tract 895 OS-858 849 Tract 896 RUOS-891 Tract 897 Lo t 1 9 7 Lo t 2 1 3 Lo t 1 7 9 Lo t 2 0 8 Lot 1 8 1 Lot 1 7 3 Lo t 2 0 7 Lot 225 Lo t 2 0 9 Lo t 1 9 6 Lot 304 Lo t 2 2 3 Lot 189 Lot 1 7 7 Lo t 1 6 9 Lot 1 8 2 Lot 1 8 4 Lot 1 8 0 Lo t 1 9 2 Lo t 2 1 2 Lo t 2 1 5 Lo t 2 1 1 Lot 190 Lo t 2 1 7 Lo t 2 0 4 Lo t 2 2 1 Lo t 1 9 3 Lot 226 Lot 188 Lot 1 8 6 Lo t 1 9 5 Lot 303 Lo t 1 7 8 Lo t 1 7 0 Lo t 2 0 5 Lot 228 Lo t 2 1 6 Lot 1 8 5 Lo t 1 9 1 Lo t 2 1 4 Lo t 2 1 0 Lot 18 7 Lo t 1 9 4 Lo t 2 2 2 Lot 1 7 5 Lot 1 7 1 Lo t 2 2 0 Lo t 1 9 8 Lo t 2 0 0 Lot 229 Lo t 2 0 3 Lo t 2 0 6 Lot 227 Lot 17 4 Lot 1 7 6 Lot 1 7 2 Lot 305 Lot 1 8 3 Lo t 1 9 9 Lot 23 0 322,983 sf 4, 1 7 4 s f 19,081 sf 63,155 sf 19,248 sf 2, 3 4 2 s f 1,368 sf 1,758 sf 1,758 sf 1, 7 6 0 s f 1,799 sf 25,708 sf 54,603 sf 236,051 sf 1, 3 5 7 s f 1, 2 1 8 s f 10,007 sf 14,994 sf Lo t 1 1 1 OS - 9 7 1 OS - 9 7 3 OS - 9 7 2 OS - 9 7 4 OS - 9 7 5 1, 2 1 9 s f 1, 4 6 2 s f 1, 2 3 9 s f 1, 2 1 6 s f 1, 2 1 8 s f OS - 8 7 0 OS - 8 7 1 RUOS-890 OS - 8 7 3 OS - 8 7 4 OS - 8 7 5 13,917 sf 90 2 s f 5,882 sf 12,718 sf 7, 9 3 4 s f 10 , 4 4 1 s f 10,158 sf 90 0 s f 90 1 s f 90 1 s f OS - 8 7 2 90 5 s f 1, 5 9 7 s f Tract 89415,042 sf Tract 997 Tract 996 10,266 sf 7,290 sf 36,362 sf 49,679 sf OS-9773,625 sf Wetland Z Type Ns Ex. 30' Road and Utility Easement A.F.N. 1423077 Ex. 30' Distribution Easement A.F.N. 7708020302 Ex. 30' Ingress, Egress and Utility Easement A.F.N. 7708180120, 9104290759 and 9006190629 Edg e c o m b C r e e k Ed g e c o m b C r e e k ( f i s h h a b i t a t ) no n - f i s h h a b i t a t s e a s o n a l s t r e a m Wetland B Wetland C We t l a n d A Category III Ca t e g o r y I V Category III Wetland 1 Category III City of Arlington Snohomish County OS-877 171st St NE Road C Road A Ro a d B Ro a d A Road D 79 t h A v e . N . E . Wetland Creation Wetland A & C Combined Edge c o m b Creek RUOS-9851,758 sf RUOS-988989 sf OS-873902 sfRoad F Road G Road E 168th St. NE Concept Vault Concept Vault Concept Vault Bioretention (typ) 310526-001-018-00 Judith A Leger 7808 172nd St. N.E. Arlington, WA 98223 310526-001-019-00Jonathan & Kaitlyn Rickseck e r 7807 168th St. N.E. Arlington, WA 98223 Edg e c o m b C r e e k Approximate Location of E x . 5 0 ' Ex. 50' Stream Buffer Ex. 50' Stream Buffer CALL AT LEAST 2 BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 00 100'200' Scale: 1"=100' EXHIBIT PROJECT AREA Property in Contract Existing Section Line Existing Right-of-Way Line Existing Lot Line Existing Easement Line Existing Road Centerline Existing Edge of Asphalt LEGEND Existing Wetland Wetland Addition Existing Wetland Removed Existing Wetland Buffer Existing Wetland Excavation Existing Wetland Buffer Removed Boundary Line Residential Usable Open Space (RUOS) Private Open Space Wetland Buffer Addition Unqualified Open Space (OS) SUBAREA WITH PENDING PROJECT Z: \ M J S I n v e s t o r s - L i n d s a y A n n e x a t i o n M a s t e r P l a n n i n g \ S h e e t s \ E 1 E x h i b i t P r o j e c t A r e a . d w g 9/ 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 3 9 A M SHEET of SHEET of 24x36 18 8 2 0 T h i r d A v e n u e , N . E . Ar l i n g t o n , W A 9 8 2 2 3 36 0 - 6 5 2 - 9 7 2 7 c Co p y r i g h t 1 9 9 3 - 20 2 5 MA K I N G A " W A Y " O U T O F " N O W A Y " PR O J E C T L E A D : CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : DA T E : RE V I S I O N 1 : RE V I S I O N 2 : RE V I S I O N 3 : RE V I S I O N 4 : AS - B U I L T : A P O R T I O N O F S E C T I O N 25 & 2 6 , T O W N S H I P 31 N O R T H , R A N G E 5 E A S T , W . M . A PORTION OF SECTION 25 & 26, TOWNSHIP 31 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. Me r l e Ty l e r Mie r , A l e x ------ - 25 109347 LDA E1 E1 75 3 0 1 7 2 n d S t . N . E . , Ev e r e t t , W A 9 8 2 0 4 Li n d s a y S u b a r e a P l a n EX H I B I T P R O J E C T A R E A - P E N D I N G P R O J E C T 11 2 0 1 S E 8 t h S t r e e t , Be l l e v u e , W A 9 8 0 0 4 - Volume II Lindsay Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume II ▪ November 2025 H-1 H Comment Letters State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 www.dahp.wa.gov 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, Tamela Smart, M.A. Local Government Archaeologist (360) 628-2755 Tamela.Smart@dahp.wa.gov Comment 1 H-2 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 59th 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 Comment 2 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 (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). 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, Kelli Price SEPA Coordinator Sent by email: Amy Rusko, arusko@arlingtonwa.gov ecc: Doug Gresham, Ecology H-4 This message is from an External Sender This message came from outside the City of Arlington From:Amy Rusko To:Rachel Miller; Rob Risinger 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:image001.png Below are the comments from WSDOT.Sincerely, Amy Rusko Amy Rusko, AICP, CNU-ACommunity & Economic Development Director18204 59th Ave NE, Arlington, WA 98223O: 360-403-3550arusko@arlingtonwa.gov | 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 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 Dawn.anderson@wsdot.wa.gov Comment 3 H-5 State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 4 Region 4 information: 16018 Mill Creek Blvd, Mill Creek, WA 98012 | 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. Comment 4 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.Shaw@dfw.wa.gov. Sincerely, Liz Voytas (they/them) Habitat Biologist, Habitat Division Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Region 4, Central District Liz.Voytas@dfw.wa.gov 206-707-5434 H-7 From:Amy Rusko To:"ANNETT GAMBLE-OLSON" Subject:RE: Lindsay subarea plan Date:Thursday, October 16, 2025 9:54:00 AM Attachments:image001.png 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 | 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 | Arlington, WA Sincerely, Amy Rusko Amy Rusko, AICP, CNU-ACommunity & Economic Development Director18204 59th Ave NE, Arlington, WA 98223O: 360-403-3550arusko@arlingtonwa.gov | 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 <ols0nfam55@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 1:38 PM To: Amy Rusko <arusko@arlingtonwa.gov> Subject: Lindsay subarea plan Comment 5 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 This message is from an External Sender This message came from outside the City of Arlington From:Amy Rusko To:"Shannon Writer" Subject:RE: growth development plan Date:Thursday, October 16, 2025 9:54:00 AM Attachments:image001.png 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, Amy Rusko Amy Rusko, AICP, CNU-ACommunity & Economic Development Director18204 59th Ave NE, Arlington, WA 98223O: 360-403-3550arusko@arlingtonwa.gov | 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 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 are Comment 6 H-10 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 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 1 of 27 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF ARLINGTON In the Matter of the Application of ) No. PLN#1315 ) MJS Investors, LLC ) Lindsay Subarea Plan ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, For a Subarea Plan ) AND RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION Because the proposed subarea plan for the Lindsay Subarea complies with all procedural and substantive requirements under state law and the municipal code, and because the plan was developed through a process providing the opportunity for extensive input from members of the public and other stakeholders and adequately addresses community concerns, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the Arlington City Council (City Council) APPROVE the subarea plan. SUMMARY OF RECORD Hearing Date: The Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on December 16, 2025. Testimony: The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing: Amy Rusko, City Community and Economic Development Director Attorney Nicole De Leon represented the Applicant at the hearing. Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted into the record: 1. Staff Report 2. Lindsay Subarea Plan, dated November 2025 3. Lindsay Subarea Plan Appendices, dated November 2025 4. Lindsay Subarea Draft Planned Action Ordinance 5. Lindsay Subarea FEIS Volume 1, dated November 2025 6. Lindsay Subarea FEIS Volume 2 Appendices, dated November 2025 7. Notice of Public Hearing, dated November 25, 2025 8. Notice of Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), dated November 25, 2025 9. Comments from the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Comments on the DEIS, dated September 29, 2025 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 2 of 27 10. Comments from Shannon Oquist on the DEIS, dated October 7, 2025 11. Comments from Annett Gamble-Olson on the DEIS, dated October 15, 2025 12. Comments from Department of Ecology on DEIS, dated October 27, 2025 13. Comments from the Department of Fish and Wildlife on the DEIS, dated November 12, 2025 14. Comments and Timeline Extension Request from WSDOT on the DEIS, dated October 24 and November 14, 2025 15. Notice of Draft Environmental Impact Statement, issued September 26, 2025 16. Comments from Gwendolen Coulter on the NOA, dated March 22, 2025 17. Comments from WSDOT Aviation Division on the NOA, dated April 2, 2025 18. Comments from The Tulalip Tribe on the NOA, dated April 4, 2025 19. Comments from Stillaguamish Tribe on the NOA, dated April 9, 2025 20. Comments from Tracy Jacobsen on the NOA, dated April 9, 2025 21. Sign-In Sheet for the April 7, 2025, Community Neighborhood Meeting 22. Presentation for the April 7, 2025, Community Neighborhood Meeting 23. Notice of Application, Community Neighborhood Meeting, SEPA Determination of Significance, and Request for Comments on Scope of Environmental Impact Statement, issued March 18, 2025 24. Address list and map for properties within 500 feet 25. Subarea Plan Site Plans (11 sheets) 26. Tree Study Report and Tree Table, prepared by Layton Tree Consulting, LLC, dated September 25, 2024 27. Vicinity Map 28. Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Transpo Group, dated December 2024 29. Water and Sewer Availability, dated June 28, 2024 30. Stormwater Site Plan Report prepared by Land Technologies, Inc., dated February 10, 2025 31. Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, prepared by Land Technologies, Inc., dated February 10, 2025 32. Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Earth Solutions NW LLC, dated June 28, 2024 33. Archaeological Survey, prepared by Equinox Research and Consulting International Inc. (ERCI), dated July 26, 2024 34. Critical Areas Letter Summary, prepared by Soundview Consultants LLC, dated October 10, 2024 35. SEPA Checklist, dated February 3, 2025 36. Legal Description of Total Development Area 37. Lindsay Annexation Tax Parcels 38. Lindsay Master Plan Subarea Project Narrative, dated February 6, 2025, and Lindsay Subarea Initial Submittal and SEPA Scoping 39. Land Use Application, dated April 7, 2025 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 3 of 27 The Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions based upon the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing: FINDINGS Background 1. The City of Arlington (City) Comprehensive Plan “designates fourteen subareas that distinguish specific geographical areas and existing neighborhoods within the community,” within which development is guided by specific subarea plans. Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) 20.44.032(a). The intent of creating subareas is to develop a subarea plan for each area of the city that contains specific policies and criteria to guide land development, incorporate missing middle housing options, transportation facilities, community facilities, infrastructure and capital improvement decisions that provide for a more coordinated, efficient, and effective structure for predictable neighborhood planning. The subarea plans encompass both newly created subareas and those that work with existing neighborhoods to provide criteria for infill and redevelopment purposes. AMC 20.44.032(a). Apart from two designated subareas that are within a master planned neighborhood (MPN) overlay, the East Hill and Lindsay Annexation subareas, these subarea plans are to be produced by the City. AMC 20.44.032(b). In contrast, subarea plans for the East Hill and Lindsay Annexation subareas are developer-initiated and, as addressed later in this decision, are required to include specific elements related to housing types, minimum lot sizes, and outdoor amenities. 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 (Section 20.16.225 Special use permits and conditional use permits), with the hearing examiner holding a public hearing (following the procedures of Chapter 20.24 - Hearing and Pre-Hearing Procedures and Appeals and Applications) and providing a recommendation to city council for the final ordinance. AMC 20.44.032(g). Application and Notice 2. In accordance with the provisions above, MJS Investors, LLC (Applicant), proposes adoption of a subarea plan for the Lindsay Subarea, which was developed in partnership with the City of Arlington (City) through a process providing the opportunity for Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 4 of 27 participation by members of the public and other interested stakeholders.1 Specifically, the proposed Lindsay Subarea Plan relied on public engagement information obtained through a Comprehensive Plan Public Engagement and Outreach Housing Survey and Hilltop Subarea Survey taken between 2022 and 2024; through a 30-day Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scoping period beginning on March 20, 2025, and concluding on April 10, 2025; and through a community neighborhood meeting held on April 7, 2025. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2, 8, 9, 14, and 15; Exhibit 2; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 21; Exhibit 22. 3. The proposed Lindsay Subarea Plan summarized the feedback received during the EIS scoping period and at the community neighborhood meeting as follows: • Community members value the rural character of the area but there are conflicting visions for future land uses within the Subarea. • Single-family homes and attached home styles are most preferred in the area. Some community members raised concerns about smaller lot sizes and higher housing density, noting they may not align with the character of surrounding neighborhoods. Others emphasized the importance of offering affordable housing options to support young 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 St are considered the most likely to be used by participants. • Community members stressed the importance of conducting further traffic studies and prioritizing investments in infrastructure along 172nd St to address safety and meet anticipated capacity needs. • Preservation of cultural artifacts and environmental resources in coordination with the Tulalip and Stillaguamish Tribe. • Residents should be made aware of the proximity of their dwelling to the Arlington Municipal Airport and associated airport-related impacts (noise and air pollution). Future plans should be reviewed for airspace hazard. Exhibit 2. 4. On March 18, 2025, the City provided notice of the application and associated community neighborhood meeting by mailing or emailing notice to property owners within 500 feet of the designated subarea and to interested agencies and by posting notice 1 The proposed Lindsay Subarea Plan contains a detailed summary of the engagement activities that were included as part of the subarea plan’s production and of the information obtained during these engagement activities. Exhibit 2, pages 5 and 6. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 5 of 27 on-site and at designated City locations. On March 20, 2025, the City published notice of the application and meeting in The Herald, with a comment deadline of April 10, 2025. On November 25, 2025, the City provided notice of the open record public hearing associated with the application in the same manner. The City’s notice of the open record public hearing stated that written comments could be provided by December 15, 2025. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2, 3, and 8; Exhibit 7; Exhibit 23; Exhibit 24. 5. The City received the following comments on the proposed subarea plan from members of the public and interested agencies during the application comment period in response to its notice materials: • Gwendolen Coulter acknowledged the need for responsible growth and development but raised concerns about potential negative impacts on the surrounding community due to the scale, density, and infrastructure implications of the proposed subarea plan. She expressed concerns about the accuracy of the traffic impact assessment submitted for the proposal, about the traffic impacts of development that would be permitted under the proposed subarea plan, about the reduced lot sizes permitted under the subarea plan, and about the lack of preserved greenspace under the subarea plan. • Tracy Jacobsen raised concerns about the existing conditions of 172nd Street and noted her objection to any further development impacting 172nd Street unless and until the street is widened. • The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) – Aviation Division stated that a portion of the properties within the proposed subarea plan are within Compatibility Zone 6, in which multifamily residential and mixed-use development is permitted. It noted, however, that development plans should be reviewed to ensure that such development would not create height hazard obstructions, smoke, glare, electronic interference, wildlife attractants, or any other airspace hazards. It further noted that residents should be made aware of the proximity of their dwelling to Arlington Municipal Airport due to nuisances associated with airport operations. • The Tulalip Tribes noted its work with the project team on the subarea plan and on the critical area assessment and mitigation strategies for the project. It noted its agreement with the proposed subarea plan but stressed that the upper reach of Edgecombe Creek must be afforded protections required for fish and wildlife conservations areas under AMC 20.93.440.1.a and that the proposed subarea plan should ensure avoidance of encroachment into the 150-foot buffer associated with the conservation area. • The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians noted that a cultural resource survey completed for the proposal addressed only potential development on the east side of 79th Avenue and requested confirmation that the remaining portion of the subarea would receive the same attention prior to being developed. It also requested to be notified when development under the subarea plan commences. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 6 of 27 The City did not receive any additional written comments on the proposal from members of the public during the open record hearing written comment period, and no members of the public provided testimony at the open record hearing. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 8, 9, and 14; Exhibits 16 through 20. State Environmental Policy Act 6. AMC 20.44.032(e) provides: 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 43.21C.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. In accordance with the environmental review requirements, above, the City acted as lead agency; analyzed the environmental impacts of the proposal under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW; and issued a Determination of Significance (DS) on March 18, 2025. The City provided notice of the DS together with notice of the application and community neighborhood meeting, as described above, with a comment deadline of April 10, 2025. The City’s consolidated notice materials stated that the City would prepare an EIS, as required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c), and that the City had 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 Exhibit 23. The City’s consolidated notice materials further stated that members of the public and interested agencies and tribes could provide comments on the on the scope of the EIS, including “alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required.” Exhibit 23. The City received comments from members of the public, WSDOT - Aviation Division, the Tulalip Tribes, and the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians during the applicable comment period, as described above. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2, 3, 8, 9, and 14; Exhibit 23. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 7 of 27 7. Following the consolidated comment period, the City issued its Draft Planned Action EIS (DEIS) on September 26, 2025. The City provided notice of the DEIS the same day by mailing or emailing notice to property owners within 500 feet of the designated subarea and to interested agencies, by posting notice on-site and at designated City locations, and by publishing notice in The Herald, with a comment deadline of October 27, 2025. The City received the following comments on the DEIS from members of the public and interested agencies in response to its notice materials: • Shannon Oquist expressed concerns about the impacts of increased development within the city on wildlife habitat, ground water, trees, and air pollution. • Annett Gamble-Olson expressed objection to development in the city, noting that the city has insufficient roads and services to support additional residential density. • The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) noted that it concurred with the determination of an archaeological survey that was conducted on the eastern portion of the Lindsay Subarea, which said that no cultural resources were encountered. DAHP recommended that planned development within the subarea adhere to an Inadvertent Discovery Plan. • The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) stated that it agreed with the goals and objectives for the natural environment stated in the Lindsay Subarea Plan. DOE also provided guidance on the permitting requirements for projects within the subarea that would impact regulated wetlands. • The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) provided comments regarding fish and wildlife resources to Edgecomb Creek and suggested additions to the mitigation plan for the removal of fish passage barriers and invasive plant species. • WSDOT noted that a hydraulic memorandum would be needed to confirm that runoff would not affect WSDOT rights-of-way. WSDOT also noted that a new intersection at 79th Avenue NE should be prohibited due to spacing at the roundabout at 80th Drive NE or, if the intersection is allowed, it should be limited to right in/right out only. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, and 15; Exhibits 9 through 15. 8. The City issued a Final Planned Action EIS (FEIS) for the proposal on November 25, 2025. The FEIS expands upon the DEIS in response to comments2 and provides a comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts, and measures to reduce or eliminate such impacts, with regard to two alternatives, including: (1) “No Action,” in which the proposed subarea plan would not be adopted and properties within the subarea would “[r]etain existing Residential Ultra Low-Capacity zoning and follow current development standards and capital improvement plans over the next 20 years” and (2) the City’s preferred alternative, “Alternative 2 Proposal,” in which the proposed subarea plan would be adopted “to allow for low- to moderate-intensity housing such as small-lot 2 Chapter 5 of the FEIS provides a detailed response to the comments received on the DEIS. Exhibit 5. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 8 of 27 homes, townhomes, and multifamily units, supported by infrastructure, transportation, and parks and trails investments.” Chapter 3 of the FEIS provides a detailed description and comprehensive analysis of the affected environment, potential impacts, and mitigation measures with regard to the two alternatives on the topics of land use, natural environment, transportation, public services, and utilities. This comprehensive analysis is not repeated in this decision, but summarized below are the FEIS analyses regarding the significant unavoidable adverse impacts that would be expected to result from the two alternatives: Land Use: 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: 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. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 9 of 27 Transportation: 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. Public Services: 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. Utilities: 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. The City provided notice of the FEIS on November 25, 2025, by emailing notice to all required agencies and parties of record and by posting notice on the City website and the DOE SEPA registry. The FEIS was not appealed. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 3, 8, and 9; Exhibit 5; Exhibit 6; Exhibit 8; Testimony of Amy Rusko. Comprehensive Plan 9. The City Comprehensive Plan provides a description of the existing conditions, vision, and neighborhoods for the City’s various subareas. As it pertains to the Hilltop Subarea, in which the Linday Annexation is located, the Comprehensive Plan states: Vision 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. Existing Conditions Hilltop, located in the southeast corner of Arlington, is a 0.56 square mile subarea. Hilltop’s north and northwestern boundaries are bordered with Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 10 of 27 the subarea of Gleneagle. Its northeastern and eastern boundaries run along the city limits. Hilltop’s land is classified under a variety of zones. North Hilltop is zoned as Residential Low Capacity, the southwestern region is zoned as Residential Ultra Low Capacity, the eastern side of Hilltop is zoned General Commercial as well as Residential High Capacity, and the far east of Hilltop is zoned as Public/Semi-Public. Hilltop has two primary roads that intersect within the subarea. 172nd St NE runs through the center of Hilltop from west to east and Highway 9 NE runs though the northeastern boundary to the south of the Hilltop boundary. Most streets within this subarea have active sidewalks and street trees. There is a singular public art display in the roundabout at the intersection of State Route 9/ State Route 531 (172nd St NE). Prairie Creek runs through Hilltop in the center of this subarea, and the headwaters of Edgecomb Creek are located in this subarea. Moderate slopes are located within the northern region of this subarea and severe slopes are located within the southwest boundary. There are no bike paths, trails, heritage trees, or public transportation in the subarea. Comprehensive Plan, Appendix A, page 55; see also Comprehensive Plan, Section III: Subareas, page 13. 10. City staff determined that the proposed subarea plan would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, identifying the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan as relevant: • Preserve and enhance open space, natural, and cultural resources and strive for equitable geographic and demographic distribution. [Goal E-1] • Protect and enhance the natural environment while planning for and accommodating growth. [Policy E-1.1] • Locate development in a manner that minimizes impacts to natural features. Promote the use of innovative environmentally sensitive development practices, including design, materials, construction, and on- going maintenance. [Policy E-1.5] • Remain a Tree City and encourage an increased tree canopy. [Goal E-7] • Enhance urban tree canopy to support ecological function, community resilience, mitigate urban heat, manage stormwater, conserve energy, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 11 of 27 improve mental and physical health, and strengthen economic prosperity. [Policy E-7.3] • Work towards and maintain an aesthetically pleasing environment that enhances livability for residents. [Goal E-10] • Incorporate and preserve street trees in the streetscape where they don’t adversely affect roadway capacity, safety, or structural integrity. [Policy E-10.1] • Provide unique places and context for growth of social capital and community resiliency. [Goal LU-1] • Ensure both publicly- and privately-owned civic spaces are included throughout the City to provide adequate gathering spaces. [Policy LU-1.1] • Establish development standards and regulations based on availability and serviceability of developable lands to maintain a balanced mix and arrangement of land uses in the City. [Policy LU-1.2] • Encourage designs of public buildings and spaces that contribute to a sense of community and a sense of place. [Policy LU-1.3] • Encourage development patterns that provide safe and welcoming environments for walking and bicycling. [Policy LU-1.4] • Address cross-jurisdictional growth, social, and cultural issues by working with affected jurisdictions. [Goal LU-3] • Coordinate growth and development with adjacent jurisdictions to promote and protect inter-jurisdictional interests. [Policy LU-3.1] • Recognize and work with contiguous systems that cross jurisdictional boundaries, including natural systems, land use patterns, and transportation and infrastructure systems, in community planning, development, and design. [Policy LU-3.5] • Identify, protect, and enhance community resiliency to climate change impacts, including social, economic, and built environment factors, that support adaptation to climate impacts consistent with environmental justice. [Goal LU-6] • Amend and adopt land development regulations as needed to adequately protect the attributes, functions, and amenities of the natural environment in all projected growth scenarios for the City. [Policy LU-6.1] • Ensure land development patterns minimize or prevent impacts on natural open spaces and resource lands. [Policy LU-6.2] • Development patterns shall be responsive to critical areas and other environmental factors, while minimizing the fragmentation of the built environment. [Policy LU-6.3] • Ensure the equity and availability of potential funding streams and provide transportation improvements consistent with the Capital Improvement Plan in prioritizing and financing. Prioritize programs and projects that provide access to opportunities while preventing or mitigating negative Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 12 of 27 impacts to people of color, people with low incomes, and people with special transportation needs. [Goal P-2] • Utilize the parks and recreation system to protect unique environmental qualities, natural amenities, wildlife habitats, forest lands, and scenic areas within the city. [Goal P-5] • Locate, plan, and manage parks and recreation facilities so they enhance wildlife habitat, minimize erosion impacts, and complement the natural site features. [Policy P-5.2] • Enhance and preserve scenic viewpoints for public enjoyment when siting parks and recreation facilities. [Policy P-5.5] • Ensure capital facilities and utilities achieve efficient delivery of services, support equitable distribution of services, minimize environmental impacts, and maximize value for the community. [Goal T-1] • Minimize and mitigate the adverse impacts of transportation facilities including culverts, bridges, or other road crossing on designated critical areas, resource lands, cultural resources, or parks through the implementation of performance standards and design guidelines in accordance with WDFW current Fish Passage, and WSDOT Cultural Resources and Archaeology guidelines. [Policy T-1.1] • Ensure the equity and availability of potential funding streams and provide transportation improvements consistent with the Capital Improvement Plan in prioritizing and financing. Prioritize programs and projects that provide access to opportunities while preventing or mitigating negative impacts to people of color, people with low incomes, and people with special transportation needs. [Goal T-2] • Require developers to construct those streets directly serving new development and to pay a proportionate share of the costs for specific off- site improvements necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts determined through the review to be created by the development. [Policy T-2.3] • Implement Travel Demand Management and Transit Oriented Design to create a more walkable city. [Goal T-6] • Encourage transit-oriented development and multi modal planning in new developments through the permitting process. [Policy T-6.3] • Encourage and plan for “pedestrian-scale” neighborhoods and centers to enhance access and mobility for active transportation users. [Policy T-6.5] • Create a resilient transportation system, minimize environmental impacts caused by the transportation system, and promote energy conservation by developing incentives and/or requirements for energy saving transportation, land development patterns and practices, and building construction and operation methods and materials. [Goal T-7] • Retrofit existing roadways to meet or exceed current stormwater requirements where possible. [Policy T-7.6] Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 13 of 27 • Provide for the efficient movement of traffic through advanced traffic control measures, intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies, speed management, access management, channelization improvements and multimodal design features. Use advanced technologies to better manage traffic volumes on major arterials and improve the efficiency and coordination of traffic signals. Aggressively pursue improvements to the state highways through or near Arlington. [Policy T-7.9] • Require installation of electric vehicle charging facilities with new multifamily and commercial developments. [Policy T-7.10] • Plan, develop, and maintain a balanced multimodal transportation system for the efficient movement of people, goods, and services within the City and between the community and other activity centers in the region. [Goal T-8] • Ensure that safe, convenient, and efficient multimodal transportation facilities are provided for all residents and visitors to the City, including accessibility improvements to existing facilities as well as improvements to serve growth areas. [Policy T-8.1] • Design the street system to enable walkability. Encourage alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle trips and distribute vehicle trips along appropriate corridors. [Policy T-8.2] • Implement the adopted Complete Streets Program to ensure that all transportation projects include safe and appropriate facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users accommodating persons of all ages and abilities. [Policy T-8.4] • Maintain a safe, convenient, and efficient multimodal transportation system for people and freight that allows freight to support the continued growth in goods movement and the growing needs of global trade and state, regional and local distribution of goods and services. [Policy T-8.5] • Maintain and enhance the safety of the transportation system, including non-motorized networks, and reduce the chance of accidents. [Goal T-10] • Prioritize sidewalk and shoulder improvements in areas of high traffic volumes or pedestrian activity to improve safety. [Policy T-10.4] • Coordinate the planning and implementation of the City’s multimodal transportation system with adjacent and regional jurisdictions and agencies. [Goal T-12] • Work with WSDOT, Snohomish County and Marysville in planning transportation-related facilities within and adjacent to the UGA. [Policy T-12.1] • Review impacts to the City created by the actions of other agencies. Actively solicit action by the State of Washington and Snohomish County to implement those improvements necessary to their respective facilities to Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 14 of 27 maintain the level of service standards adopted by the City. [Policy T- 12.2] • Consider the special needs of subarea transportation facilities including appearance and safety. [Goal T-13] • Improving the appearance of existing corridors shall be a priority and primary objective in designing and maintaining the street system in Arlington. Appropriate design standards, including landscape requirements, for the construction of new streets shall be maintained. [Policy T-13.2] • Consider adopting alternative road standards for built neighborhoods, where necessary, to preserve the character of neighborhoods and provide safe alternative modes of travel. [Policy T-13.3] • Ensure capital facilities and utilities are provided consistent with Growth Management Act provisions and the concurrency management system provides public facilities through public and private development activities in a manner that is compatible with the fiscal resources of the City. [Goal CFU-3] • Any infrastructure improvements needed to serve a proposed development should be installed prior to the issuance of the related building permit. [Policy CFU-3.2] • The City of Arlington should not issue any development permits that result in a reduction of the transportation level-of-service standards for the public facilities identified in the Capital Facilities Book without mitigation. [Policy CFU-3.3] • Require that new developments mitigate traffic impacts through at least two of the following methods as deemed acceptable by the City or as many as are deemed necessary through the permitting process and supporting traffic analysis: dedication of right-of-way, frontage improvements, or traffic mitigation fees. [Policy CFU-3.4] • Plan for growth and development to be consistent with the City’s most recently adopted Capital Facilities Plan for providing public facilities including streets, sidewalks, lighting systems, traffic signals, water, storm and sanitary sewer, and parks and recreation facilities. [Policy CFU-3.5] • Any costs associated with water extensions or system requirements necessary to provide that water, shall be borne by the person(s) requesting such service. [Policy CFU-3.12] • Support electric vehicle charging infrastructure to help reduce carbon emissions of the transportation sector. [Policy CFU-6.3] • Manage stormwater pursuant to the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington as adopted by Arlington, preserving and supplementing, as necessary, the natural drainage ways and other natural Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 15 of 27 hydraulic systems to minimize runoff impacts from development. [Goal CFU-7] • Utilize Low Impact Development standards that provide stormwater benefits and support naturally occurring functions simultaneously. [Policy CFU-7.5] • Enforce stormwater utility regulations. [Policy CFU-7.7] • Meet or exceed sewer service standards in providing ongoing services to customers. [Goal CFU-10] • Permit new development in urban areas only when sanitary sewers are available. [Policy CFU-10.5] Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 4 through 7. 11. City staff also identified the following countywide planning goals as relevant to the proposed subarea plan:3 • The cities, towns, and Snohomish County will provide livable communities for all residents by directing growth into designated urban areas to create urban places that are equitable, walkable, compact, and transit oriented, preserve and create open space, and protect rural and resource lands. [Countywide Development Patterns Goal] • The County and cities will work proactively with transportation planning agencies and service providers to plan, finance, and implement an efficient, affordable, equitable, inclusive, and safe multi-modal transportation system that supports state-level planning, the Regional Growth Strategy, and local comprehensive plans and promotes economic vitality, environment sustainability, and human health. [Countywide Transportation Goal] • Snohomish County and local jurisdictions will act as a steward of the natural environment in an effort to project and restore natural systems and public health and mitigate climate change. This will be achieved through natural resource and habitat conservation, water quality improvement, and air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Planning for the future will include addressing climate change and resilience at local and regional levels of government to protect the natural environment and meet the economic and social needs of all residents. [Countywide Natural Environment and Climate Change Goal] • Snohomish County and its cities will coordinate and develop and provide adequate and efficient public facilities and services to ensure the health, 3 In addition to the goals listed below, the City identified the following countywide planning policies as relevant to the proposal: GF-3, GF-4, GF-5, GF-6, JP-3, JP-5, DP-5, DP-12, DP-15, DP-16, DP-33, DP- 34, DP-37, DP-40, DP-41, TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR-4, TR-5, TR-6, TR-7, TR-8, TR-12, Env-1, Env-2, Env- 4, Env-5, Env-7, CC-7, PS-1, PS-2, PS-4, PS-11, PS 15, PS-16, and PS-19. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 7. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 16 of 27 safety, conservation of resources, and economic vitality of our communities and all residents. [Countywide Public Service and Facilities Goal] In addition, City staff identified the following multi-county planning goals as relevant to the proposed subarea plan:4 • The region plans collaboratively for a healthy environment, thriving communities, and opportunities for all. [Multi-County Regional Collaboration Goal] • The region accommodates growth in urban areas, focused in designated centers and near transit stations, to create healthy, equitable, vibrant communities well-served by infrastructure and services. Rural and resource lands continue to be vital parts of the region that regain important cultural, economic, and rural lifestyle opportunities over the long term. [Multi-County Regional Growth Strategy Goal] • The region cares for the natural environment by protecting and restoring natural systems, conserving habitat, improving water quality, and reducing air pollutants. The health of all residents and the economy is connected to the health of the environment. Planning at all levels considers the impacts of land use, development, and transportation on the ecosystem. [Multi- County Environment Goal] • The region creates healthy, walkable, compact, and equitable transit- oriented communities that maintain unique character and local culture, while conserving rural areas and creating and preserving open space and natural areas. [Multi-County Development Patterns Goal] • The region has a sustainable, equitable, affordable, safe, and efficient multimodal transportation system, with specific emphasis on an integrated regional transit network that supports the Regional Growth Strategy and promotes vitality of the economy, environment, and health. [Multi- County Transportation Goal] • The region supports development with adequate public facilities and services in a timely, coordinated, efficient, and cost-effective manner that supports local and regional growth planning objectives. [Multi-County Public Services Goal] Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 7 and 8. 4 In addition to the goals listed below, the City identified the following multi -county planning policies as relevant to the proposal: MPP-RC-1, MNPP-RGS-1, MPP-RGS-2, MPP-RGS-4, MPP-RGS-5, MPP-RGS- 13, MPP-En-2, MPP-En-5, MPP-En-6, MPP-En-9, MPP-En-11, MPP-En-18, MPP-DP-3, MPP-DP-5, MPP-DP-9, MPP-DP 10, MPP-DP-12, MPP-DP-14, MPP-DP-15, MPP-DP-20, MPP-DP-36, MPP-DP-42, MPP-DP-52, MPP-DP-53, MPP-DP-54, MPP-T-1, MPP-T-4, MPP-T-8, MPP-T-9, MPP-T-10, MPP-T-11, MPP-T-16, MPP-T-17, MPP-T-21, MPP-T-25, MPP-T-32, MPP-PS-1, MPP-PS-3, MPP-PS-7, MPP-PS- 10, MPP-PS-11, and MPP-PS-13. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 7 and 9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 17 of 27 Proposed Subarea Plan 12. The stated purpose of the proposed Lindsay Subarea Plan is as follows: The Lindsay Annexation was completed in 2022 under Ordinance 2022- 003, officially bringing Lindsay into the City of Arlington, where it is now one of the neighborhoods within the Hilltop Subarea. In November 2023, Ordinance 2023-016 amended Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) Section 20.44.032 Subarea Plans. This amendment reflects community priorities identified through the 2024 Comprehensive Plan engagement process and emphasizes the importance of coordinated land development through subarea planning. This amendment introduced several key changes: 1. Subarea plans must be created for all Comprehensive Plan- designated subareas, including the Lindsay and East Hill areas, both of which fall under the Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) overlay. 2. Each subarea plan must be developed in conjunction with a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 3. Planning must support a coordinated and efficient approach to neighborhood development, including a diverse mix of housing, transportation options, parks and trails, infrastructure, and capital improvements. In 2024, MJS Investors, in partnership with the City of Arlington, initiated the community planning process for the Lindsay Subarea. This process addresses planning elements such as future land use, transportation, environmental stewardship, parks and trails, and utilities and public services. The subarea plan is also being developed in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), countywide planning policies, and the City of Arlington’s Comprehensive Plan. Once adopted, the subarea plan will be integrated into the City's development code. The Lindsay Subarea Plan offers a roadmap to guide growth and development. It articulates a long-term vision that reflects the subarea’s unique character, identifies critical infrastructure and service needs, and outlines strategies to advance citywide goals and community priorities. The plan establishes a clear framework to shape Lindsay into a peaceful, connected community by cultivating spaces that support well-being and welcome all who call it home. Exhibit 2. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 18 of 27 13. The Lindsay Subarea is located at the southeast boundary of the city, measures approximately 87.49 acres, and is bound by 172nd Street (State Route 531) to the north, the 84th Avenue NE alignment to the east, the 168th Street NE alignment to the south, and the 75th Street NE alignment to the west. Properties to the north are within city limits and are developed with single-family residences. Tribal property is located to the east, and properties within unincorporated Snohomish County are located to the west and south. The proposed subarea plan notes that, although the greater Hilltop Subarea has seen significant residential development over the past two decades, the Lindsay Annexation portion has not experienced any new development and retains much of its rural and agricultural character, with existing land uses consisting of low-density residential, with single-family homes situated on large lots interspersed among open fields and wooded areas. The proposed Linday Subarea plan identifies two portions of the subarea, a potential “Pending Project Area” and a potential “Future Development Area.” The Future Development Area is comprised of all properties within the subarea located to the west of 79th Avenue NE and measures approximately 39 acres, with approximately 19 acres of gross buildable land and 20 acres that is unbuildable land due to critical areas, buffers, and easements. The Pending Project Area is comprised of the remaining properties within the subarea to the east of 79th Avenue NE that are owned by the Applicant and are expected to be developed following adoption of the proposed subarea plan and planned action ordinance. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 1 through 3; Exhibits 2 through 4. 14. The proposed subarea plan contains conceptual site plans for potential development within the subarea. City staff analyzed the proposal and determined that it would comply with the requirements for a subarea plan within a MPN Overlay under AMC 20.44.032(f), noting: • The Applicant submitted a land use permit application, checklist, and all required documents on February 10, 2025. • The Applicant paid all required fees for the subarea plan application. • The subarea plan proposes the following elements: o 305 small lot detached single-family residential housing units that make up 70 percent of the total lots/units. o 87 townhome residential housing units that make up 20 percent of the total lots/units. o 44 multi-family apartment residential housing units that make up 10 percent of the total lots/units. Future development on the site can choose to alter these units to any of the allowed listed housing types. • Parks, recreational facilities, open space, and trail system consist of 12 percent of the non-Native Growth Protection Area. The Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) accounts for 30 percent of the site. o The developer is proposing private parks that would not be dedicated to the City. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 19 of 27 o The trail system would be paved and would connect to sidewalks throughout the subarea. • The subarea plan shows the lot locations and housing types within the proposed site plans. • The architectural design of the residential units would be required to be in accordance with chapter 20.46 AMC and would be reviewed prior to building permit issuance. • The subarea plan documents show the proposed infrastructure for streets, sewer, water, and stormwater on the submitted site plans. • The developer of the proposed lots within the subarea would be required to extend all utilities to and through the site. The project developer would work with Public Works on infrastructure upgrades on and off site. • The Applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Development of the subarea would require the installation of a roundabout at 80th Avenue and 172nd Street NE, along with all public and private roads throughout the subarea and frontage improvements along 172nd Street NE. • The subarea plan meets the requirements of Arlington’s complete street program through the installation of new infrastructure. • The subarea plan calls out at least two phases, with the potential of multiple phases on the west portion of the subarea, west of 79th Avenue. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 11 and 12; Exhibit 2; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 25. 15. Appendix B of the proposed Lindsay Subarea plan contains a detailed existing conditions report, which describes the subarea’s current conditions and notes the following as key findings: Assets: • Zoning. The Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay provides an opportunity to increase residential density. The adoption of AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans provides guidance for land development, and when paired with regulatory updates, support community desired development patterns. • Nearby supportive hubs. Lindsay benefits from proximity to key commercial, civic, and industrial hubs that support its evolution as a complete neighborhood. The SR 531 (172nd St NE) and SR 9 provide local and regional connections across Arlington and into nearby towns and cities. • High-quality, efficient development. New homes and streetscape design can be functional, well designed, and integrated into the surrounding natural and built environment by, and not limited to, updating design standards, requiring green infrastructure and low impact development techniques, and promoting energy-efficient building practices. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 20 of 27 Challenges: • Housing target. The Subarea would not likely meet housing goals without the subarea planning efforts under the Master Planned Neighborhood overlay to reach desired densities and encourage more growth than the existing zoning. • Connectivity. This area is largely car-dependent, with limited pedestrian pathways, bicycle infrastructure, and transit. 79th Ave NE serves as the main access road within Lindsay, connecting many of the existing homes to SR 531 (172nd St NE). This road remains unpaved and lacks sidewalks and street lighting. As Lindsay develops, planned street networks should prioritize connectivity, safety and multimodal access. New streets are designed to support developments, improve mobility and non- motorized connectivity. Exhibit 3. 16. Appendix B also contains a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Transpo Group, dated December 2024, and a Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report prepared by Soundview Consultants, dated June 21, 2024, which analyze the potential traffic and critical area impacts of the potential development on the Applicant-owned properties. The TIA determined that the development of 177 single-family homes within this portion of the subarea would generate 1,706 weekday vehicle trips, with 166 PM peak-hour trips. The TIA further determined that, with planned improvements to 172nd Street NE (SR-531), all studied and new intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service. The Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report identifies four wetlands located within the project area, one offsite wetland, and one stream within the project area. Wetland A is located on the southern portion of the project site, is approximately 22,500 square feet, and is classified as a Category IV wetland, with a standard 40-foot buffer. Wetland B is located within a forested area at the southeast portion of the site, is approximately 52,272 square feet, and is classified as a Category III wetland, with a standard 110-foot buffer. Wetland C is located on the southwest edge of the site, is approximately 30,080 square feet, and is classified as a Category III wetland, with a standard 110-foot buffer. Wetland D is located in the central eastern portion of the site, is approximately 110 square feet, and is classified as a Category IV wetland, with a standard 40-foot buffer. Wetland 1 is located approximately 80 feet offsite to the west of the site (within the greater Lindsay Subarea), is associated with Edgecomb Creek, and is classified as a Category III wetland, with a standard 110-foot buffer. Edgecomb Creek (Stream Z) originates to the southwest of the project site and is located on the northwestern edge of the site before continuing offsite to the northwest via a culvert beneath 79th Avenue NE. Stream Z is classified as a Type N stream, with a standard 50- foot buffer. Exhibit 3; Exhibit 28. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 21 of 27 17. The Applicant submitted an approved water and sewer availability letter, which determined that there would be adequate water and sewer capacity to serve future development contemplated under the proposed subarea plan. The Applicant also submitted several technical studies in support of the proposed subarea plan, which were included in the record and reviewed by the Hearing Examiner but are not discussed in detail in this decision. These technical studies include a stormwater site plan report and a construction stormwater pollution prevention plan prepared by Land Technologies, Inc., both dated February 10, 2025; a geotechnical engineering study prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, dated June 28, 2024; an archaeological survey report prepared by ERCI, dated July 26, 2024; a critical areas letter prepared by Soundview Consultants, LLC, dated October 10, 2024; and a tree study report prepared by Layton Tree Consulting, LLC, dated September 25, 2024. Exhibit 26; Exhibits 29 through 34. 18. Land Technologies, Inc., also prepared an initial project narrative summarizing aspects of the proposed subarea plan related to critical areas, access and roads, parking, stormwater management, utilities, and geotechnical considerations, of which the pertinent portions are detailed below: Project Summary: the concept Preliminary Plat shows development of the 87.49 acres of the of the current subarea (a portion of the subarea was purchased by the Stillaguamish Tribe and is removed from this action). The plans show the code required diversity in percentage of different residential housing types. This preliminary plan will provide 436 lots and units. Per Code, 70% is required to be single-family lots between 3,600 sf and 4,500 sf—305 lots are proposed. Townhomes are required to be 20% of the total which is 87 units as shown. Apartments or other multifamily units are required to make up 10% of the total which is 44 units as shown. A fourth element is Residential Open Space (ROS) that is to 10% of the total area of land. We are providing near 12% as straight ROS not including allowable portions of the 29% of the site that is designated as NGPA. Total ROS is over 14% of the site and in addition there is the uncounted critical areas, some Open Space that does not meet the definition of ROS, and some open space in utility corridors. Critical Areas in the [Pending Project Area (PPA)] have been delineated and reports are provided for those delineated [Critical Areas (Cas)]. Most of the CAs in the PPA are disturbed “pasture” type wetland. There is a wooded wetland in the SE corner that will remain as is. We have worked with the Tulalip Biologist on doing some renovation of the other wetlands. These renovations will improve the functionality of the wetlands and provide better water quality to the drainage that does flow to Edgcomb Creek. Critical Areas in the [Future Development Area (FDA)] are based Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 22 of 27 on Aerial Photos and LiDAR or other GIS information. Details for these critical areas will come with future development. There is a fairly deep “canyon” that cuts across the western portion of the subarea and this drainage is designated by the Tulalips as the real Edgecomb Creek. The Tulalips have a restoration and mitigation plan for this area that is intended to re-establish that connection. Access and Roads: Primary Access will be from 172nd St NE. There will be three access points to the subarea. These will be the only access points to the subarea until the SW half of the site develops and 168th St NE is developed from 79th Ave NE west to 75th Ave NE. The very SW corner of the subarea is at the City of Arlington municipal limits. Development of 75th Ave NE is in Snohomish County and is developed as Driveway/Private RD to 4 houses. Given the rural zoning south of the subarea, offsite road infrastructure will be a future event. The three proposed access points along 172nd at located at 79th Ave NE, currently a Private Road; at 80th Ave NE, which will eventually be a roundabout and the Primary entrance; and at about 83rd Ave NE. The Primary entrance will be at 80th Ave NE. The other two may become right-turn only intersections—depending on the final design for 172nd At NE. . . . Proposed Road Sections “…customized…” for this subarea are mapped in the Plan Set. We show some “typical” Residential Streets, some local access streets, and some Drive Aisle “like”. There are pedestrian access ways either on the street or in Open Space Corridors out the back of some of the lots. Parking: AMC 20.72 designates parking requirements. Seventy percent of the site is single-family residential and per the cited code requires 2 parking spaces per residence. The Conceptual Plan does anticipate 2 car garages and 20’ deep by 20’ wide driveways. There is room for 4 vehicles to park but only two will count toward the code requirement. . . . There are conceptually 87 townhomes and 44 apartments needed to meet the 70-20-10 percent divisions for residential diversity sought by the code. The Townhomes and Apartments are in the FDA and only are conceptually placed at this time. With the design and development for these future development areas, parking will have to be included per AMC Table 20.72-1 Table of Parking Requirements. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 23 of 27 Stormwater Management: A targeted drainage study for the whole subarea is provided with this subarea submittal. There are detailed Stormwater Management (SWM) Plans and Reports prepared for the Pending Project Area as part of the Critical Area mitigation strategies that will be submitted with the project submittal. Stormwater is managed in such a way to augment hydration to the revised/restored wetlands and the existing drainage channel. The SWM will consist of treatment facilities, detention/retention facilities, and level spreaders or dispersion BMPs. Utilities: Concept Sewer Plans are provided with this submittal. So far, we have been unable to get downstream conditions from Public Works to ascertain if any upgrades will be needed. . . . Geology/Geotechnical/Terrain: The terrain varies with areas that are near level at one percent slope to areas exceeding thirty-three percent. The steeper slopes are located in the Future Development Area going into a little “canyon” that, per reports from the Tulalips, is the real route of Edgecomb Creek. We cannot determine if it is a Landslide Hazard Area (LSA) at this time having no permissions to enter these properties. Except for this “little canyon” on the west section of the subarea, slopes are one percent to 14% with some isolated areas that approach 17%. There will be a reasonable amount of grading to make the site more compatible to development for residential use. . . . Exhibit 38. Testimony 19. City Community and Economic Development Director Amy Rusko testified generally about the proposed subarea plan, the development that would be facilitated under the subarea plan, and how the proposed subarea plan would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would meet the procedural and substantive requirements for adoption of a subarea plan under the municipal code. She provided a detailed description of the subarea, its current conditions, and the proposed subarea plan’s conceptual redevelopment vision for the subarea. Director Rusko noted that the proposed subarea plan addresses two portions of the subarea: a pending project area comprised of the Applicant’s properties east of 79th Avenue NE and a future development area comprised of the remaining properties in the subarea west of 79th Avenue NE. She explained that the Applicant intends to develop the pending project area shortly after adoption of the subarea plan and planned action ordinance and that the environmental impacts of the planned development have been addressed through the environmental review associated with the subarea plan, whereas future development proposals within Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 24 of 27 the future development area would have a streamlined project-level environmental review with future project applications. Director Rusko presented a layout showing the conceptual redevelopment vision for the subarea, noting that the pending project area would accommodate single-family homes on small lots, with associated street infrastructure, parks, and protected critical areas and that the future development area would accommodate a mix of single-family homes, townhomes, multifamily units, and/or small commercial uses, with associated street infrastructure, parks, and protected critical areas. She stressed that, as part of the planned development in the pending project area, the Applicant would be required to install a roundabout at 80th Drive NE and 172nd Street, as well as frontage improvements along 172nd Street within the pending project area. Director Rusko explained how the process for developing the proposed subarea plan had provided several opportunities for public participation, including opportunities to comment on the notice of application, at the community neighborhood meeting, on the determination of significance, and on the scope of the environmental impact statement. She noted that the City received 11 comments on the proposal from members of the public and interested agencies and tribes, and she stressed that there has been no SEPA appeal filed. Director Rusko testified that the FEIS for the proposed subarea plan addresses the environmental impacts that are expected to occur in the event that the subarea plan is adopted, as well as a no action alternative, and she again stressed that the FEIS was not appealed. She explained that, although the proposed subarea plan addresses a specific development proposal from the Applicant, the Applicant would still need to apply and receive approval of any proposed subdivision after adoption of the subarea plan. Director Rusko further explained that the future development proposal would be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner for consistency with the adopted subarea plan, planned action ordinance, and other requirements under the municipal code and state law following a duly noticed application and hearing. She noted that one of the key changes that would occur upon adoption of the subarea plan would include elimination of the development restrictions associated with the area’s current zoning classification. In response to concerns raised by members of the public regarding the increased density that would be allowed under the proposed subarea plan, Director Rusko stated that such increased density would help the City to reach adopted growth targets, stressing that the City would need to find other ways to increase housing density if the proposed subarea plan were not to be adopted. She also explained in this regard that, although the proposed subarea plan would allow for smaller lot sizes, the overall density of the area would be consistent with other subdivisions in the area when accounting for the large amount of critical areas that would be preserved and protected. Regarding concerns about the proposal’s traffic impacts, Director Rusko noted that the City has limited control over improvements to 172nd Street because it is a state highway, and she described how the planned improvements to 172nd Street would improve traffic conditions. She also stressed that Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 25 of 27 the TIA had determined that the planned development would not cause any studied intersections to operate at a deficient level of service. Testimony of Amy Rusko. 20. Attorney Nicole De Leon, on behalf of the Applicant, stated that the purpose of this hearing is to address the proposed subarea plan and not any specific development proposal, noting that the Applicant would be required to undergo a more detailed review of any specific development proposal through the preliminary plat application process, at which members of the public would have an opportunity to provide comments. She also stated that the proposed subarea plan has undergone a comprehensive environmental impact statement process, which she explained is the most robust process for evaluating environmental impacts of a project. Attorney De Leon noted that the Comprehensive Plan sets growth targets and that the City is obligated to implement development regulations and subarea plans to accommodate those growth targets. She also introduced several members of the Applicant team available to address any specific concerns raised by members of the public at the hearing, who ultimately did not testify because no members of the public provided comments at the hearing. Statements of Attorney Nicole De Leon. Staff Recommendation 21. City staff, having determined that the proposal would comply with the City Comprehensive Plan and all applicable procedural and substantive requirements for development of a subarea plan, recommends that the Hearing Examiner forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 9 through 15; Testimony of Amy Rusko. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner is granted the authority to hear and to provide a recommendation to the City Council on adoption of a subarea plan. AMC 20.44.032. Criteria for Review The municipal code does not provide any specific criteria upon which the Hearing Examiner is to rely in forwarding a recommendation to the City Council on adoption of a developer-initiated subarea plan. In the absence of such specific review criteria, the Hearing Examiner determines that the role of the Hearing Examiner is to review the proposal for compliance with applicable procedural and substantive requirements of the municipal code and state law and to provide guidance to the City Council with respect to concerns raised by members of the public and interested agencies and tribes. Conclusions Based on Findings The proposed Lindsay Subarea Plan complies with all procedural and substantive requirements of the municipal code and state law and sufficiently addresses community concerns. The municipal code’s supplemental use regulations provide a framework for Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 26 of 27 development of a subarea plan. AMC 20.44.032. In accordance with this framework, the Applicant, in partnership with the City, produced a proposed subarea plan for the entire Lindsay subarea, which contains specific development standards addressing permissible uses, density and dimensional standards, street design, parking, landscaping, and design standards to guide future land development in a coordinated and effective manner for predictable neighborhood planning. AMC 20.44.032(a)-(c). The proposed subarea plan also contains proposed development standards specific to the subarea, which include elements of form-based code addressing building placement, building design, creation of blocks, and street frontage improvements that would provide a predictable design and development pattern for the Lindsay subarea. AMC 20.44.032(d),(i). As addressed in the findings above, the Applicant provided all information necessary to develop a subarea plan for a subarea within a Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay, and the proposed subarea plan contains all necessary elements, including elements related to the location and required percentages of various housing types; the location and required percentage of land dedicated to recreational facilities, open space, and paved trail system; conceptual plans for proposed street, sewer, water, and stormwater infrastructure; utilities necessary to serve future development within the subarea; traffic impacts and improvements; compliance with the City’s complete streets program; and phased development. AMC 20.44.032(f). In developing the proposed subarea plan and establishing a vision for future development, infrastructure improvements, and the protection of critical areas in the Lindsay subarea, the Applicant and the City provided several opportunities for input from members of the public and other interested stakeholders. After completing the proposed subarea plan, the City provided reasonable notice of the application and opportunity to comment on the proposal. The City received comments on the proposed subarea plan from members of the public and interested agencies and tribes. Comments on the proposed subarea plan generally raised concerns about the increased density that would be allowed and about the traffic impacts of such increased density, particularly with regard to 172nd Street. The increased density that would be permitted under the subarea plan is necessary, however, for the City to further its obligation to meet adopted growth targets, and the TIA prepared for the proposal determined that, with planned improvements to 172nd Street NE (SR-531), all studied and new intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service. No members of the public testified at the open record hearing. Following its issuance of the DNS, and in accordance with the environmental review requirements of AMC 20.44.032(e) and chapter 43.21C RCW, the City issued a Draft Planned Action EIS on September 26, 2025. The City received comments on the DEIS from members of the public and interested agencies, and after reviewing those comments, the City issued its FEIS on November 25, 2025. The FEIS was not appealed. RCW 36.70A.080(2) requires that subarea plans be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. City staff determined that the proposed subarea plan would be consistent with numerous goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including goals and policies of the environmental; land use; parks, recreation, and open space; transportation; and capital facilities and utilities Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Lindsay Subarea Plan No. PLN#1315 Page 27 of 27 elements of the Comprehensive Plan. City staff further determined that the proposed subarea plan would be consistent with numerous countywide and multi-county planning goals and policies. The Hearing Examiner concurs with City staff’s assessment and determines that the proposed subarea plan would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as required under the State Growth Management Act. Following approval of the subarea plan by City Council, the approved subarea plan would be required to be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor, in accordance with AMC 20.44.032(j), and, following recordation, all future development within the Lindsay Subarea would be required to comply with the subarea plan and associated Planned Action Ordinance, in accordance with AMC 20.44.032(k). Because the developer-initiated subarea plan for the Lindsay Subarea complies with all procedural and substantive requirements under state law and the municipal code, and because the plan was developed through a process providing the opportunity for extensive input from members of the public and other stakeholders and adequately addresses community concerns, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the City Council APPROVE the subarea plan as proposed. Findings 1 – 21. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding findings and conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the City Council APPROVE the proposed subarea plan for the Lindsay Subarea. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of January 2026. PEREGRIN K. SORTER Hearing Examiner Laminar Law, PLLC Lindsay Subarea Plan – PLN #1315 Page 1 of 15 Community and Economic Development Planning Division 18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223 STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Lindsay Subara Plan and Planned Action EIS Ordinance – PLN #1315 Lindsay Subarea Plan – PLN #1315 Page 2 of 15 A. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION MJS Investors, in partnership with the City of Arlington, initiated the community planning process for the Lindsay Subarea. This process develops a vision, plan, and implementation strategies that provide the groundwork for continued, coordinated, and efficient growth of the neighborhood. The process addresses planning elements such as future land use, transportation, environmental stewardship, parks and trails, utilities, and public services. The Lindsay Subarea Plan offers a roadmap to guide growth and development. It articulates a long-term vision that reflects the subarea’s unique character, identifies critical infrastructure and service needs, and outlines strategies to advance citywide goals and community priorities. The plan establishes a clear framework to shape Lindsay into a peaceful, connected community by cultivating spaces that support well-being and welcome all who call it home. 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 has been developed under RCW 43.21C.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. Future projects in the Lindsay Subarea include two development areas: the Pending Project Area that has been assembled by MJS Investors, and where development is anticipated to follow soon after the subarea plan adoption and the Future Project Area that is located outside of the MJS land assembly where the timing and nature of development is this area remains uncertain. The development project are shown to provide for a mix of residential housing types with the potential for small commercial, if proposed during later development. The subarea has planned for and expects 436 housing units with a breakdown of 305 (70%) single-family homes on small lots, 87 (20%) townhomes, and 44 (10%) multi-family homes or other mixed-use, small commercial or ADUs. PROJECT HISTORY The City of Arlington issued a combined Notice of Application, Community Neighborhood Meeting, SEPA Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on March 18, 2025 and was published in the city’s official newspaper (The Herald), posted on site, mailed and emailed to required parties, and posted on the City’s website on March 20, 2025. The Community Neighborhood and Scoping Meeting was held on April 7, 2025. The public comment period ended on April 10, 2025. The City issued a Notice of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on September 26, 2025. The notice was published in The Herald, posted on site, mailed and emailed to required parties, and posted on the City’s website and the Department of Ecology SEPA Registry on September 26, 2025. The public comment period ended on October 27, 2025. A Public Hearing for the Subarea Plan and Draft Planned Action Ordinance is scheduled to be held before the Hearing Examiner on December 16, 2025. The city issued the Notice of Public Hearing on November 25, 2025. Notice of Public Hearing was posted on the site, mailed and emailed to required parties, posted on the City’s website, and published in The Herald on November 25, 2025. The Draft Planned Action Ordinance was sent directly to Department of Ecology to review the proposed Modified SEPA Checklist. Lindsay Subarea Plan – PLN #1315 Page 3 of 15 The City issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on November 25, 2025. The document was emailed to all required agencies and parties of record and posted on the City’s website and the Department of Ecology SEPA Registry on November 25, 2025. The City of Arlington adopted Ordinance 2023-016, incorporated as AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans, which provides the process and regulations for the development of a subarea plan. The code section requires that subarea plans be processed in conjunction with a Planned Action EIS. The Planned Action Ordinance will be developed under RCW 43.21C.440 and associated with SEPA rules in WAC 197-11 based on the EIS. Future proposals consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance, Subarea Plan and development standards will have a streamlined environmental review and permitting process. B. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Proposal Name: Lindsay Subarea Plan 2. Applicant: MJS Investors, LLC 3. Contact: Amy Rusko, Community and Economic Development Director 4. Date of Application: February 10, 2025 5. Property Tax ID Numbers: 31052500200600, 31052600100100, 31052600102200, 31052600102300, 31052600100200, 31062600101700, 31052600102000, 31052600102100, 31052600101800, 31052600101900, 31052600101400, 31052600101500, 31052600100400, 31052600100300, 31052600100800 6. Acreage: Approximately 87.49 Acres 7. Applicable Zoning Code Regulations:  AMC Chapter 20.16 Permits and Land Division Approval  AMC Chapter 20.24 Hearing and Pre-Hearing Procedures for Appeals and Applications  AMC Chapter 20.44 Supplemental Use Regulations  AMC Chapter 20.98 State Environmental Policy Act 8. General Location: The Lindsay Subarea is located at the south end of the Hilltop neighborhood and is approximately 87.49 acres. The subarea is bounded by SR 531 (172nd Street NE) on the north, the 84th Avenue NE alignment on the east, the 168th Street NE alignment on the south, and the 75th Avenue NE alignment on the west. 9. Surrounding Land Uses: The Lindsay Subarea is the south east boundary of the city limits of Arlington and Urban Growth Area (UGA). The subarea is surrounding by properties under Snohomish County jurisdiction to the south and west, single family residential to the north, and Tribal property to the east. Subject Site Lindsay Subarea Plan – PLN #1315 Page 4 of 15 10. Compatibility with the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan, County Planning Policies, and Multi-County Planning Policies: City of Arlington 2024 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Comprehensive Plan Books The City of Arlington has provided additional information in the Comprehensive Plan under Book 2 – Land Use, Book 3 – Housing , and multiple Appendices that support the Lindsay Subarea. E-1 Preserve and enhance open space, natural, and cultural resources and strive for equitable geographic and demographic distribution. E-1.1 Protect and enhance the natural environment while planning for and accommodating growth. E-1.5 Locate development in a manner that minimizes impacts to natural features. Promote the use of innovative environmentally sensitive development practices, including design, materials, construction, and on-going maintenance. E-7 Remain a Tree City and encourage an increased tree canopy. E-7.3 Enhance urban tree canopy to support ecological function, community resilience, mitigate urban heat, manage stormwater, conserve energy, improve mental and physical health, and strengthen economic prosperity. E-10 Work towards and maintain an aesthetically pleasing environment that enhances livability for residents. E-10.1 Incorporate and preserve street trees in the streetscape where they don’t adversely affect roadway capacity, safety, or structural integrity. LU-1 Provide unique places and context for growth of social capital and community resiliency. LU-1.1 Ensure both publicly- and privately-owned civic spaces are included throughout the City to provide adequate gathering spaces. LU-1.2 of developable lands to maintain a balanced mix and arrangement of land uses in the LU-1.3 Encourage designs of public buildings and spaces that contribute to a sense of community and a sense of place. LU-1.4 Encourage development patterns that provide safe and welcoming environments for walking and bicycling. LU-3 Address cross-jurisdictional growth, social, and cultural issues by working with affected jurisdictions. LU-3.1 Coordinate growth and development with adjacent jurisdictions to promote and protect inter-jurisdictional interests. LU-3.5 Recognize and work with contiguous systems that cross jurisdictional boundaries, including natural systems, land use patterns, and transportation and infrastructure systems, in community planning, development, and design. LU-6 Identify, protect, and enhance community resiliency to climate change impacts, including social, economic, and built environment factors, that support adaptation to climate impacts consistent with environmental justice. LU-6.1 attributes, functions, and amenities of the natural environment in all projected growth LU-6.2 and resource lands. LU-6.3 factors, while minimizing the fragmentation of the built environment. Lindsay Subarea Plan – PLN #1315 Page 5 of 15 City of Arlington 2024 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies P-2 improvements consistent with the Capital Improvement Plan in prioritizing and financing. Prioritize programs and projects that provide access to opportunities while preventing or mitigating negative impacts to people of color, people with low incomes, and people with special transportation needs. P-5 amenities, wildlife habitats, forest lands, and scenic areas within the city. P-5.2 minimize erosion impacts, and complement the natural site features. P-5.5 recreation facilities. T-1 distribution of services, minimize environmental impacts, and maximize value for the community. T-1.1 bridges, or other road crossing on designated critical areas, resource lands, cultural resources, or parks through the implementation of performance standards and design guidelines in accordance with WDFW current Fish Passage, and WSDOT Cultural Resources and Archaeology guidelines. T-2 improvements consistent with the Capital Improvement Plan in prioritizing and financing. Prioritize programs and projects that provide access to opportunities while preventing or mitigating negative impacts to people of color, people with low incomes, and people with special transportation needs. T-2.3 a proportionate share of the costs for specific off-site improvements necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts determined through the review to be created by the development. T-6 walkable city. T-6.3 through the permitting process. T-6.5 and mobility for active transportation users. T-7 transportation system, and promote energy conservation by developing incentives and/or requirements for energy saving transportation, land development patterns and practices, and building construction and operation methods and materials. T-7.6 possible. T-7.9 intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies, speed management, access management, channelization improvements and multimodal design features. Use advanced technologies to better manage traffic volumes on major arterials and improve the efficiency and coordination of traffic signals. Aggressively pursue improvements to the state highways through or near Arlington. T-7.10 commercial developments. T-8 movement of people, goods, and services within the City and between the community and other activity centers in the region. T-8.1 for all residents and visitors to the City, including accessibility improvements to existing facilities as well as improvements to serve growth areas. Lindsay Subarea Plan – PLN #1315 Page 6 of 15 City of Arlington 2024 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies T-8.2 vehicle trips and distribute vehicle trips along appropriate corridors. T-8.4 include safe and appropriate facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users accommodating persons of all ages and abilities. T-8.5 freight that allows freight to support the continued growth in goods movement and the growing needs of global trade and state, regional and local distribution of goods and services. T-10 networks, and reduce the chance of accidents. T-10.4 pedestrian activity to improve safety. T-12 with adjacent and regional jurisdictions and agencies. T-12.1 facilities within and adjacent to the UGA. T-12.2 the State of Washington and Snohomish County to implement those improvements necessary to their respective facilities to maintain the level of service standards adopted by the City. T-13 safety. T-13.2 designing and maintaining the street system in Arlington. Appropriate design standards, including landscape requirements, for the construction of new streets shall be maintained. T-13.3 Consider adopting alternative road standards for built neighborhoods, where necessary, to preserve the character of neighborhoods and provide safe alternative modes of travel. CFU-3 provisions and the concurrency management system provides public facilities through public and private development activities in a manner that is compatible with the fiscal resources of the City. CFU-3.2 installed prior to the issuance of the related building permit. CFU-3.3 the transportation level-of-service standards for the public facilities identified in the Capital Facilities Book without mitigation. CFU-3.4 following methods as deemed acceptable by the City or as many as are deemed necessary through the permitting process and supporting traffic analysis: dedication of right-of-way, frontage improvements, or traffic mitigation fees. CFU-3.5 Plan for growth and development to be consistent with the City’s most recently adopted Capital Facilities Plan for providing public facilities including streets, sidewalks, lighting systems, traffic signals, water, storm and sanitary sewer, and parks and recreation facilities. CFU-3.12 that water, shall be borne by the person(s) requesting such service. CFU-6.3 transportation sector. CFU-7 Washington as adopted by Arlington, preserving and supplementing, as necessary, the natural drainage ways and other natural hydraulic systems to minimize runoff impacts from development. Lindsay Subarea Plan – PLN #1315 Page 7 of 15 City of Arlington 2024 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies CFU-7.5 naturally occurring functions simultaneously. CFU-7.7 CFU-10 Meet or exceed sewer service standards in providing ongoing services to customers. CFU-10.5 Permit new development in urban areas only when sanitary sewers are available. Snohomish County Planning Policies General Framework Policies: GF-3, GF-4, GF-5, and GF-6 Joint Planning Policies: JP-3 and JP-5 Development Patterns. Goal: The cities, towns, and Snohomish County will provide livable communities for all residents by directing growth into designated urban areas to create urban places that are equitable, walkable, compact, and transit oriented, preserve and create open space, and protect rural and resource lands. Policies: DP-5, DP-12, DP-15, DP-16, DP-33, DP-34, DP-37, DP-40, and DP-41 Goal: The County and cities will work proactively with transportation planning agencies and service providers to plan, finance, and implement an efficient, affordable, equitable, inclusive, and safe multi-modal transportation system that supports state-level planning, the Regional Growth Strategy, and local comprehensive plans and promotes economic vitality, environment sustainability, and human health. Policies: TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR-4, TR-5, TR-6, TR-7, TR-8, and TR-12 The Natural Environment and Climate Change. Goal: Snohomish County and local jurisdictions will act as a steward of the natural environment in an effort to project and restore natural systems and public health and mitigate climate change. This will be achieved through natural resource and habitat conservation, water quality improvement, and air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Planning for the future will include addressing climate change and resilience at local and regional levels of government to protect the natural environment and meet the economic and social needs of all residents. Policies: Env-1, Env-2, Env-4, Env-5, Env-7, and CC-7 Public Service and Facilities. provide adequate and efficient public facilities and services to ensure the health, safety, conservation of resources, and economic vitality of our communities and all residents. Policies: PS-1, PS-2, PS-4, PS-11, PS-15, PS-16, and PS-19 Multi-County Planning Policies (Vision 2050) Regional Collaboration. Goal: The region plans collaboratively for a healthy environment, thriving communities, and opportunities for all. Policies: MPP-RC-1 Goal: The region accommodates growth in urban areas, focused in designated centers and near transit stations, to create healthy, equitable, vibrant communities well-served by infrastructure and services. Rural and resource lands continue to be vital parts of the region that regain important cultural, economic, and rural lifestyle opportunities over the long term. Policies: MPP-RGS-1, MPP-RGS-2, MPP-RGS-4, MPP-RGS-5, and MPP-RGS-13 Goal: The region cares for the natural environment by protecting and restoring natural systems, conserving habitat, improving water quality, and reducing air pollutants. The health of all residents and the economy is connected to the health of the environment. Planning at all levels considers the impacts of land use, development, and transportation on the ecosystem. Policies: MPP-En-2, MPP-En-5, MPP-En-6, MPP-En-9, MPP-En-11, and MPP-En-18 Goal: The region creates healthy, walkable, compact, and equitable transit-oriented communities that maintain unique character and local culture, while conserving rural areas and creating and preserving open space and natural areas. Policies: MPP-DP-3, MPP-DP-5, MPP-DP-9, MPP-DP-10, MPP-DP-12, MPP-DP-14, MPP-DP-15, MPP-DP-20, MPP-DP-36, MPP-DP-42, MPP-DP-52, MPP-DP-53, and MPP-DP-54 Lindsay Subarea Plan – PLN #1315 Page 8 of 15 Multi-County Planning Policies (Vision 2050) Goal: The region has a sustainable, equitable, affordable, safe, and efficient multimodal transportation system, with specific emphasis on an integrated regional transit network that supports the Regional Growth Strategy and promotes vitality of the economy, environment, and health. Policies: MPP-T-1, MPP-T-4, MPP-T-8, MPP-T-9, MPP-T-10, MPP-T-11, MPP-T-16, MPP-T-17, MPP-T-21, MPP-T-25, and MPP-T-32 Public Services. Goal: The region supports development with adequate public facilities and services in a timely, coordinated, efficient, and cost-effective manner that supports local and regional growth planning objectives. Policies: MPP-PS-1, MPP-PS-3, MPP-PS-7, MPP-PS-10, MPP-PS-11, and MPP-PS-13 11. Procedural Public Notification: Notice Type Issuance Date Meeting Date Distribution Notice of Application, Community Neighborhood Meeting, SEPA Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 3/18/2025 4/7/2025 Property Owners (within subarea) Property Owners (within 500 ft) Party of Record On-Site, City Website, City Hall & Library Affected Agencies The Herald-published – 3/20/2025 Comment Period: 3/20/2025 – 4/10/2025 Department of Commerce: Subarea Plan and Development Standards 11/5/2025 N/A 60-Day Comment Period 11/5/2025 to 1/4/2026 Notice of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 9/26/2025 N/A Property Owners (within subarea) Property Owners (within 500 ft) Party of Record On-Site, City Website, City Hall & Library Affected Agencies The Herald-published – 9/26/2025 Comment Period: 9/26/2025 – 10/27/2025 Notice of Hearing Examiner Public Hearing for Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS 11/25/2025 12/16/2025 Property Owner (within subarea) Property Owners (within 500 ft) Party of Record On-Site, City Website, City Hall & Library The Herald-published –11/24/2025 Notice of Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 11/25/2025 N/A Property Owners (within 500 ft) Party of Record City Website Affected Agencies Planned Action Ordinance Modified SEPA Checklist 11/25/2025 N/A 30-Day Comment Period 11/25/2025 to 12/26/2025 City Council Workshop for Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance 1/7/2026 1/12/2026 City Council Agenda City Website & City Hall City Council Email Distribution City Council Meeting and Decision for Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance 1/14/2026 1/20/2026 City Council Agenda City Website & City Hall City Council Email Distribution Lindsay Subarea Plan – PLN #1315 Page 9 of 15 12. Public Comments: The city received five written comments during the Lindsay Subarea Plan Notice of Application, Community Neighborhood Meeting, SEPA Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) public comment period and six written comments during the Notice of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) public comment period. After reviewing the comments, city staff forwarded the comments to the consultant for their review. The public comments are summarized in Section E. C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The city issued a SEPA Determination of Significance on March 18, 2025. The 21-day comment period concluded on April 10, 2025. The city issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on September 26, 2025. The 30-day comment period concluded on October 27, 2025. The city issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on November 25, 2025. The public comments are summarized in Section E. D. FINDINGS OF FACT Sections “A” through “D” are incorporated into the Finding of Fact, Applicable Review Criteria, and Process: The Conditional Use Permit request is subject to review for conformity with the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC), including but not limited to the following: Regulation Analysis Meets Chapter 20.16 AMC, Permits and Land Division Approval(a) The city is allowed to exempt certain permit types in accordance with RCW 36.70B.140. The following types of permits are exempt from the provisions of RCW 36.70B.060 through *36.70B.090, 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130, and the consolidated permit review procedures. However, other permitting processes are required and shall meet certain sections of Title 20 – Zoning and other titles of the Arlington Municipal Code: (4) Subarea Plans exempt from the permit review procedures, along with permit timelines. Yes Chapter 20.24 AMC, Hearing and Pre-Hearing Procedures for Appeals and ApplicationsApplications. (a) Before making a decision on an application for a conditional use permit, a hearing shall be held on the matter by the appropriate hearing body. Action EIS Ordinance are subject to a Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Yes Economic Development Director shall give public notice of any hearing required by 20.24.010 or 20.16.230 for special use permits, conditional use permits or variances, or any other required public notices. Hearing on November 25, 2025. The notice was advertised in the Everett Herald, posted on the site, city website, city hall, Arlington library, mailed to all property owners within the subarea, property owners within 500 feet of the subarea, and emailed Party’s of Record on November 25, 2025. The Public Hearing is scheduled for December 16, 2025. Yes Lindsay Subarea Plan – PLN #1315 Page 10 of 15 Regulation Analysis Meets Chapter 20.44 AMC, Supplemental Uses Regulations, Part I (a) The Comprehensive Plan designates fourteen subareas that distinguish specific geographical areas and existing neighborhoods within the community. The intent of creating subareas is to develop a subarea plan for each area of the city that contains specific policies and criteria to guide land development, incorporate missing middle housing options, transportation facilities, community facilities, infrastructure and capital improvement decisions that provide for a more coordinated, efficient, and effective structure for predictable neighborhood planning. The subarea plans encompass both newly created subareas and those that work with existing neighborhoods to provide criteria for infill and redevelopment purposes. MJS Investors, LLC with the City of Arlington has proposed the Subarea Plan in correlation with the 2024 Comprehensive Plan. The subarea plan provides a document to guide development in this area, along with an existing conditions report, goals and objectives, natural environment strategies, land use and urban design, transportation, public services and utilities, and implementation. The development standards include permissible uses, density and dimensional standards, street design, parking, landscaping, and design standards. Yes with the exception of two areas designated on the City’s Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map with the Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) Overlay. These two areas are known as East Hill and Lindsay Annexation (portion of Hilltop). proposed Lindsay Subarea Plan which is known as the Lindsay Annexation area that is a portion of the Hilltop Subarea. Yes 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. includes a portion of the Hilltop Subarea. This is a privately initiated subarea plan that encompasses the specific area of Lindsay Annexation area. Yes 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. included element of form based code with building placement, building design, creation of blocks and street frontage improvements. Yes Lindsay Subarea Plan – PLN #1315 Page 11 of 15 Regulation Analysis Meets 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 43.21C.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. being processed concurrently with a Planned Action EIS and Ordinance. The planned action incorporates a Draft EIS (DEIS) and Final EIS (FEIS) and has been prepared following the requirements of RCW 43.21C.031, WAC 197-11-164 through 197-11-172. The EIS has provided an analysis of all known impacts, mitigation measures, and environmental review for the entire subarea. Yes 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 three thousand six hundred square feet and a maximum of four thousand five hundred square feet consisting of seventy percent of the total lots. ii. Second element shall be attached residential, such as townhomes, row houses, or duplexes, and shall be developed as fee simple lots through a unit lot subdivision and consisting of twenty percent of the total lots. iii. Third element shall be one of the below options and shall consist of ten percent of the total lots. (A) Accessory Dwelling Units (constructed with residence) (B) Mixed-Use Development (vertical) (C) Multi-Family Apartments (D) Multi-Family Fourplex (E) Multi-Family Garden Apartments (F) Small Commercial permit application, checklist, and all required documents on February 10, 2025. (2) The applicant paid all required fees for the subarea plan application. (3) The subarea plan proposes the following elements: i. 305 small lot detached single-family residential housing units that make up 70% of the total lots/units. ii. 87 townhome residential housing units that make up 20% of the total lots/units. iii. 44 multi-family apartment residential housing units that make up 10% of the total lots/units. Future development on the site can choose to alter these units to any of the allowed listed housing types. Yes Lindsay Subarea Plan – PLN #1315 Page 12 of 15 Regulation Analysis Meets recreational facilities, open space, and trail system that consists of ten 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 acres in size and coordinated with the city prior to approval. (B) The trail system shall consist of a paved trail that connects the required sidewalk system and to all recreation facilities and open spaces. (4) The subarea plan shall show the location of each housing type listed above in the way of a subdivision layout. (5) The architectural design of the structures shall comply with the development design standards pursuant to Chapter 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. The analysis shall also include all current and future designated multi-modal plans. (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-modal 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. space, and trail system consist of 12% of the non-Native Growth Protection Area. The Native Growth Protection Area accounts for 30% of the site. (A) The developer is proposing private parks that will not be dedicated to the city. (B) The trail system is paved and connects to sidewalks throughout the subarea. (4) The subarea plan shows the lot locations and housing types within the proposed site plans. (5) The architectural design of the residential units shall be in accordance with Chapter 20.46 and will be reviewed prior to building permit issuance. (6) The subarea plan documents show the proposed infrastructure for streets, sewer, water, and stormwater on the submitted site plans. (7) The applicant/developer of the proposed lots within the subarea are required to extend all utilities to and through the site. The project developer shall work with Public Works on infrastructure upgrades on and off site. (8) The applicant/developer submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis. The development of the subarea requires the installation of a roundabout at 80th Avenue and 172nd Street NE, along with all public and private roads throughout the subarea and frontage improvements along 172nd Street NE. (9) The subarea plan meets the requirements of Arlington’s complete street program through the installation of new infrastructure. (10) The subarea plan calls out a least two phases, with the potential of multiple phases on the west portion of the subarea, west of 79th Avenue. Yes Lindsay Subarea Plan – PLN #1315 Page 13 of 15 Regulation Analysis Meets Annexation area serves as the typical preliminary plat document for development and shall follow the process of a conditional use permit , with the hearing examiner holding a public hearing and providing a recommendation to city council for the final ordinance. followed the typical permit path of a Conditional Use Permit, such as Notice of Application, Notice of Neighborhood Meeting, SEPA Determination and Notification, and Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Yes require the plan to comply with site specific development regulations that the city deems appropriate and approved by the hearing examiner. included Development Standards within the subarea plan document. Yes recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor Office. be recorded after the final decision from City Council. Yes civil permits, and building permits are required to be submitted and approved prior to development on any lots. Procedures for these permits are found in the Arlington Municipal Code. Lindsay Subarea is required to comply with the recorded Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance. Yes Chapter 20.98 AMC, State Environmental Policy Act required to meet the provision of Part Four – Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) WAC 197-11-400 through 197-11-490. Final EIS have met the intent and requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act, including WAC 197-11-400 to 197-11-490 Yes Information (a) Preparation of draft and final EISs (DEIS and FEIS) is the responsibility of the city staff under the direction of the responsible official. Before the city issues an EIS, the responsible official shall be satisfied that it complies with this chapter and WAC Chapter 197-11. FEIS documents in coordination with the city to complete the Lindsay Subarea Plan. The EIS has complied with this chapter and WAC Chapter 197-11 Yes Lindsay Subarea Plan – PLN #1315 Page 14 of 15 E. PUBLIC COMMENTS Gwendolen Coulter provided comments regarding the number of residential units within the subarea plan and the potential negative impact on the surrounding community due to the scale, density, and infrastructure implications of the project. Provided information on incomplete impact assessment of traffic projections, infrastructure planning, and lack of greenspace, community, density, and lot sizes. Original comments attached as Exhibit #16. 3-22-2025 this zone multi-family and mixed-use development is permitted, however the plans should be reviewed to ensure they will not create heigh hazards obstructions, smoke, glare, electronic interference, wildlife attractants, or any other airspace hazard. The future residents should be aware of the proximity of their dwelling units to the Arlington Municipal Airport. Original comments attached as Exhibit #17. 4-2-2025 over the past year to establish critical area assessments and mitigation strategies. Stream 1 (Type F) on the site, is the upper reach of Edgecomb Creek, represents critical spawning habitat as well as juvenile rearing habitat for bull trout, Chinook and Steelhead. This area must be afforded the full protections under AMC 20.93.440 and urge the application to strictly avoid encroachment into the standard buffer width of 150 feet along this reach. Original comments attached as Exhibit #18. 4-4-2025 regarding the cultural resource survey that was completed on the east side of 79th Avenue but not on the west side. It was also requested that the applicant of any development project within the subarea notify the Tribe of any ground disturbance and the opportunity to monitor the site. Original comments attached as Exhibit #19. 4-9-2025 that this area of 172nd Street does not support the increased amount of traffic. Wants the infrastructure to be installed first. Original comments attached as Exhibit #20. 4-9-2025 comments regarding the archaeological survey that was completed for the east half of the subarea and that no protected cultural resources were encountered. Original comments attached as Exhibit #9. 9-29-2025 live, and things like trees and shrubbery are disappearing to building apartments and commercial buildings that are sitting empty buildings. Any amount of building poses a risk to ground water, and air pollution when trees are removed. Does not take into consideration the traffic impacts that such building is having on the citizens of Arlington. As a tax paying citizen of Arlington, she would like to express opposition to any further building. The Eagle Heights Neighborhood only has a few small, wooded areas as is and to leave them alone. Original comments attached as Exhibit #10. 10-7-2025 development being allowed in Arlington that has insufficient roads and services before the houses are put in. Wants more information about where the development is going in and how it will affect her at her house (outside city limits on the east side of Burn Road). Original comments attached as Exhibit #11. 10-15-2025 Lindsay Subarea Plan – PLN #1315 Page 15 of 15 Public Comment Date Received Kelli Price of Department of Ecology provided comments regarding support for the goals and objectives of the Natural Environment section of the subarea plan and provided information that the wetlands delineated on the property are waters of the state, along with permitting jurisdictions for any direct wetland impacts. Original comments attached as Exhibit #12. 10-27-2025 Wildlife Resources to Edgecomb Creek and suggested additions to the mitigation plan for the removal of fish passage barriers and invasive plant species. Original comments attached as Exhibit #13. 11-12-2025 provided comments regarding a hydraulic memo is needed for confirmation that the runoff will not affect WSDOT right of way and a new intersection at 79th Avenue NE should be prohibited due to spacing to the roundabout at 80th Drive NE, if the intersection is allowed it should be right in right out. Original comments attached as Exhibit #14. 11-14-2025 & 10-24-2025 F. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS City staff has recommended approval of the Lindsay Subarea Plan per the Staff Report, analysis in Sections A-D and Exhibits #1 – 39 presented at the Public Hearing. G. EXHIBITS Hearing Exhibits are listed in the Exhibit List #1-39 and were distributed to the Hearing Examiner and posted on the city website for public view. Distributed to the Following Parties: • Peregrin Sorter of Laminar Law, Hearing Examiner • Yoshi Kumara of Laminar Law • Rob Risinger, MJS Investors • Rachel Miller, MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design • Amy Rusko, CED Director • Jen Haugen, Planning Manager • Thad Newport, Development Services Manager • Ameresia Lawlis, Associate Planner City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill NB #3 Attachment February 2, 2026 Notice of Construction Funding Award Public Works Board Funding Agreement for the Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Public Works; Jim Kelly, Director EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $ 2,636,500.00 Water Capital Funds $10,000,000.00 PWB Loan BUDGET CATEGORY: Water Capital Funds BUDGETED AMOUNT: $ 4,500,000.00 budgeted 2026 (remainder to be budgeted 2027) LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Authorization to sign Public Works Board Funding agreement for the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Expansion Project. The City of Arlington has been seeking funding for the final phase of a multi-year project to expand the Arlington water treatment filtering capacity to meet its available water rights at Haller South Wellfield. This final phase entails construction of an expansion onto the City’s existing water treatment plant. Staff applied for funding through the Public Works Board in 2025 and the City of Arlington has been selected for a $10,000,000.00 low interest loan for this project. Staff are now requesting authorization for the mayor to sign the funding agreement. ALTERNATIVES: Expansion Project and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. 1011 Plum St SE  Box 42525  Olympia, WA 98504-2525 www.pwb.wa.gov October 23, 2025 Don E. Vanney City of Arlington 238 N. Olympic Ave. Arlington, WA 98223 RE: PUBLIC WORKS BOARD CONSTRUCTION AWARD LETTER Dear Mayor Don E. Vanney, Thank you for submitting a Public Works Board Construction funding application for consideration by the Public Works Board (Board). Congratulations, your Water Treatment Plant Expansion project has been selected for an award of $10,000,000 in loan funding and $0 in grant funding. Our office has completed the underwriting for this project, and the interest rate is 2.12% with a loan term of 20 years. The Board approved your construction application at their October 3, 2025 board meeting. The approval date is the award date. Any eligible costs incurred from this date forward are reimbursable. The Governor’s Executive Order 21-02 requires projects funded through appropriations in the State’s Capital Budget to be reviewed prior to any ground-disturbing activities and the expenditure of any state funds for construction, demolition, or acquisition. Your contract will be emailed to you for signature using DocuSign once your scope of work and milestones are approved. Applicants must fully execute contracts within six months of receipt. Once again, thank you for applying to the Public Works Board. Please contact your Project Manager, Leah-Cherri Day by email at leah-cherri.day@commerce.wa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Sheila Richardson PWB Programs Director and Tribal Liaison (564) 999-1927 AGREEMENT FACE SHEET Agreement Number: PC26-96410-025 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD CONSTRUCTION FUNDING AGREEMENT 1. Contractor City of Arlington 238 N. Olympic Ave. Arlington, WA 98223 2. Contractor Doing Business As (optional) N/A 3. Contractor Representative James Kelly, jkelly@arlingtonwa.gov 4. Public Works Board Representative Leah-Cherri Day, leah-cherri.day@commerce.wa.gov 5. Agreement Amount $10,000,000 6. Funding Source Federal: State:  Other: N/A: 7. Agreement Start Date Agreement Execution Date 8. Agreement End Date June 1, 2046 9. Federal Funds (as applicable) Federal Agency CFDA Number N/A N/A N/A 10. Tax ID # N/A 11. SWV # 0001819-00 12. UBI # 311-001-370 13. UEI # N/A 14. Agreement Purpose Fund a project of a local government for the planning, acquisition, construction, repair, reconstruction, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads, bridges, drinking water systems, stormwater systems, sanitary sewage systems, or solid waste/recycling/organics facilities. 15. Acceptance of Agreement Terms and Conditions The BOARD, defined as the Washington State Public Works Board, and the Contractor acknowledge and accept the terms of this Agreement and attachments and have executed this Agreement on the date below to start as of the date and year last written below. The rights and obligations of both parties to this Agreement are governed by this Agreement and the following other documents that are incorporated by reference: Agreement Terms and Conditions including Declarations Page; and Attachment I: Attorney’s Certification; and the Public Works Board’s Traditional Program Policy Handbook, found on the PWB website. FOR THE CONTRACTOR Signature Print Name Title Date FOR PUBLIC WORKS BOARD Vincent McGowan PE, Public Works Board Acting Chair Date APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY Signature on File Dawn C. Cortez Assistant Attorney General This page intentionally left blank DECLARATIONS CLIENT INFORMATION Legal Name: City of Arlington Agreement Number: PC26-96410-025 PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project City: Arlington Project State: Washington Project Zip Code: 98223 FUNDING INFORMATION LOAN FUNDING: Loan Amount: $10,000,000 Loan Term: 20 years Interest Rate: 2.12% Payment Month: June 1st GRANT FUNDING: Grant Amount: 0 % of Funding as Grant: 0 PROJECT TOTALS: Total PWB Funding: $10,000,000 Total Estimated Cost: $13,711,684 Anticipated Construction Start Date: 05/2026 Earliest Date for Cost Reimbursement: 10/3/2025 Time of Performance: 60 months from Execution Date of this Agreement to Project Completion ADDITIONAL SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING THIS AGREEMENT N/A LOAN SECURITY CONDITION GOVERNING THIS AGREEMENT This loan is a revenue obligation of the CONTRACTOR payable solely from the net revenue of the domestic water system. Payments shall be made from the net revenue of the utility after the payment of the principal and interest on any revenue bonds, notes, warrants or other obligations of the utility having a lien on that net revenue. As used here, “net revenue” means gross revenue minus expenses of maintenance and operations. The BOARD grants the CONTRACTOR the right to issue future bonds and notes that constitute a lien and charge on net revenue superior to the lien and charge of this loan agreement. SCOPE OF WORK This project includes the water treatment plant expansion construction and start up , including the installation of two 800 GPM filter trains. The project must meet all applicable Local, State, and/or Federal standards. This page intentionally left blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................ 1 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD ................................................................................................................................................... 1 CONSTRUCTION FUNDING PROGRAM .......................................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 1: SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Definitions .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Authority ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.4 Order of Precedence ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.5 Total Award, Rate and Term of Loan ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.6 Repayment and Loan Security .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.7 Default in Repayment ............................................................................................................................................ 2 1.8 Recapture .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.9 Agreement Suspension ......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.10 Time of Performance ......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.11 Eligible Project Costs......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.12 Reimbursement Procedures and Payment ....................................................................................................... 3 1.13 Historical and Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.14 Project Signs ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.15 Competitive Bidding Requirements ................................................................................................................... 5 1.16 Sub-Contractor Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.17 Reports .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.18 Investment Grade Efficiency Audit .................................................................................................................... 6 1.19 5-year Deferral for Start-up Systems................................................................................................................. 6 1.20 Certified Project Completion Report and Project Completion Amendment ....................................................... 6 1.21 Performance Incentives ..................................................................................................................................... 6 1.22 Termination for Cause ....................................................................................................................................... 7 1.23 Termination for Convenience ............................................................................................................................. 7 SECTION 2: GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 8 2.1 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.2 ALLOWABLE COSTS ............................................................................................................................................ 8 2.3 ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN ................................................................................................................. 8 2.4 AMENDMENTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.5 APPROVAL ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.6 ASSIGNMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.7 ATTORNEYS’ FEES .............................................................................................................................................. 8 2.8 AUDIT .................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.9 CODE REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................................................................... 9 2.10 CONFIDENTIALITY/SAFEGUARDING OF INFORMATION ............................................................................ 9 2.11 CONFORMANCE ............................................................................................................................................ 10 2.12 COPYRIGHT PROVISIONS ............................................................................................................................ 10 2.13 DISALLOWED COSTS ................................................................................................................................... 10 2.14 DISPUTES ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.15 DUPLICATE PAYMENT ................................................................................................................................... 11 2.16 ETHICS/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................................................................................. 11 2.17 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE .................................................................................................................... 11 2.18 INDEMNIFICATION ......................................................................................................................................... 11 2.19 INDEPENDENT CAPACITY OF THE CONTRACTOR ................................................................................... 11 2.20 INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COVERAGE ....................................................................................................... 12 2.21 LAWS ............................................................................................................................................................... 12 2.22 LICENSING, ACCREDITATION AND REGISTRATION .................................................................................. 12 2.23 LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY ......................................................................................................................... 12 2.24 LOCAL PUBLIC TRANSPORATION COORDINATION .................................................................................. 12 2.25 NONCOMPLIANCE WITH DISCRIMINATION LAWS ..................................................................................... 12 2.26 PAY EQUITY .................................................................................................................................................... 12 2.27 POLITICAL ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................. 13 2.28 PREVAILING WAGE LAW ............................................................................................................................... 13 2.29 PROHIBITION AGAINST PAYMENT OF BONUS OR COMMISSION ............................................................ 13 2.30 PUBLICITY ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 2.31 RECAPTURE .................................................................................................................................................. 13 2.32 RECORDS MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 13 2.33 REGISTRATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ................................................................................. 14 2.34 RIGHT OF INSPECTION ................................................................................................................................ 14 2.35 LOSS OF FUNDING........................................................................................................................................ 14 2.36 SEVERABILITY ............................................................................................................................................... 14 2.37 SUBCONTRACTING ....................................................................................................................................... 14 2.38 SURVIVAL ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.39 TAXES ............................................................................................................................................................. 15 2.40 TERMINATION FOR CAUSE/SUSPENSION ................................................................................................. 15 2.41 TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE ............................................................................................................ 15 2.42 TERMINATION PROCEDURES ..................................................................................................................... 15 2.43 TREATMENT OF ASSETS .............................................................................................................................. 16 2.44 WAIVER ........................................................................................................................................................... 16 ATTACHMENT I: ATTORNEY’S CERTIFICATION ............................................................................................................... 17 1 AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS PUBLIC WORKS BOARD CONSTRUCTION FUNDING PROGRAM SECTION 1: SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1.1 Definitions As used throughout this Construction Funding Agreement the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below: A. “The BOARD” shall mean the Washington State Public Works Board created in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.155.030, and who is a Party to the Agreement B. “Agreement” shall mean this Construction Funding Agreement. C. “Contractor” shall mean the local government identified on the Agreement Face Sheet receiving funding to complete the project described in the SCOPE OF WORK described in this Agreement and who is a Party to the Agreement, and shall include all employees and agents of the Contractor. D. "Declarations " and "Declared" shall refer to the project information, loan terms and conditions as stated on the Declarations Page of this Funding Agreement, displayed within the Agreement in THIS STYLE for easier identification. E. The Traditional Program Policy Handbook shall mean the handbook found at the PWB Traditional Financing Webpage and available upon request as PDF. 1.2 Authority Acting under the authority of RCW 43.155, the BOARD has awarded the Contractor Public Works Board construction funding for an approved public works project. 1.3 Purpose The BOARD and the Contractor have entered into this Agreement to provide funds to enable the Contractor to undertake a local public works project that furthers the goals and objectives of the Washington State Public Works Program. The project will be undertaken by the Contractor and will include the activities described in the SCOPE OF WORK shown on the Declarations page. The project must be undertaken in accordance with the Agreement terms and conditions, and all applicable federal, state and local laws and ordinances, which are incorporated by reference. 1.4 Order of Precedence In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: A. Applicable federal, state of Washington statutes and regulations. B. Special Terms and Conditions including attachments. C. General Terms and Conditions. 2 1.5 Total Award, Rate and Term of Loan The BOARD shall fund the Contractor a sum not to exceed the AGREEMENT AMOUNT shown on the Agreement Face Sheet, which shall be the sum of the LOAN AMOUNT and the GRANT AMOUNT shown on the Agreement Declarations Page, to complete the SCOPE OF WORK. If the Contractor is awarded a loan, the interest rate shall be the declared INTEREST RATE per annum on the outstanding principal balance. The length of the loan shall not exceed the declared LOAN TERM in years, with the final payment due by the AGREEMENT END DATE as shown on the Agreement Face Sheet. If the Contractor is awarded a grant, any grant funding shall be spent from the award proportionally to the % OF FUNDING AS GRANT. The percent of grant funding shall not be changed at project completion regardless of the actual cost of the project and the Affordability Index or other measure of financial hardship. 1.6 Repayment and Loan Security If the Agreement includes loan funding, loan repayment installments are due on the day and month identified under the term: PAYMENT MONTH on the Declarations Page. Payments are due each year during the term of the loan beginning one year from the date of Agreement execution. Interest only will be charged for this payment if a warrant is issued prior to this date. All subsequent payments shall consist of principal and accrued interest due on the specified PAYMENT MONTH date of each year during the remaining term of the loan. Loan Security payments shall be made as stated on the attached Declarations page and identified as LOAN SECURITY. Repayment of a loan under this Agreement shall include the declared INTEREST RATE per annum based on a three hundred and sixty (360) day year of twelve (12) thirty (30) day months. Interest will begin to accrue from the date each warrant is issued to the Contractor. The final payment shall be on or before the AGREEMENT END DATE shown on the Agreement Face Sheet, of an amount sufficient to bring the loan balance to zero. In the event that the BOARD approves the Contractor's request for a deferral as outlined in Section 1.19, then the first loan repayment is due sixty (60) months after Agreement execution. Interest accrues for the sixty (60) months after Agreement execution. The accrued interest only will be charged for this payment if a warrant is issued prior to this date. Interest and principal payments are due on the declared PAYMENT MONTH date of each year during the remaining term of the loan. The Contractor has the right to repay the unpaid balance of the loan in full at any time or make accelerated payments without penalty. The Contractor will repay the loan in accordance with the preceding conditions through the use of electronic funds transfer, a check, money order, or equivalent means made payable to the Washington State Department of Commerce, or its successor. 1.7 Default in Repayment If the funding under this Agreement constitutes a loan, repayments shall be made on the loan in accordance with Section 1.6 of this Agreement. A payment not received within thirty (30) days of the due date shall be declared delinquent. Delinquent payments shall be assessed a monthly penalty beginning on the first (1st) day past the due date. The penalty will be assessed on the entire payment amount. The penalty will be one percent (1%) per month or twelve percent (12%) per annum. The same penalty terms shall apply at project completion if the repayment of loan funds in excess of eligible costs are not repaid at the time of the Project Completion Amendment is executed, as provided for in Section 1.20 . The Contractor acknowledges and agrees to the BOARD’s right, upon delinquency in the payment of any annual installment, to notify any other entity, creditors, or potential creditors of the Contractor of such delinquency. The Contractor shall be responsible for all legal fees incurred by the BOARD in any action undertaken to enforce its rights under this section. 3 1.8 Recapture In addition to the recapture provisions in Section 2.3 1, the right to recapture shall exist for a period not to exceed six (6) years following Agreement termination. In the event that the Board is required to institute legal proceedings to enforce the recapture provision, the BOARD shall be entitled to its costs, including attorney’s fees. 1.9 Agreement Suspension In the event that the Washington State Legislature fails to pass and the Governor does not authorize a Capital Budget by June 30 of each biennium, the Washington State Constitution Article 8 and RCW 43.88.130 and RCW 43.88.290 prohibit expenditures or commitments of state funds in the absence of appropriation. In such event, all work under this Agreement will be suspended effective July 1. The Contractor shall immediately suspend work under this Agreement and take all reasonable steps necessary to minimize the cost of performance directly attributable to such suspension until the suspension is cancelled. The BOARD shall notify the Contractor immediately upon lifting of the Agreement suspension. 1.10 Time of Performance No later than sixty (60) months after the date of Agreement execution the Contractor must reach project completion of the SCOPE OF WORK. Failure to meet Time of Performance shall constitute default of this Agreement. In the event of extenuating circumstances, the Contractor may request, in writing, that the BOARD extend the deadline for project completion. The BOARD may extend the deadline. The term of this Agreement shall be for the entire term of any loan provided under this Agreement, regardless of actual project completion, unless terminated sooner as provided herein. 1.11 Eligible Project Costs The Eligible project costs must consist of expenditures eligible under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 399 -30-030, be related only to project activities described in the declared SCOPE OF WORK and documented according to the requirements set forth in the Traditional Program Policy Handbook. Eligible costs for reimbursement shall be construed to mean expenditures incurred and paid, or incurred and payable within thirty (30) days of the reimburse ment request. Only costs that have been incurred on or after EARLIEST DATE FOR COST REIMBURSEMENT shown in the Declarations are eligible for reimbursement under this Agreement. The Contractor assures compliance with WAC 399-30-030, which identifies eligible costs for projects assisted with BOARD funding. These terms supersede the terms in Section 2.2 Allowable Costs. 1.12 Reimbursement Procedures and Payment If funding or appropriation is not available at the time the invoice is submitted, or when this Agreement is executed, the issuance of warrants will be delayed or suspended until such time as funds or appropriation become available. Therefore, subject to the availability of funds, warrants shall be issued to the Contractor for reimbursement of allowable expenses incurred by the Contractor while undertaking and administering approved project activities in accordance with the declared SCOPE OF WORK. The Contractor shall submit all Invoice Vouchers (“A-19s” or “A19s”) and all required documentation per guidance in the BOARD Traditional Program Policy Handbook, which is incorporated by reference. The BOARD shall reimburse the Contractor for eligible project expenditures up to the maximum funding amount under this Agreement, as identified in Section 1.11. When requesting reimbursement for costs incurred, the Contractor shall submit all Invoice Vouchers and any required documentation electronically through the Department of Commerce’s 4 (COMMERCE) Contracts Management System (CMS), which is available through the Secure Access Washington (SAW) portal, or its successor. If the Contractor has constraints preventing access to COMMERCE’s online A -19 portal. Requests for reimbursements for costs related to construction activities will not be accepted until the Contractor provides: • Proof of compliance with Governor’s Executive Order 21-02 or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as described in Section 1.13, and • Signed Public Works Board Notice of Contract Award and Notice to Proceed, which follows the formal award of a construction contract. If the Contractor receives funding in the form of both a grant and a loan, the Contractor shall bill to the loan and grant proportionally until and if funds are exhausted. The BOARD will pay the Contractor upon acceptance of the work performed and receipt of properly completed invoices. Invoices shall be submitted to the BOARD at least quarterly, as appropriate. Payment shall be considered timely if made by the BOARD within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of properly completed invoices. Payment shall be sent by means of an electronic funds transfer or to the address designated by the Contractor. The BOARD may, at its sole discretion, terminate the Agreement or withhold payments claimed by the Contractor for services rendered if the Contractor fails to satisfactorily comply with any term or condition of this Agreement. No payments in advance or in anticipation of services or supplies to be provided under this Agreement shall be made by the BOARD. BOARD shall not release the final five (5) percent of the total funding amount until acceptance by BOARD of project completion report. Duplication of Billed Costs. If the Contractor is entitled to payment or has been or will be paid by another source for an eligible project cost, then the Contractor shall not be reimbursed by the BOARD for that cost. Disallowed Costs. The Contractor is responsible for any audit exceptions or disallowed costs incurred by its own organization or that of its subcontractors. In no event shall the total Public Works funding exceed 100% of the eligible actual project costs. At the time of project completion, the Contractor shall submit to the BOARD a Project Completion Amendment certifying the total actual project costs, other funding, and local share. The final BOARD funding disbursement shall bring the total funding to the lesser of 100% of the eligible project costs or the total declared funding under this Agreement. The Project Completion Amendment shall serve as an amendment to this Agreement determining the final loan and grant amounts, loan term, and interest rate. In the event that the final costs identified in the Certified Project Completion Report indicate that the Contractor has received BOARD monies in excess of 100.00% of eligible costs, all funds in excess of 100.00% shall be repaid to the BOARD by payment to the Department of Commerce, or its successor, prior to the execution of the Project Completion Amendment. 1.13 Historical and Cultural Resources Prior to approval and disbursement of any funds awarded under this Agreement related to any land acquisition, demolition, construction, or other ground-disturbing activities, the Contractor shall cooperate with the BOARD to complete the requirements of Governor’s Executive Order 21-02 or the Contractor shall complete a review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, if applicable. Contractor agrees that the Contractor is legally and financially responsible for compliance with all laws, regulations, and agreements related to the preservation of historical or cult ural resources and agrees to hold harmless the BOARD and the state of Washington in relation to any claim related to such historical or cultural resources discovered, disturbed, or damaged as a result of the project funded by this Agreement. In addition to the requirements set forth in this Agreement, the Contractor shall, in accordance with Governor’s Executive Order 21-02 as applicable, coordinate with the BOARD and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (“DAHP”), including any recommendation consultation with any affected tribe(s), during Project design and prior to construction to determine the existence of any tribal cultural resources affected by the Project. Contractor agrees 5 to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to the cultural resource as a continuing prerequisite to receipt of funds under this Agreement. The Contractor agrees that, unless the Contractor is proceeding under an approved historical and cultural monitoring plan or other memoranda of agreement, if historical or cultural artifacts found during the construction, the Contractor shall immediately stop construction and notify the local historical preservation officer and the state’s historical preservation officer at DAHP, and the BOARD Representative identified on the Face Sheet. If human remains are uncovered, the Contractor shall report the presence and location of the remains to the coroner and local enforcement immediately, then contact DAHP and the concerned tribe’s cultural staff or committee. The Agreement shall require this provision to be contained in all subcontracts for work or services related to the Scope of Work attached hereto. In addition to the requirements set forth in the Agreement, the Contractor agrees to comply with the following laws and regulations: • RCW 27.44 regarding Indian Graves and Records • RCW 27.53 regarding Archaeological Sites and Resources • RCW 68.60 regarding Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves • WAC 25-48 regarding Archaeological Excavation and Removal Permits. Completion of the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act shall substitute for completion of Governor’s Executive Order 21-02. The Contractor shall not proceed with any land acquisition, demolition, construction, or other ground-disturbing activities until the BOARD certifies completion of Governor’s Executive Order 21 -02 or adopts the completion of the requirements of Section 10 6 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In the event that the Contractor finds it necessary to amend the SCOPE OF WORK of the Agreement, the Contractor may be required to re-comply with Governor’s Executive Order 21-02 or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 1.14 Project Signs If the Contractor displays, during the period covered by this Agreement, signs or markers identifying those agencies participating financially in the approved project, the sign or marker must identify the Washington State Public Works Board as a participant in the project. Public Works Board logo files are available upon request. 1.15 Competitive Bidding Requirements The Contractor shall comply with the provisions of RCW 43.155.060 regarding competitive bidding requirements for projects assisted in whole or in part with money from the Public Works Program. 1.16 Sub-Contractor Data Collection Contractor will submit reports, in a form and format to be provided by the BOARD and at intervals as agreed by the parties, regarding work under this Agreement performed by sub-contractors and the portion of the Agreement funds expended for work performed by sub-contractors, including but not necessarily limited to minority-owned, women-owned, and veteran-owned business sub-contractors. “Sub-Contractors” shall mean sub-contractors of any tier. 1.17 Reports The Contractor shall furnish the BOARD with: A. Project progress reports per guidance in the BOARD’s Traditional Program Policy Handbook; B. Quarterly Reports; C. Certified Project Completion Report at project completion as described in Section 1.20; 6 D. Pictures and short videos of various stages of the project, and E. Other reports as the BOARD may require. 1.18 Investment Grade Efficiency Audit For projects involving repair, replacement, or improvement of a wastewater treatment plant, or other public works facility for which an investment grade audit is obtainable, the Contractor must undertake an investment grade efficiency audit. Costs incurred as part of the investment grade audit are eligible project costs. 1.19 5-year Deferral for Start-up Systems If the project financed by this Agreement is to develop a system to deliver previously unavailable services, and revenue from those services is to repay the loan, the new system is eligible for a deferral of loan payments for sixty (60) months after the Agreement execution date. The Contractor may provide a written request to the BOARD requesting a 5-year deferral for an eligible system. The BOARD may approve the deferral request. Interest accrues for the aforementioned sixty (60) months. The accrued interest only payment is due June 1 of the 6th year of the loan term. Interest and principal payments are due on June 1 of the 7th year of the loan term. 1.20 Certified Project Completion Report and Project Completion Amendment The Contractor shall complete a Certified Project Completion Report when all activities identified in the SCOPE OF WORK are complete as defined by the BOARD’s Project Completion and Holdback Policy. The BOARD will supply the Contractor with the Certified Project Completion Report form, which shall include: A. A certified statement that the project, as described in the declared SCOPE OF WORK, is complete and, if applicable, meets required standards. B. A certified statement of the actual dollar amounts spent, from all funding sources, in completing the project as described in the SCOPE OF WORK. C. Certification that all costs associated with the project have been incurred and have been accounted for. Costs are incurred when goods and services are received and/or Agreement work is performed. D. Pictures of Completed Project. The Contractor will submit the Certified Project Completion Report together with the last Invoice Voucher for a sum not to exceed the balance of the total funding amount. The final Invoice Voucher payment shall not occur prior to the completion of all project activities identified in the SCOPE OF WORK and the BOARD's receipt and acceptance of the Certified Project Completion Report. The Project Completion Amendment shall serve as an amendment to this Agreement determining the final loan amount, grant amount (if applicable), loan term, and interest rate. 1.21 Performance Incentives Timely Draws Incentive The Contractor may receive up to a 0.10% reduction in their interest rate if: • The Contractor’s first draw from the funds is within six (6) months of the date of Agreement execution, AND • The Contractor draws funds approximately monthly after the first draw until the Contractor reaches 5% of the total funding amount remaining or the Contractor’s final payment to their general construction contractor of retainage, whichever comes first. Construction Completion Incentives 7 The Contractor shall complete the project no later than sixty (60) months after the date of Agreement execution. Should the Contractor submit the Certified Project Completion Report within forty -eight (48) months of the date of Agreement execution, the Contractor may choose one of the two following incentives upon project completion: • Option A: The repayment period will be increased by twenty-four (24) months, not to exceed the life of the asset, OR: • Option B: The interest rate will be decreased by one-quarter of one percent (0.25%). Should the Contractor submit the Certified Project Completion Report within thirty -six (36) months of the date of Agreement execution, the Contractor may choose one of the following two incentives upon project completion: • Option C: The repayment period will be increased by sixty (60) months, not to exceed the life of the asset, OR: • Option D: The interest rate will be decreased by up to one-half of one percent (0.50%). Pursuant to the BOARD’s Performance Incentives policy, the Contractor shall only be eligible for performance incentives C or D if the Project’s Notice to Proceed date is no more than three (3) months after the ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION START DATE identified on the Declarations page of this Agreement. Once an eligible option is selected, the Agreement shall be modified to note the appropriate change and no further adjustment to the Agreement for Performance Incentives shall be authorized. Irrespective of the performance incentive (s) applied, at no point in time shall the loan interest rate be less than 0.25%. The calculation of any interest rate and term adjustments will apply to the remaining payments beginning from the date the Project Completion Amendment is executed. 1.22 Termination for Cause If the Contractor fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement, or fails to use the funds only for those activities ident ified in the SCOPE OF WORK, the BOARD may terminate the Agreement in whole or in part at any time. The BOARD shall notify the Contractor in writing of its determination to terminate, the reason for such termination, and the effective date o f the termination. Nothing in this section shall affect the Contractor's obligation to repay the unpaid balance of a loan. These terms supersede the terms in Section 2.40 Termination for Cause/Suspension. 1.23 Termination for Convenience Notwithstanding anything in Section 2.41 Termination for Convenience, the BOARD may suspend or terminate this Agreement in the event that funds are no longer available to the BOARD, or are not appropriated for the purpose of meeting the BOARD’s obligations under this Agreement. Termination will be effective when the BOARD sends written notice of termination to the Contractor. Nothing in this section shall affect the Contractor’s obligation to repay the unpaid balance of the loan. 8 SECTION 2: GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 2.1 DEFINITIONS As used throughout this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below: A. “Authorized Representative” shall mean the Public Works Board Chair and/or the designee authorized in writing to act on the Chair’s behalf. B. "Contractor" shall mean the entity identified on the face sheet performing service(s) under this Agreement, and shall include all employees and agents of the Contractor. C. “BOARD” shall mean the Washington State Public Works Board created in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.155.030, and which is a Party to the Agreement D. “Personal Information” shall mean information identifiable to any person, including, but not limited to, information that relates to a person’s name, health, finances, education, business, use or receipt of governmental services or other activities, addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, driver license numbers, other identifying numbers, and any financial identifiers. E. ”State” shall mean the state of Washington. F. "Subcontractor" shall mean one not in the employment of the Contractor, who is performing all or part of those services under this Agreement under a separate contract with the Contractor. The terms “subcontractor” and “subcontractors” mean subcontractor(s) in any tier. 2.2 ALLOWABLE COSTS Costs allowable under this Agreement are actual expenditures according to an approved budget up to the maximum amount stated on the Agreement Award or Amendment Face Sheet. 2.3 ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. 2.4 AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Such amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the parties. 2.5 APPROVAL This Agreement shall be subject to the written approval of the BOARD’s Authorized Representative and shall not be binding until so approved. The Agreement may be altered, amended, or waived only by a written amendment executed by both parties. 2.6 ASSIGNMENT Neither this Agreement, nor any claim arising under this Agreement, shall be transferred or assigned by the Contractor without prior written consent of the BOARD. 2.7 ATTORNEYS’ FEES Unless expressly permitted under another provision of the Agreement, in the event of litigation or other action brought to enforce Agreement terms, each party agrees to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs. 9 2.8 AUDIT A. General Requirements • If requested by the Board at any time during the Agreement period and six (6) years following termination of the Agreement, Contractor will obtain an audit, at its own expense. • Contractors are to procure audit services based on the following guidelines. • The Contractor shall maintain its records and accounts so as to facilitate the audit requirement and shall ensure that Subcontractors also maintain auditable records. • The Contractor is responsible for any audit exceptions incurred by its own organization or that of its Subcontractors. • The BOARD reserves the right to recover from the Contractor all disallowed costs resulting from the audit. • Responses to any unresolved management findings and disallowed or questioned costs shall be included with the audit report. The Contractor must respond to the BOARD’s request for information or corrective action concerning audit issues within thirty (30) days of the date of request. B. State Funds Requirements • In the event an audit is required, if the Contractor is a local government entity, the Office of the State Auditor shall conduct the audit. • Audits of non-profit organizations are to be conducted by a certified public accountant selected by the Contractor. • The Contractor shall include the above audit requirements in any subcontracts. • In any case, the Contractor’s financial records must be available for review by the BOARD. 2.9 CODE REQUIREMENTS All construction and rehabilitation projects must satisfy the requirements of applicable local, state, and federal building, mechanical, plumbing, fire, energy and barrier-free codes. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 28 C.F.R. Part 35 will be required, as specified by the local building Department. 2.10 CONFIDENTIALITY/SAFEGUARDING OF INFORMATION A. “Confidential Information” as used in this section includes: • All material provided to the Contractor by the BOARD that is designated as “confidential” by the BOARD; • All material produced by the Contractor that is designated as “confidential” by the BOARD; and • All personal information in the possession of the Contractor that may not be disclosed under state or federal law, including but not limited to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the Public Record Act, RCW 42.56. B. The Contractor shall comply with all state and federal laws related to the use, sharing, transfer, sale, or disclosure of Confidential Information. The Contractor shall use Confidential Information solely for the purposes of this Agreement and shall not use, share, transfer, sell or disclose any Confidential Information to any third party except with the prior written consent of the BOARD or as may be required by law. The Contractor shall take all necessary steps to assure that Confidential Information is safeguarded to prevent unauthorized use, sharing, transfer, sale or disclosure of Confidential Information or violation of any state or federal laws related thereto. Upon request, the Contractor shall provide the BOARD with its policies and procedures on co nfidentiality. The BOARD may require changes to such policies and procedures as they apply to this Agreement whenever the BOARD reasonably determines that changes are necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosures. The Contractor shall make the changes within the time period specified by the BOARD. Upon request, the Contractor shall 10 immediately return to the BOARD any Confidential Information that the BOARD reasonably determines has not been adequately protected by the Contractor against unauthorized disclosure. C. Unauthorized Use or Disclosure. The Contractor shall notify the BOARD within five (5) working days of any unauthorized use or disclosure of any confidential information, and shall take necessary steps to mitigate the harmful effects of such use or disclosure. 2.11 CONFORMANCE If any provision of this Agreement violates any statute or rule of law of the state of Washington, it is considered modified to conform to that statute or rule of law. 2.12 COPYRIGHT PROVISIONS Unless otherwise provided, all Materials produced under this Agreement shall be considered "works for hire" as defined by the U.S. Copyright Act and shall be owned by the BOARD. The BOARD shall be considered the author of such Materials. In the event the Materials are not considered “works for hire” under the U.S. Copyright laws, the Contractor hereby irrevocably assigns all right, title, and interest in all Materials, including all intellectual property rights, moral rights , and rights of publicity to the BOARD effective from the moment of creation of such Materials. “Materials” means all items in any format and includes, but is not limited to, data, reports, documents, pamphlets, advertisements, books, magazines, surveys, studies, computer programs, films, tapes, and/or sound reproductions. “Ownership” includes the right to copyright, patent, register and the ability to transfer these rights. For Materials that are delivered under the Agreement, but that incorporate pre-existing materials not produced under the Agreement, the Contractor hereby grants to the BOARD a nonexclusive, royalty -free, irrevocable license (with rights to sublicense to others) in such Materials to translate, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, publicly perform, and publicly display. The Contractor warrants and represents that the Contractor has all rights and permissions, including intellectual property rights, moral rights and rights of publicity, necessary to grant such a license to the BOARD. The Contractor shall exert all reasonable effort to advise the BOARD, at the time of delivery of Materials furnished under this Agreement, of all known or potential invasions of privacy contained therein and of any portion of such document which was not produced in the performance of this Agreement. The Contractor shall provide the BOARD with prompt written notice of each notice or claim of infringement received by the Contractor with respect to any Materials delivered under this Agreement. The BOARD shall have the right to modify or remove any restrictive markings placed upon the Materials by the Contractor. 2.13 DISALLOWED COSTS The Contractor is responsible for any audit exceptions or disallowed costs incurred by its own organization or that of its Subcontractors. 2.14 DISPUTES Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, when a dispute arises between the parties and it cannot be resolved by direct negotiation, either party may request a dispute hearing with the Chair of the BOARD, who may designate a neutral person to decide the dispute. The request for a dispute hearing must: • be in writing; • state the disputed issues; • state the relative positions of the parties; • provide a copy of all relevant documents or other evidence to be considered; • state the Contractor's name, address, and Agreement number; and 11 • be mailed to the BOARD Chair and the other party’s (respondent’s) Representative within three (3) working days after the parties agree that they cannot resolve the dispute. The respondent shall send a written answer to the requestor’s statement, and provide a copy of all relevant documents or other evidence to be considered, to both the Chair or the Chair’s designee and the requestor within five (5) working days. The Chair or designee shall review the written statements and reply in writing to both parties within ten (10) working days. The Chair or designee may extend this period if necessary by notifying the parties. The decision shall not be admissible in any succeeding judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. The parties agree that this dispute process shall precede any action in a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit the parties’ choice of a mutually acceptable alternate dispute resolution (ADR) method in addition to the dispute hearing procedure outlined above. 2.15 DUPLICATE PAYMENT The Contractor certifies that work to be performed under this Agreement does not duplicate any work to be charged against any other agreement, contract, subcontract, or other source. 2.16 ETHICS/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST In performing under this Agreement, the Contractor shall assure compliance with the Ethics in Public Service Act, RCW 42.52 and any other applicable local, state or federal law related to ethics or conflicts of interests. 2.17 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington, and the venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in the Superior Court for Thurston County. 2.18 INDEMNIFICATION To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the state of Washington, COMMERCE, BOARD, agencies of the state and all officials, agents and employees of the state, from and against all claims for injuries or death arising out of or resulting from the performance of the Agreement. “Claim,” as used in this Agreement, means any financial loss, claim, suit, action, damage, or expense, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, attributable for bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death, or injury to or the destruction of tangible property including loss of use resulting therefrom. The Contractor’s obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless includes any claim by Contractor’s agents, employees, representatives, or any subgrantee/subcontractor or its employees. The Contractor’s obligation shall not include such claims that may be caused by the sole negligence of the State and its agencies, officials, agents, and employees. If the claims or damages are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) the State, its agents or employees and (b) the Contractor, its subcontractors, agents, or employees, this indemnity provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the Contractor or its subcontractors, agents, or employees. The Contractor waives its immunity under RCW 51 to the extent it is required to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the state and its agencies, officers, agents or employees. 2.19 INDEPENDENT CAPACITY OF THE CONTRACTOR The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. The Contractor and its employees or agents performing under this Agreement are not employees or agents of the state of Washington or the BOARD. The Contractor will not hold itself out as or claim to be an officer or employee of the BOARD or of the state of 12 Washington by reason hereof, nor will the Contractor make any claim of right, privilege or benefit which would accrue to such officer or employee under law. Conduct and control of the work will be solely with the Contractor. 2.20 INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COVERAGE The Contractor shall comply with all applicable provisions of RCW 51, Industrial Insurance. If the Contractor fails to provide industrial insurance coverage or fails to pay premiums or penalties on behalf of its employees as may be required by law, the BOARD may collect from the Contractor the full amount payable to the Industrial Insurance Accident Fund. The BOARD may deduct the amount owed by the Contractor to the accident fund from the amount payable to the Contractor by the BOARD under this Agreement, and transmit the deducted amount to the Department of Labor and Industries, (L&I) Division of Insurance Services. This provision does not waive any of L&I’s rights to collect from the Contractor. 2.21 LAWS The Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, regulations and policies of local and state and federal governments, as now or hereafter amended. 2.22 LICENSING, ACCREDITATION AND REGISTRATION The Contractor shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal licensing, accreditation and registration requirements or standards necessary for the performance of this Agreement. 2.23 LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY Only the Authorized Representative or Authorized Representative’s designee by writing (designation to be made prior to action) shall have the express, implied, or apparent authority to alter, amend, modify, or waive any clause or condition of this Agreement. 2.24 LOCAL PUBLIC TRANSPORATION COORDINATION Where applicable, Contractor shall participate in local public transportation forums and implement strategies designed to ensure access to services. 2.25 NONCOMPLIANCE WITH DISCRIMINATION LAWS During the performance of this Agreement, the Contractor shall comply with all federal, state, and local nondiscrimination laws, regulations and policies. In the event of the Contractor’s non-compliance or refusal to comply with any nondiscrimination law, regulation or policy, this Agreement may be rescinded, canceled or terminated in whole or in part, and the Contractor may be declared ineligible for further contracts with the Board. The Contractor shall, however, be given a reasonable time in which to cure this noncompliance. Any dispute may be resolved in accordance with Section 2.14 Disputes. 2.26 PAY EQUITY The Contractor agrees to ensure that “similarly employed” individuals in its workforce are compensated as equals, consistent with the following: A. Employees are “similarly employed” if the individuals work for the same employer, the performance of the job requires comparable skill, effort, and responsibility, and the jobs are performed under similar working conditions. Job titles alone are not determinative of whether employees are similarly employed; B. Contractor may allow differentials in compensation for its workers if the differentials are based in good faith and on any of the following: 13 a. A seniority system; a merit system; a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; a bona fide job-related factor or factors; or a bona fide regional difference in compensation levels. b. A bona fide job-related factor or factors may include, but not be limited to, education, training, or experience that is: Consistent with business necessity; not based on or derived from a gender -based differential; and accounts for the entire differential. c. A bona fide regional difference in compensation level must be: Consistent with business necessity; not based on or derived from a gender-based differential; and account for the entire differential. This Agreement may be terminated by the BOARD if the BOARD, the Department of Commerce, or the Department of Enterprise Services determines that the Contractor is not in compliance with this provision. 2.27 POLITICAL ACTIVITIES Political activity of Contractor employees and officers are limited by the State Campaign Finances and Lobbying provisions of RCW 42.17A. No funds may be used for working for or against ballot measures or for or against the candidacy of any person for public office. 2.28 PREVAILING WAGE LAW The Contractor certifies that all contractors and subcontractors performing work on the Project shall comply with state Prevailing Wages on Public Works, RCW 39.12, as applicable to the Project funded by this contract, including but not limited to the filing of the “Statement of Intent to Pay Prevailing Wages” and “Affidavit of Wages Paid” as required by RCW 39.12.040. The Contractor shall maintain records sufficient to evidence compliance with RCW 39.12, and shall make such records available for the BOARDs review upon request. 2.29 PROHIBITION AGAINST PAYMENT OF BONUS OR COMMISSION The funds provided under this Agreement shall not be used in payment of any bonus or commission for the purpose of obtaining approval of the application for such funds or any other approval or concurrence under this Agreement provided, however, that reasonable fees or bona fide technical consultant, managerial, or other such services, other than actual solicitation, are not hereby prohibited if otherwise eligible as project costs. 2.30 PUBLICITY The Contractor agrees not to publish or use any advertising or publicity materials in which the state of Washington or the BOARD’s name is mentioned, or language used from which the connection with the state of Washington’s or the BOARD’s name may reasonably be inferred or implied, without the prior written consent of the BOARD. 2.31 RECAPTURE In the event that the Contractor fails to perform this Agreement in accordance with state laws, federal laws, and/or the provisions of this Agreement, the BOARD reserves the right to recapture funds, in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity. Repayment by the Contractor of funds under this recapture provision shall occur within the time period specified by the BOARD. In the alternative, the BOARD may recapture such funds from payments due under this contract. 2.32 RECORDS MANAGEMENT The Contractor shall maintain all books, records, documents, data and other evidence relating to this Agreement and performance of the services described herein, including but not limited to accounting procedures and practices which 14 sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended in the performance of this Agreement. Contractor shall retain such records for a period of six years following the date of final payment. If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the six (6) year period, the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records have been finally resolved. 2.33 REGISTRATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE If required by law, the Contractor shall complete registration with the Washington State Department of Revenue. 2.34 RIGHT OF INSPECTION At no additional cost all records relating to the Contractor’s performance under this Agreement shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection, review, and audit by the BOARD, the Office of the State Auditor, and federal and state officials so authorized by law, in order to monitor and evaluate performance, compliance, and quality assurance under this Agreement. The Contractor shall provide access to its facilities for this purpose. 2.35 LOSS OF FUNDING In the event funding from state, federal, or other sources is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way after the effective date of this Agreement and prior to normal completion, the BOARD may terminate the Agreement under the "Termination for Convenience" clause, without the ten business day notice requirement. In lieu of termination, the Agreement may be amended to reflect the new funding limitations and conditions. 2.36 SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement that can be given effect without the invalid provision, if such remainder conforms to the requirements of law and the fundamental purpose of this Agreement and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable. 2.37 SUBCONTRACTING The Contractor shall maintain written procedures related to subcontracting, as well as copies of all subcontracts and records related to subcontracts. For cause, the BOARD in writing may: (a) require the Contractor to amend its subcontracting procedures as they relate to this Agreement; (b) prohibit the Contractor from subcontracting with a particular person or entity; or (c) require the Contractor to rescind or amend a subcontract. Every subcontract shall bind the Subcontractor to follow all applicable terms of this Agreement. The Contractor is responsible to the BOARD if the Subcontractor fails to comply with any applicable term or condition of this Agreement. The Contractor shall appropriately monitor the activities of the Subcontractor to assure fiscal conditions of this Agreement. In no event shall the existence of a subcontract operate to release or reduce the liability of the Contractor to the BOARD for any breach in the performance of the Contractor’s duties. Every subcontract shall include a term that the BOARD and the State of Washington are not liable for claims or damages arising from a Subcontractor’s performance of the subcontract. 2.38 SURVIVAL The terms, conditions, and warranties contained in this Agreement that by their sense and context are intended to survive the completion of the performance, cancellation or termination of this Agreement shall so survive. 15 2.39 TAXES All payments accrued on account of payroll taxes, unemployment contributions, the Contractor’s income or gross receipts, any other taxes, insurance or expenses for the Contractor, other than sales taxes owed for goods or services provided for this Agreement, or its staff shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. 2.40 TERMINATION FOR CAUSE/SUSPENSION In the event the BOARD determines the Contractor has failed to comply with the conditions of this Agreement in a timely manner, the BOARD has the right to suspend or terminate this Agreement. Before suspending or terminating the Agreement, the BOARD shall notify the Contractor in writing of the need to take corrective action. If corrective action is not taken within 30 calendar days, the Agreement may be terminated or suspended. In the event of termination or suspension, the Contractor shall be liable for damages as authorized by law. The BOARD reserves the right to suspend all or part of the contract, withhold further payments, or prohibit the Contractor from incurring additional obligations of funds during investigation of the alleged compliance breach and pending corrective action by the Contractor or a decision by the BOARD to terminate the contract. A termination shall be deemed a “Termination for Convenience” if it is determined that the Contractor: (1) was not in default; or (2) failure to perform was outside of his or her control, fault or negligence. The rights and remedies of the BOARD provided in this Agreement are not exclusive and are, in addition to any other rights and remedies, provided by law. 2.41 TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement the BOARD may, with ten (10) business days written notice, beginning on the second day after the notice is sent, terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part. If this Agreement is so terminated, the BOARD shall be liable only for payment required under the terms of this Agreement for services rendered or goods delivered prior to the effective date of termination. 2.42 TERMINATION PROCEDURES Upon termination of this contract, the BOARD, in addition to any other rights provided in this Agreement. The rights and remedies of the BOARD provided in this section shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. After receipt of a notice of termination, and except as otherwise directed by the Authorized Representative, the Contractor shall: A. Stop work under the Agreement on the date, and to the extent specified, in the notice; B. Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, services, or facilities except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the work under the Agreement that is not terminated; C. Assign to the BOARD, in the manner, at the times, and to the extent directed by the Authorized Representative, all of the rights, title, and interest of the Contractor under the orders and subcontracts so terminated, in which case the BOARD has the right, at its discretion, to settle or pay any or all claims arising out of the termination of such orders and subcontracts; D. Settle all outstanding liabilities and all claims arising out of such termination of orders and subcontracts, with the approval or ratification of the Authorized Representative to the extent the Authorized Representative may require, which approval or ratification shall be final for all the purposes of this clause; E. Transfer title to the BOARD and deliver in the manner, at the times, and to the extent directed by the Authorized Representative any property which, if the Agreement had been completed, would have been required to be furnished to the BOARD; F. Complete performance of such part of the work as shall not have been terminated by the Authorized Representative; and 16 G. Take such action as may be necessary, or as the Authorized Representative may direct, for the protection and preservation of the property related to this contract, which is in the possession of the Contractor and in which the BOARD has or may acquire an interest. 2.43 TREATMENT OF ASSETS Title to all property furnished by the BOARD shall remain with the BOARD. Title to all property furnished by the Contractor, for the cost of which the Contractor is entitled to be reimbursed as a direct item of cost under this contract, shall pass to and vest in the Contractor. 2.44 WAIVER Waiver of any default or breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default or breach. Any waiver shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Agreement unless stated to be such in writing and signed by Authorized Representative of the Board. 17 ATTACHMENT I: ATTORNEY’S CERTIFICATION PUBLIC WORKS BOARD CONTRACTOR: City of Arlington Agreement Number: PC26-96410-025 I, , hereby certify: I am an attorney at law admitted to practice in the State of Washington and the duly appointed attorney of City of Arlington (the CONTRACTOR); and By my initials below, I acknowledge that one of the following is true: I have also examined any and all documents and records which are pertinent to the Agreement, including the application requesting this financial assistance. As to questions of fact material to the opinions expressed herein, I have relied upon the certifications and representations of the Contractor without undertaking to verify the same by independent investigation. Based on the foregoing, it is my opinion that: 1. The CONTRACTOR is a public body, properly constituted and operating under the laws of the state of Washington, empowered to receive and expend federal, state and local funds, to enter into an Agreement with the state of Washington, and to receive and expen d the funds involved to accomplish the objectives set forth in their application. 2. The CONTRACTOR is empowered to accept the BOARD’s financial assistance and to provide for repayment of the loan as set forth in the Agreement. 3. There is currently no litigation in existence seeking to enjoin the commencement or completion of the above - described public facilities project or to enjoin the CONTRACTOR from repaying any loan extended by the BOARD with respect to such project. The CONTRACTOR is not a party to litigation which will materially affect its ability to repay such loan on the terms contained in the Agreement. 4. Assumption of this obligation would not exceed statutory and administrative rule debt limitations applicable to the CONTRACTOR. Signature of Attorney Date Name City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill NB #4 Attachment February 2, 2026 Title VI Language Access Plan (LAP) Draft Title VI Language Access Plan Public Works Transportation; Jim Kelly, Director EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Title VI Language Access Plan (LAP) to comply with WSDOT Title IV Plan and USDOT Standard Title VI/Non-Discrimination Assurances. Compliance with federal non-discrimination policies and laws are required for the City to receive federal transportation funding. Entities that receive federal financial assistance are required under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d) to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs and activities regardless of race, color, or national origin. Since WSDOT is Arlington’s Certifying Agency, we comply with the WSDOT Title VI Plan. The city is now required as part of this process to have a Language Access Plan in place assuring that we will continue to comply with their Title VI Plan and also certify to the federal government that we will comply with the USDOT Standard Title VI/Non-Discrimination Assurances. ALTERNATIVES: Remand to staff for additional information. I authorize staff to adopt the Title VI Language Access Plan to comply with WSDOT Title VI requirements and the USDOT Standard Title VI Assurances. Title VI Language Access Plan (LAP) January 2026 Title VI Specialist Katy Shores, Engineering Admin Specialist III kshores@arlingtonwa.gov Introduction and Purpose In compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency”, The City of Arlington has established the following LAP to ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) may access all resources and services provided by our agencies. An “LEP individual” is defined as “an individual who does not speak English as their primary language and who has a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English.” The purpose of this plan is to establish strategies for interacting with and providing services to LEP individuals in order to ensure equity and inclusion across beneficiaries. To prepare for the development of this plan, the City conducted a Four-Factor Analysis which balanced the following factors: 1. The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by the program or recipient. 2. The frequency with which LEP persons come into contact with the agency. 3. The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the agency. 4. The resources available to the recipient for LEP outreach, as well as the costs associated with that outreach. Persons Charged with Implementing the Plan The Administration Department will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of this plan. In addition to their oversight duties, this group will be charged with maintaining and updating this plan as the need for changes arise. The group will report to the Human Resources Director and will need to coordinate with other City departments in order to carry out the directives established by this plan. Part I: Results of the Four-Factor Analysis Factor 1: The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by the program or recipient. To determine the number of LEP individuals in the City of Arlington, the city relies on data provided by the United States Census Bureau’s July 1, 2023, population estimate for the City of Arlington to determine language speakers as a percent of total population. Other than English, the most common languages spoken within the City of Arlington are: Rank Language Number of People Percent of Population 1 Spanish 992 5% 2 Vietnamese 82 <1% 3 Tagalog 56 <1% 4 Russian/Polish/Slavic 40 <1% In regard to written translation of vital documents, many federal agencies have specified a ‘safe harbor’ in determining compliance. The ‘safe harbor’ is typically when a language is spoken by 1,000 people or 5% or more of the population, whichever figure is less. Applying this standard to the City of Arlington yields Spanish as the language above the ‘safe harbor’ threshold. For this LEP population, both oral and written language assistance services will be provided free of charge. As our community evolves over time, we will continue to monitor shifts in our population’s demographics through biennial assessments to ensure that we are adequately tracking LEP representation in our jurisdiction. We will also work to identify LEP individuals in our normal encounters with the public by: • Responding to individual requests for language assistance services. • Relying on self-identification by the non-English speaker or LEP individual. • Asking open-ended questions to determine language proficiency. Factor 2: The frequency with which LEP persons come into contact with the agency. The City of Arlington does not currently possess information specifically relating to the frequency of interactions between LEP individuals and City staff or programs. The City is in the process of contracting for a third-party translation service. Once this has begun analyzing requests for translation and interpretation services to determine which languages are requested most frequently can start. The City will expect to update this particular metric in subsequent updates to the LEP Plan. It is our understanding that these LEP individuals may interact with our staff in a number of ways • Outreach programs • Public meetings and hearings • Public access to agency websites • Agency brochures. • Written materials or complaints • In person interactions Factor 3: The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the program to people’s lives. The City of Arlington provides a number of services that are important to LEP individuals. These include water/sewer utility services; police services; transportation projects, airport services, and so on. The City prioritizes language access in programs related to law enforcement, transportation projects, and access to basic services. Factor 4: The resources available to the recipient for LEP outreach, as well as the costs associated with that outreach. The City contracts with several different providers for language access services. For transportation projects the city contracts with outside consultants to translate vital documents for outreach. For phone-based interpretation and police interaction, Language Line is utilized. The City is currently working on contracting with a third-party for in person communication services. Until the contracting is complete the City utilizes help from online applications and responds to any request as they arise. Lastly the City also utilizes an embedded Google translate tool to make its website accessible in different languages. This tool can also translate documents that are posted on the website. Part II: Implementation Plan Identifying LEP Individuals and Languages Served The data assembled in the above Four-Factor Analysis indicates that Spanish is the most prevalent non-English language spoken in Arlington. In addition to the data from United States Census Bureau, the City will continue to explore ways to gather additional data regarding languages spoken by customers and will continue to explore other sources of data that may serve to confirm or expand the assumptions in this plan (e.g. data from the Arlington School District). Language Assistance Measures Currently, the City offers four main language assistance measures to customers: • Telephonic interpretation • Translation of vital information • Translation of non-vital information • Fulfilling reasonable modification requests for translation or interpretation, particularly for critical services (e.g. Police). The City is currently in the process of contracting for in-person interpretation and currently responds to any request for services as they arise. Staff Training on LEP Policies and Services Currently, key staff responsible for the implementation of Title VI programs are trained on understanding Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and LEP responsibilities. The City has previously used training materials provided by the Washington State Department of Transportation to accomplish these baseline trainings with the Title VI Coordinator and others likely to come into contact with Title VI programming (e.g. Human Resources, and Finance staff). Additionally, the City’s police department has a short training regarding how to use Language Line services. That training is provided to police employees likely to interact with customers who may need telephonic interpretation services. Implementation of this plan will require all staff to receive training on the importance of providing meaningful information and services to LEP communities in a way that they can understand. This training will be included as part of New Employee orientation and refresher training will be provided periodically at staff meetings. After completion of the training, staff should understand: • Their obligation to provide meaningful access to information and services to LEP individuals. • The protocol for handling various encounters with LEP individuals, as established by this plan. • How to use the Staff Directory to identify approved bilingual staff members. • How to access translated materials and interpretation services for provision to LEP individuals. Additional training may be provided to bilingual staff members on specific terminology, ethics, and regionalisms to ensure effective communication with LEP individuals. In order for a staff member to be approved as bilingual, they must pass a standardized language proficiency exam (or some other assessment of proficiency). Guidelines for Interpreters and Translators While no formal certification is required for interpreters, translators, or staff members listed in the Staff Directory as bilingual, individuals providing interpretation or translation services must: • Be proficient in and able to communicate information accurately in both English and the other applicable language • Understand agency-specific terminology • Act in an ethical manner and ensure confidentiality and impartiality in their role as an interpreter/translator • Be aware of regionalisms and be able to provide the most appropriate interpretation in a consistent manner. LEP individuals may bring another individual to provide interpretation who has not been approved for formal interpretation services by the agency. During these encounters, staff will: • Inform the LEP individual that free language assistance services are provided • Use a formal interpreter instead of the informal interpreter, especially if the subject matter of the encounter may be prone to conflicts of interest • Avoid the use of minors as informal interpreters unless there is an extreme and immediate need. When working with an interpreter, formal or informal, agency staff should: • Explain to the interpreter the purpose of the communication and the information to be conveyed • Briefly explain to the interpreter technical terms that may come up during the communication • Avoid the use of acronyms, double negatives, and contractions • Speak in short sentences that contain one idea at a time • Talk to the applicant and not to the interpreter • Enunciate clearly and wait for the interpreter to finish before continuing to the next idea. Notifying Customers To ensure that members of the LEP communities are aware of the free language assistance services provided to them, the City provides notice to LEP individuals of the availability of language services in the following ways: • Stating in outreach documents that language services are available. • Providing a complaint form and procedure for any complainant who believes they may have been discriminated against in a City program or service. The City is looking to expand notice to LEP individuals by starting to do some of the following: • Signs and notices that free language assistance is available with advance notice. • Update non-English content on the City’s website. • Work with community-based organizations and other partners to inform LEP individuals of the language assistance services the City provides. • Provide information as to the availability of translation services (free of charge) when advertising for public meetings and hearings. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the LEP Plan The City of Arlington will assess the effectiveness of this LEP Plan on a biennial basis and update it as appropriate. The assessment will include reviewing the use of language assistance measures, reviewing population and other data regarding languages spoken in Arlington, and speaking with staff members who interact with people who do not speak English or prefer to interact in a language other than English on process improvements and best practices.