Loading...
22-105973-TIR-01-12-23 PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Creekwood 3XXXX 21st Ave SW Federal Way, Washington 98023 City of Federal Way File No. TBD Prepared for: Alamani LLC 1631 15TH Ave W STE 318 Seattle, WA 98119 January 3, 2023 Our Job No. 22154 01/03/23 22154-TIR.docx TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 – Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet Figure 2 – Site Location Figure 3 – Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics Figure 4 – Soils 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements 2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements 2.3 Analysis of the Minimum Requirements 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology 4.3 Performance Standards 4.4 Flow Control System 4.5 Water Quality System 4.6 On-site BMP’s 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION (CSWPP) ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan Analysis and Design B. Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill (SWPPS) Plan Design 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Tab 1.0 22154-TIR.docx 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Creekwood Plat is a single-family residential project that will subdivide the existing TPN 1221039037 into 20 separate lots. The project site is located within a portion of Section 12, Township 21 N, Range 3 E, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Federal Way, King County Washington. Onsite vegetation is mostly forested with many native trees ranging from saplings to larger trunks. Elevations on site range from 276 at the Northeastern corner of the site down to 130 at the Southwestern corner and along the stream at the Southern border. The site is hilly and slopes from the Northern property line to the south with a large ravine in the center of the site that feeds several streams and wetlands. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service maps the site as containing Alderwood Gravelly sandy loam with slopes from 0-8%, 8-15% and 15-30%. Additionally, there are Alderwood and Kitsap soils classified as very steep. The Geotechnical Report prepared by others is included in Section 6.1 of this report. Please refer to Figure 3 within this section for the visual USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service map. The site contains several critical areas that will be included in separate tracts along with the lots, open space and drainage facilities. These critical areas include Steep slopes, Wetlands and Streams. The Critical Areas report is included in Section 6.2 of this report. Please also refer to Figure 4 that shows the Critical Areas as defined by King County iMap. Onsite construction will include a roadway with a vertical curb and sidewalk, a Drainage tract with a detention vault and water quality facility. Utilities for this site include catchbasins and storm pipe, sewer facilities and water mains. Water will enter the site through Road A from the existing 21st AVE SW. Sewer and Storm outlets will connect to existing sewer and storm lines that exist on site in easements the travel from the north to the south of the site. Frontage improvements involved with the site include a connection to the existing road stub off 22nd AVE SW along the northern boundary of the site. Additionally, Road A will connect to the existing 21st AVE SW with curb returns and sidewalk. Stormwater runoff generated in the existing condition flows south and collects within Stream Z along the southern boundary of the site before leaving the site travelling Southeast. This Stream Z is tributary to Lakota Creek. In the developed condition, runoff will be collected within the roadways and routed to a single detention vault. This vault will outlet to a water quality facility before connecting to an existing storm pipe that outlets directly within Stream Z before leaving the site. The project will be graded outside of the critical areas to balance cuts and fills so that all lots will be level flat pads ready for home building. Site drainage designs are based on the 2021 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). Please refer to Section 4.0 of this TIR for further details regarding the drainage facility design. Alamani LLC. (206) 910-9728 1631 15th Ave E STE. 318 Seattle, WA 98119 Barry Talkington Barghausen Consulting Engineers (425) 251-6222 Preliminary Plat of Creekwood 25 N 5 E 34 3xxxx 21st Ave SW Federal Way, WA 98023 MSE WALL *NO SWDM ADJUSTMENTS REQUESTED* City of Federal Way Dumas Bay Drainage Basin Conservation Flow Control Alderwood gravelly sandy loam Alderwood gravelly sandy loam Alderwood gravelly sandy loam Alderwood and kitsap soils 0% - 8% slopes 8% - 15% slopes 15% - 30% slopes Very Steep Till type soils Constructed Site 1 Per SWPPP and CESCL TBD TBD TBD To be provided with Final Engineering N/A 2.54 AC 3.78 AC 3.78 AC Vault TBD Proprietary Filter Vault 12/22/2022 Horizontal: Scale: Vertical: For: Title: V I C I N I T Y M A P Job Number N.T.S.N/A 22154 DATE: 11/11/22 Creekwood Federal Way, Washington P:\22000s\22154\exhibit\graphics\22154 vmap.cdr RE FER ENC E: MapQuest (2022) SITE Title:For: 1 22154 - 1 PREDEVELOPED BASIN MAPPREDEVELOPED BASIN MAPSCALE: 1"=50'PREDEVELOPED BASIN BREAKDOWN: Horizontal: Scale: Vertical: For: Title: S O I L S U RV E Y M A P Job Number N.T.S.N/A 22154 DATE: 11/11/22 Creekwood Federal Way, Washington P:\22000s\22154\exhibit\graphics\22154 soil.cdr HSG B B B B RE FER ENCE: US DA, Natural Resources Conservation Service LEG END: AgB = Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0-8% slopes SITE AgC = Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8-15% slopes AgD = Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15-30% slopes AkF = Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep Horizontal: Scale: Vertical: For: Title: A S S E S S O R M A P Job Number N.T.S.N/A 22154 DATE: 11/11/22 Creekwood Federal Way, Washington P:\22000s\22154\exhibit\graphics\22154 amap.cdr SITE RE FER ENC E: King County Department of Assessments (Feb. 2017) Horizontal: Scale: Vertical: For: Title: F E M A M A P Job Number N.T.S.N/A 22154 DATE: 11/11/22 Creekwood Federal Way, Washington P:\22000s\22154\exhibit\graphics\22154 fema.cdr REFER EN CE: Federal Emergency Management Agency (Portion of Map 53033C1230G, Aug. 2020) SITE L E GEND Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.ZONE X OTHER AREAS Horizontal: Scale: Vertical: For: Title: S E N S I T I V E A R E A S M A P Job Number N.T.S.N/A 22154 DATE: 11/11/22 Creekwood Federal Way, Washington P:\22000s\22154\exhibit\graphics\22154 sens.cdr SITE RE FER ENC E: King County iM AP (2022) Tab 2.0 22154-TIR.docx 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge at the Natural Location. Response: The site contains one threshold discharge area that collects within Stream Z along the southern boundary of the site. Stormwater will be directed to this stream through an existing drainage pipe that currently routes stormwater down the steep ravine on site. Core Requirement No. 2: Off-Site Analysis. Response: The off-site analysis has been included within Section 3.0 of this Technical Information Report. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control. Response: All runoff will be routed to a single detention facility sized for Conservation Flow Control which matches the historic durations for 50% of 2-year through 50-year peaks and matches historic 2-year and 10-year peaks. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System. Response: The conveyance and backwater analysis will be designed per the 2021 KCSWDM for the proposed storm drainage system and will be included in Section 5.0 of this Technical Information Report at final engineering. Core Requirement No. 5: Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: Temporary erosion control measures for this project will include: stabilized construction entrances, perimeter runoff control, cover practices, sedimentation facilities, and construction sequencing. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: The City of Federal Way will own and maintain the public drainage facilities for this project. An Operations and Maintenance Manual, if required, will be provided in Section 10.0 of this Technical Information Report. Core Requirement No. 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability. Response: Bonding will be completed as required by Federal Way using their Bond Quantity Worksheet at final engineering. Core Requirement No. 8: Water Quality. Response: The project is proposing a modular wetland or an approved equal facility to meet Enhanced Basic in accordance with the 2021 KCSWDM Core Requirement No. 9: Flow Control BMPs. Response: Lots will use reduced footprints under the Reduced Impervious Surface credit BMP. All disturbed onsite soils will be amended per the 2021 KCSWDM requirements. Perforated pipe connections will be provided for all roof stub outs. Please see Section 4.6 for a more detailed discussion of the Flow Control BMP’s selected. 22154-TIR.docx 2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements Special Requirement No. 1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements. Response: This is special requirement does not apply to this project. Special Requirement No. 2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation. Response: The proposed development is not located within the 100-year floodplain. Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities. Response: The project does not rely on an existing flood protection facility, nor proposed to modify or construct a new flood protection facility; therefore, this special requirement does not apply. Special Requirement No. 4: Source Control. Response: Source controls, such as covered dumpsters, will be applied to the project as applicable. Special Requirement No. 5: Oil Control. Response: This site is not classified as a high-use site given the criteria found in the 2021 KCSWDM, therefore no special oil control treatment is necessary. Tab 3.0 22154-TIR.docx 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS This section contains the following information: Task 1 – Study Area Definitions and Maps Task 2 – Resource Review Task 3 – Field Inspection Task 4 – Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions 22154-TIR.docx TASK 1 – STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS The Creekwood Plat is a single-family residential project that will subdivide the existing TPN 1221039037 into 20 separate lots. The project site is located within a portion of Section 12, Township 21 N, Range 3 E, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Federal Way, King County Washington. Onsite vegetation is mostly forested with many native trees ranging from saplings to larger trunks. Elevations on site range from 276 at the Northeastern corner of the site down to 130 at the Southwestern corner and along the stream at the Southern border. The site is hilly and slopes from the Northern property line to the south with a large ravine in the center of the site that feeds several streams and wetlands. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service maps the site as containing Alderwood Gravelly sandy loam with slopes from 0-8%, 8-15% and 15-30%. Additionally, there are Alderwood and Kitsap soils classified as very steep. The Geotechnical Report prepared by others is included in Section 6.1 of this report. Please refer to Figure 3 in Section 1.0 within this section for the visual USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service map. The site contains several critical areas that will be included in separate tracts along with the lots, open space and drainage facilities. These critical areas include Steep slopes, Wetlands and Streams. The Critical Areas report is included in Section 6.2 of this report. Please also refer to Figure 4 in Section 1.0 that shows the Critical Areas as defined by King County iMap. UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS The project site is located on a slope that would have received drainage from offsite properties to the North during historic forested conditions. The properties to the north have since been developed and now discharge through a tightlined 24" storm drainage line that continues through the site to the Lakota Creek at the southern boundary of the property. There is an open ended drain pipe that was previously used for drainage from the northern properties that is now mostly defunct with the new tightlined storm pipe. The site is situated at a relative high point to the surrounding areas and therefore there is no upstream drainage expected to contribute onto the site. Title:For: 1 22154 - 1 DOWNSTREAM BASIN MAPDOWNSTREAM BASIN MAPSCALE: 1"=100'1234567/89 22154-TIR.docx TASK 2 – RESOURCE REVIEW Resources were reviewed within 1 mile downstream of the discharge basins. The following were reviewed: · Adopted Basin Plans: The site is split by two drainage basins, The Lower Cedar River and Soos Creek. · Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report: This is not applicable. · Critical Drainage Area Maps: This is not applicable. · Floodplain and Floodway FEMA Maps: Please see the attached FEMA Map (Section 1.0) utilized for this analysis. As indicated on the map, the site is located in Zone X and is outside of the 500- year flood plain. · Other Off-Site Analysis Reports: A site investigation was conducted in preparation of this Level 1 offsite Drainage Analysis. The United States Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation Service Map is also provided. See Figure 3 – Soils Map in Section 1.0. · Sensitive Areas Folios: Based on a review of the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folios, there is a steep slope region within most of the southern portion of the site as well as the Northwest corner. This steep slope area extends to the Northwest and the East off site. Please see Figure 7 in Section 1.0 of the TIR for more information. · Road Drainage Problems: Through King County iMap there were two Drainage complaints from property owners to the North. These complaints were regarding erosion within the site due to an open ended pipe that flows from the north directly onto the site at the time of the complaint. These complaints have been closed and a tightlined storm line has been added through the site to directly route outflow to the stream located on site. There are no more recent drainage complaints related to the site or downstream. · United States Department of Agriculture King County Soils Survey: Based on the Soils Map for this area (see figure 3 – Soils Map Section 1.0), the site is located in the soils configuration known as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. · Wetland Inventory Map: Per the Critical areas report completed by Soundview Consultants there are three Category II wetlands and one unregulated wetland on the site. See the complete report included in section 6.2. · Migrating River Studies: This is not applicable. 22154-TIR.docx TASK 3 – FIELD INSPECTION Level 1 Off-site Drainage Analysis: The field reconnaissance for a Level 1 Off-site Drainage Analysis was conducted on November 21, 2022. Runoff generally sheet flows from the north/northeast corner of the site across the site to the south before collecting within the stream along the southern border of the site. There is an open ended pipe at the northern boundary of the site where an old detention pond used to outflow onto the site. This pipe appears to have caused massive erosion within the site outside of the normal erosion caused by the existing stream on site. The open pipe no longer functions as the outflow for the offsite detention pond as a tightlined 24" stormline has been constructed to convey offsite stormwater through the site without impacting the existing steep slopes. When water leaves the tightlined storm pipe it enters Lakota creek which flows from East to West across the southern boundary of the site. The creek leaves the site at the southwest corner and crosses SW Dash Point Road before reaching the 1/4 mile point just to the West of the road. There are no drainage complaints within this area. 22154-TIR.docx TASK 4 – DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS (LEVEL 1) East Basin Downstream Drainage Analysis: In the Developed Condition stormwater will be detained onsite within an underground detention vault and treated for water quality using a Modular Wetland System (or approved equal) system. Stormwater will be conveyed to the tightline storm system located onsite. Since the system will discharge into an existing tightline storm system before it outflows into the tributary to Lakota Creek there are no expected downstream issues. The detention vault will be sized for Conservation Flow control which will mitigate any potential erosion concerns that may be conceived. PICTURE 1 PICTURE 2 PICTURE 3 PICTURE 4 PICTURE 5 PICTURE 6 PICTURE 7 PICTURE 8 PICTURE 9 Tab 4.0 22154-TIR.docx 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN This section contains the following information: 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology The project site in the existing conditions consists of one threshold discharge area. This basin conveys runoff flows down the ravine located in the center of the site and flows to the unnamed stream that flows though the site. There is an existing 24" storm drainage pipe that runs down the ravine within an existing storm easement. This existing 24" pipe conveys runoff from existing detention facilities north of the project site directly to the stream that crosses the site. For further details on the downstream drainage course see the Off-Site Analysis in Section 3.0 of this report. The topography onsite is sharply sloped with few flat areas. The site is mostly forested and the onsite soils are considered Alderwood gravelly loam with 0-30% and very steep slopes. For all the drainage calculations the existing site will be modeled using historic conditions per the 2021 KCSWDM, which is till forest. Please see the attached predeveloped basin map for more information. 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology After construction is complete the Creekwood Plat will create 20 new single-family residences. New impervious surfaces will include roads, sidewalks, driveways, and roof areas. The project will be providing landscaped pervious areas open space, critical areas tracts and a drainage tract. A single stormwater detention vault will be constructed to detain runoff generated by the site. A conveyance system consisting of catch basins and storm pipes will be constructed in the roadways to collect drainage from impervious surfaces and lots. These will be conveyed to the drainage Tract B. All rooftops areas are to be routed to the front of the lots and tightlined to the detention vault. Water quality will be provided by a modular wetland or approved equal downstream of the detention vault. The developed drainage basin can be summarized as follows: Impervious Pervious Total Area 3.68 AC(1) 1.99 AC(2) 5.67 AC Notes: 1. Roads and Sidewalks = 1.52 AC Lot Area @ 60% impervious = 2.16 AC 2. Modeled as till grass = 1.99 AC Due to the large amount of slope present within the site a portion of the graded area will be bypassed because of the relative elevation to the drainage facility. The bypass area can be summarized as follows: 22154-TIR.docx Proposed Existing 0.45 AC(1) 0.45 AC(2) Notes: 1. Modeled as till grass 2. Modeled as historic conditions See Section 4.4 for a complete discussion of the Flow Control facilities and Section 4.5 for the Water Quality design calculations. 4.3 Performance Standards On-site soils are till soils not suitable for infiltration. Please refer to the Geotechnical Engineering report included in Section 6.1. The WWHM2012 program was used to size the detention facility. The project is in a Conservation Flow Control area therefore the detention facility will be sized to meet Conservation Flow Control. Please refer to the WWHM2012 calculations located in Section 4.4 of this report. The project is re quired to provide Enhanced Basic Water Quality and will do so via a modular wetland facility or approved equal. See Section 4.5 for more detail. 4.4 Flow Control System Flow control for the site is provided by an underground detention vault located in Tract B near the center of the site. WWHM2012 was used to size the facility for Conservation Flow Control based on the requirements of the 2021 KCSWDM. Please refer to the WWHM2012 calculations located within this section of the report. The required and provided volumes for the detention vault are as follows: Tract B – Detention Vault Volume Required Provided 94,864 CF 99,840 CF In addition to the improvements that will be routed back to the detention facility there are several areas of slope that will be cleared to create a level site. The runoff created from these new slopes cannot be routed back to the detention facility due to the relative elevation at the bottom of the slope. Therefore, this new slope will be treated as bypass. The following requirements for the target surface to be considered bypass in the 2021 KCSWDM. 1. The point of convergence for the basin and the bypass area is the same. 2. The increase in the existing site conditions 100-year peak discharge is 0.16 cfs which is less than the maximum of 0.4 cfs allowed by the KCSWDM. The existing 100-year peak is 0.06 cfs and the proposed 100-year peak is 0.22 cfs. 22154-TIR.docx 3. The runoff from the proposed bypass area will not significantly impact the downstream basin since the newly graded slope will be shallower than the current slope in most areas. Existing slopes have been found as steep as 1:1 in places these will be flattened to 2:1 slopes to decrease the erosion potential of the slopes. 4. Water quality requirements will be met, see Section 4.5 for a discussion of this requirement. 5. The detention vault has been sized to mitigate this proposed bypass area. The sizing of the vault is discussed in this section below. The detention vault has been sized to mitigate this bypassed area. The vault has been sized to match predeveloped durations for 50% of the 2-year up to the 50-year peak flows, and the 2-year and 10-year peak flows have been matched. The peak flows for the predeveloped and the mitigated developed conditions are as follows: Design Flow Rates (CFS) Peak Flow Return Period Predeveloped Mitigated Developed 2-year 0.186 0.134 10-year 0.352 0.256 4.5 Water Quality System Water quality for this project will be sized in accordance with the 2021 KCSWDM for Enhanced Basic water quality. A facility will be provided downstream of the vault that will provide the treatment to meet the Enhanced Basic requirements. The modular wetland system has been approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology for their General Use Level Designation (GULD). This means that the system has undergone the testing required by the WSDOE for them to recommend general use of this product to meet the Enhance Basic requirements. Per the KCSWDM the system has been sized to treat the 2-year release rate from the Detention vault. Please see the basin breakdown and release rates for each basin area: Impervious Pervious Total Area 3.68 AC(1) 1.99 AC(2) 5.67 AC The 2-year release rate for this detention vault is 0.134 cfs. The water quality system is fitted with an internal weir to bypass any flows higher than the 2-year flows up to the unmitigated 100-year release rate of 0.459. The bypass area for this project includes the newly graded slopes south of the larger retaining wall that spans the ravine and the to the west of the cul-de-sac. This area is classified as Pollution Generating Pervious Surface (PGPS) and therefore is exempt from providing any additional water quality mitigation. The Surface area exemption allows for any bypass area that is PGPS less than 0.75 acres to be exempt from water quality requirements. The bypass area is 0.45 acres and therefore exempt. 22154-TIR.docx The GULD sizing information for the Modular Wetland has been included in this section. Detailed sizing of the MWS will be provided during final engineering. Alternative methods of providing water quality may also be utilized during final engineering if accepted by the city. 4.6 Onsite BMP’s The 2021 King County Surface Water Design Manuals (KCSWDM) requires that all projects apply all feasible BMP’s to both individual lots and road improvements. Below is a discussion of the required BMP’s and their feasibility based on the characteristics of the site: Individual Lot BMP’s: Based on section 1.2.9.2.1 of the KCSWDM the following BMP’s were considered infeasible. First, full dispersion is deemed infeasible because of the lack of preserved forest area with slope flatter than 20% within the site. Nex full infiltration, partial infiltration, bioretention and permeable pavement were deemed infeasible due to the till soils present on site. The next feasible BMP on the list is the reduced impervious surface credit. This BMP reduces the allowable impervious area per lot by 10 percent. Each lot will be limited to 50% impervious coverage at the time of construction. In addition to the selected BMP, all on site soils will be amended per the KCSWDM and all roof drain stub out connections will be designed with perforated pipe connections. Road Improvement BMP’s: Based on section 1.2.9.3.2 of the KCSWDM the suggested BMP’s were reviewed and deemed infeasible. First full dispersion was deemed infeasible because there is not enough retained forest land on site with slopes flatter than 20% to provide a natural flow path. Full infiltration, limited infiltration, bioretention, and permeable pavement were all deemed infeasible due to the lack of infiltrative soils on site. Basic dispersion was also deemed infeasible due to the lack of retained forestland to provide a natural vegetated flow path. On site soils will be amended per the KCSWDM. Title:For: 1 22154 - 1 PREDEVELOPED BASIN MAPPREDEVELOPED BASIN MAPSCALE: 1"=50'PREDEVELOPED BASIN BREAKDOWN:Figure 1 Title:For: 1 22154 - 1 DEVELOPED BASIN MAP DEVELOPED BASIN MAPSCALE: 1"=50'DEVELOPED BASIN BREAKDOWN:Figure 2 WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT Figure 3 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:22:51 PM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:22154-Preliminary Site Name:Creekwood Site Address: City: Report Date:11/10/2022 Gage:Seatac Data Start:1948/10/01 Data End:2009/09/30 Timestep:15 Minute Precip Scale:1.000 Version Date:2019/09/13 Version:4.2.17 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Year 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:22:51 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat 6.32 Pervious Total 6.32 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 6.32 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:22:51 PM Page 4 Mitigated Land Use Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 2.09 Pervious Total 2.09 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 1.52 ROOF TOPS FLAT 2.16 Impervious Total 3.68 Basin Total 5.77 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Vault 1 Vault 1 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:22:51 PM Page 5 Basin 2 Bypass:Yes GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Steep 0.45 Pervious Total 0.45 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 0.45 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:22:51 PM Page 6 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:22:51 PM Page 7 Mitigated Routing Vault 1 Width:77 ft. Length:77 ft. Depth:17 ft. Discharge Structure Riser Height:16 ft. Riser Diameter:18 in. Orifice 1 Diameter:1 in.Elevation:0 ft. Orifice 2 Diameter:1.25 in.Elevation:8 ft. Orifice 3 Diameter:2 in.Elevation:12 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Vault Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.136 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.1889 0.136 0.025 0.011 0.000 0.3778 0.136 0.051 0.016 0.000 0.5667 0.136 0.077 0.020 0.000 0.7556 0.136 0.102 0.023 0.000 0.9444 0.136 0.128 0.026 0.000 1.1333 0.136 0.154 0.028 0.000 1.3222 0.136 0.180 0.031 0.000 1.5111 0.136 0.205 0.033 0.000 1.7000 0.136 0.231 0.035 0.000 1.8889 0.136 0.257 0.037 0.000 2.0778 0.136 0.282 0.039 0.000 2.2667 0.136 0.308 0.040 0.000 2.4556 0.136 0.334 0.042 0.000 2.6444 0.136 0.359 0.044 0.000 2.8333 0.136 0.385 0.045 0.000 3.0222 0.136 0.411 0.047 0.000 3.2111 0.136 0.437 0.048 0.000 3.4000 0.136 0.462 0.050 0.000 3.5889 0.136 0.488 0.051 0.000 3.7778 0.136 0.514 0.052 0.000 3.9667 0.136 0.539 0.054 0.000 4.1556 0.136 0.565 0.055 0.000 4.3444 0.136 0.591 0.056 0.000 4.5333 0.136 0.617 0.057 0.000 4.7222 0.136 0.642 0.059 0.000 4.9111 0.136 0.668 0.060 0.000 5.1000 0.136 0.694 0.061 0.000 5.2889 0.136 0.719 0.062 0.000 5.4778 0.136 0.745 0.063 0.000 5.6667 0.136 0.771 0.064 0.000 5.8556 0.136 0.797 0.065 0.000 6.0444 0.136 0.822 0.066 0.000 6.2333 0.136 0.848 0.067 0.000 6.4222 0.136 0.874 0.068 0.000 6.6111 0.136 0.899 0.069 0.000 6.8000 0.136 0.925 0.070 0.000 6.9889 0.136 0.951 0.071 0.000 94,864 CF 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:22:51 PM Page 8 7.1778 0.136 0.977 0.072 0.000 7.3667 0.136 1.002 0.073 0.000 7.5556 0.136 1.028 0.074 0.000 7.7444 0.136 1.054 0.075 0.000 7.9333 0.136 1.079 0.076 0.000 8.1222 0.136 1.105 0.092 0.000 8.3111 0.136 1.131 0.101 0.000 8.5000 0.136 1.156 0.109 0.000 8.6889 0.136 1.182 0.115 0.000 8.8778 0.136 1.208 0.120 0.000 9.0667 0.136 1.234 0.125 0.000 9.2556 0.136 1.259 0.130 0.000 9.4444 0.136 1.285 0.134 0.000 9.6333 0.136 1.311 0.138 0.000 9.8222 0.136 1.336 0.142 0.000 10.011 0.136 1.362 0.146 0.000 10.200 0.136 1.388 0.149 0.000 10.389 0.136 1.414 0.153 0.000 10.578 0.136 1.439 0.156 0.000 10.767 0.136 1.465 0.159 0.000 10.956 0.136 1.491 0.162 0.000 11.144 0.136 1.516 0.165 0.000 11.333 0.136 1.542 0.168 0.000 11.522 0.136 1.568 0.171 0.000 11.711 0.136 1.594 0.174 0.000 11.900 0.136 1.619 0.177 0.000 12.089 0.136 1.645 0.212 0.000 12.278 0.136 1.671 0.240 0.000 12.467 0.136 1.696 0.259 0.000 12.656 0.136 1.722 0.275 0.000 12.844 0.136 1.748 0.290 0.000 13.033 0.136 1.774 0.303 0.000 13.222 0.136 1.799 0.315 0.000 13.411 0.136 1.825 0.327 0.000 13.600 0.136 1.851 0.337 0.000 13.789 0.136 1.876 0.348 0.000 13.978 0.136 1.902 0.357 0.000 14.167 0.136 1.928 0.367 0.000 14.356 0.136 1.954 0.376 0.000 14.544 0.136 1.979 0.385 0.000 14.733 0.136 2.005 0.393 0.000 14.922 0.136 2.031 0.401 0.000 15.111 0.136 2.056 0.410 0.000 15.300 0.136 2.082 0.417 0.000 15.489 0.136 2.108 0.425 0.000 15.678 0.136 2.133 0.433 0.000 15.867 0.136 2.159 0.440 0.000 16.056 0.136 2.185 0.655 0.000 16.244 0.136 2.211 2.332 0.000 16.433 0.136 2.236 4.450 0.000 16.622 0.136 2.262 6.000 0.000 16.811 0.136 2.288 6.857 0.000 17.000 0.136 2.313 7.568 0.000 17.189 0.136 2.339 8.215 0.000 17.378 0.000 0.000 8.812 0.000 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:22:51 PM Page 9 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:6.32 Total Impervious Area:0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:2.54 Total Impervious Area:3.68 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.185813 5 year 0.291827 10 year 0.351907 25 year 0.415556 50 year 0.454942 100 year 0.488442 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.134102 5 year 0.202971 10 year 0.255549 25 year 0.33018 50 year 0.391913 100 year 0.459067 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.183 0.154 1950 0.228 0.163 1951 0.409 0.350 1952 0.129 0.074 1953 0.104 0.116 1954 0.160 0.094 1955 0.255 0.101 1956 0.203 0.174 1957 0.164 0.120 1958 0.185 0.116 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:23:23 PM Page 10 1959 0.158 0.087 1960 0.277 0.213 1961 0.156 0.163 1962 0.097 0.067 1963 0.133 0.104 1964 0.176 0.138 1965 0.126 0.160 1966 0.121 0.094 1967 0.253 0.163 1968 0.158 0.113 1969 0.154 0.113 1970 0.127 0.116 1971 0.136 0.125 1972 0.305 0.215 1973 0.138 0.161 1974 0.150 0.117 1975 0.204 0.130 1976 0.147 0.101 1977 0.018 0.069 1978 0.129 0.133 1979 0.078 0.067 1980 0.289 0.249 1981 0.115 0.095 1982 0.222 0.246 1983 0.199 0.107 1984 0.123 0.080 1985 0.073 0.082 1986 0.322 0.152 1987 0.285 0.200 1988 0.112 0.084 1989 0.073 0.074 1990 0.596 0.310 1991 0.359 0.224 1992 0.138 0.126 1993 0.144 0.078 1994 0.048 0.067 1995 0.207 0.157 1996 0.435 0.327 1997 0.364 0.348 1998 0.082 0.108 1999 0.341 0.233 2000 0.144 0.119 2001 0.026 0.065 2002 0.157 0.158 2003 0.201 0.140 2004 0.260 0.304 2005 0.187 0.107 2006 0.220 0.167 2007 0.442 0.410 2008 0.570 0.297 2009 0.280 0.186 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.5956 0.4102 2 0.5703 0.3501 3 0.4421 0.3481 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:23:23 PM Page 11 4 0.4354 0.3275 5 0.4092 0.3097 6 0.3640 0.3040 7 0.3586 0.2970 8 0.3413 0.2487 9 0.3221 0.2457 10 0.3047 0.2331 11 0.2888 0.2244 12 0.2849 0.2151 13 0.2800 0.2128 14 0.2767 0.2005 15 0.2601 0.1860 16 0.2554 0.1740 17 0.2527 0.1673 18 0.2276 0.1633 19 0.2220 0.1633 20 0.2200 0.1631 21 0.2066 0.1608 22 0.2036 0.1603 23 0.2032 0.1578 24 0.2008 0.1572 25 0.1990 0.1544 26 0.1866 0.1516 27 0.1847 0.1401 28 0.1825 0.1384 29 0.1755 0.1328 30 0.1640 0.1302 31 0.1601 0.1260 32 0.1585 0.1252 33 0.1576 0.1196 34 0.1574 0.1192 35 0.1561 0.1168 36 0.1542 0.1165 37 0.1502 0.1163 38 0.1472 0.1158 39 0.1441 0.1132 40 0.1437 0.1125 41 0.1384 0.1076 42 0.1383 0.1071 43 0.1360 0.1066 44 0.1333 0.1043 45 0.1291 0.1014 46 0.1289 0.1006 47 0.1271 0.0946 48 0.1257 0.0939 49 0.1228 0.0935 50 0.1208 0.0866 51 0.1154 0.0841 52 0.1124 0.0821 53 0.1043 0.0799 54 0.0971 0.0784 55 0.0823 0.0743 56 0.0780 0.0741 57 0.0733 0.0689 58 0.0729 0.0674 59 0.0484 0.0670 60 0.0258 0.0667 61 0.0175 0.0652 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:23:23 PM Page 12 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:23:23 PM Page 13 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0929 17935 15789 88 Pass 0.0966 16369 14517 88 Pass 0.1002 15023 13571 90 Pass 0.1039 14089 12906 91 Pass 0.1075 12959 12087 93 Pass 0.1112 11864 11263 94 Pass 0.1148 11103 10716 96 Pass 0.1185 10209 9961 97 Pass 0.1222 9409 9293 98 Pass 0.1258 8861 8782 99 Pass 0.1295 8224 8104 98 Pass 0.1331 7617 7448 97 Pass 0.1368 7161 6953 97 Pass 0.1404 6639 6312 95 Pass 0.1441 6156 5709 92 Pass 0.1478 5846 5206 89 Pass 0.1514 5471 4611 84 Pass 0.1551 5106 4119 80 Pass 0.1587 4866 3818 78 Pass 0.1624 4549 3471 76 Pass 0.1660 4254 3121 73 Pass 0.1697 4055 2879 70 Pass 0.1734 3805 2560 67 Pass 0.1770 3546 2304 64 Pass 0.1807 3373 2075 61 Pass 0.1843 3151 1772 56 Pass 0.1880 2997 1593 53 Pass 0.1916 2806 1366 48 Pass 0.1953 2607 1207 46 Pass 0.1990 2481 1099 44 Pass 0.2026 2331 993 42 Pass 0.2063 2167 882 40 Pass 0.2099 2059 823 39 Pass 0.2136 1917 770 40 Pass 0.2172 1794 743 41 Pass 0.2209 1718 720 41 Pass 0.2246 1606 695 43 Pass 0.2282 1487 667 44 Pass 0.2319 1397 646 46 Pass 0.2355 1302 624 47 Pass 0.2392 1225 600 48 Pass 0.2428 1173 581 49 Pass 0.2465 1104 533 48 Pass 0.2502 1049 499 47 Pass 0.2538 1006 488 48 Pass 0.2575 938 462 49 Pass 0.2611 884 443 50 Pass 0.2648 847 426 50 Pass 0.2684 792 407 51 Pass 0.2721 743 377 50 Pass 0.2758 720 350 48 Pass 0.2794 673 324 48 Pass 0.2831 631 305 48 Pass 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:23:23 PM Page 14 0.2867 602 292 48 Pass 0.2904 569 276 48 Pass 0.2940 539 260 48 Pass 0.2977 505 248 49 Pass 0.3014 476 235 49 Pass 0.3050 434 217 50 Pass 0.3087 405 209 51 Pass 0.3123 371 196 52 Pass 0.3160 353 189 53 Pass 0.3196 332 176 53 Pass 0.3233 298 167 56 Pass 0.3269 280 156 55 Pass 0.3306 260 138 53 Pass 0.3343 235 127 54 Pass 0.3379 219 120 54 Pass 0.3416 202 108 53 Pass 0.3452 181 92 50 Pass 0.3489 160 79 49 Pass 0.3525 146 68 46 Pass 0.3562 130 64 49 Pass 0.3599 120 62 51 Pass 0.3635 110 59 53 Pass 0.3672 97 56 57 Pass 0.3708 93 54 58 Pass 0.3745 83 49 59 Pass 0.3781 76 46 60 Pass 0.3818 69 43 62 Pass 0.3855 62 39 62 Pass 0.3891 54 37 68 Pass 0.3928 48 34 70 Pass 0.3964 42 30 71 Pass 0.4001 38 21 55 Pass 0.4037 33 17 51 Pass 0.4074 28 13 46 Pass 0.4111 22 0 0 Pass 0.4147 21 0 0 Pass 0.4184 20 0 0 Pass 0.4220 19 0 0 Pass 0.4257 17 0 0 Pass 0.4293 14 0 0 Pass 0.4330 12 0 0 Pass 0.4367 9 0 0 Pass 0.4403 4 0 0 Pass 0.4440 3 0 0 Pass 0.4476 3 0 0 Pass 0.4513 3 0 0 Pass 0.4549 3 0 0 Pass 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:23:23 PM Page 15 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume:0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:23:23 PM Page 16 LID Report 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:23:47 PM Page 17 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:23:47 PM Page 18 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:23:55 PM Page 19 Mitigated Schematic 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:24:04 PM Page 20 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 22154-Preliminary.wdm MESSU 25 Pre22154-Preliminary.MES 27 Pre22154-Preliminary.L61 28 Pre22154-Preliminary.L62 30 POC22154-Preliminary1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 10 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Basin 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 10 C, Forest, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:24:04 PM Page 21 PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 10 0 4.5 0.08 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 10 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 10 0.2 0.5 0.35 6 0.5 0.7 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 10 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS END IWAT-STATE1 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:24:04 PM Page 22 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin 1*** PERLND 10 6.32 COPY 501 12 PERLND 10 6.32 COPY 501 13 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:24:04 PM Page 23 WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 END MASS-LINK END RUN 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:24:04 PM Page 24 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 22154-Preliminary.wdm MESSU 25 Mit22154-Preliminary.MES 27 Mit22154-Preliminary.L61 28 Mit22154-Preliminary.L62 30 POC22154-Preliminary1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 16 IMPLND 1 IMPLND 4 PERLND 18 RCHRES 1 COPY 1 COPY 501 COPY 601 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Vault 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 601 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 16 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 18 C, Lawn, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:24:04 PM Page 25 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 18 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 16 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 18 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.15 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 16 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 18 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 16 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 18 0.1 0.15 0.25 6 0.3 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 16 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 ROADS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 4 ROOF TOPS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:24:04 PM Page 26 IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 4 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 4 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 4 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin 1*** PERLND 16 2.09 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 16 2.09 RCHRES 1 3 IMPLND 1 1.52 RCHRES 1 5 IMPLND 4 2.16 RCHRES 1 5 Basin 2*** PERLND 18 0.45 COPY 501 12 PERLND 18 0.45 COPY 601 12 PERLND 18 0.45 COPY 501 13 PERLND 18 0.45 COPY 601 13 ******Routing****** PERLND 16 2.09 COPY 1 12 IMPLND 1 1.52 COPY 1 15 IMPLND 4 2.16 COPY 1 15 PERLND 16 2.09 COPY 1 13 RCHRES 1 1 COPY 501 16 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** 1 Vault 1 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:24:04 PM Page 27 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** 1 1 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> 1 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 1 92 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.136111 0.000000 0.000000 0.188889 0.136111 0.025710 0.011794 0.377778 0.136111 0.051420 0.016679 0.566667 0.136111 0.077130 0.020428 0.755556 0.136111 0.102840 0.023588 0.944444 0.136111 0.128549 0.026372 1.133333 0.136111 0.154259 0.028889 1.322222 0.136111 0.179969 0.031204 1.511111 0.136111 0.205679 0.033359 1.700000 0.136111 0.231389 0.035382 1.888889 0.136111 0.257099 0.037296 2.077778 0.136111 0.282809 0.039116 2.266667 0.136111 0.308519 0.040856 2.455556 0.136111 0.334228 0.042524 2.644444 0.136111 0.359938 0.044129 2.833333 0.136111 0.385648 0.045678 3.022222 0.136111 0.411358 0.047176 3.211111 0.136111 0.437068 0.048628 3.400000 0.136111 0.462778 0.050038 3.588889 0.136111 0.488488 0.051409 3.777778 0.136111 0.514198 0.052744 3.966667 0.136111 0.539907 0.054047 4.155556 0.136111 0.565617 0.055319 4.344444 0.136111 0.591327 0.056562 4.533333 0.136111 0.617037 0.057779 4.722222 0.136111 0.642747 0.058970 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:24:04 PM Page 28 4.911111 0.136111 0.668457 0.060138 5.100000 0.136111 0.694167 0.061284 5.288889 0.136111 0.719877 0.062408 5.477778 0.136111 0.745586 0.063513 5.666667 0.136111 0.771296 0.064599 5.855556 0.136111 0.797006 0.065666 6.044444 0.136111 0.822716 0.066717 6.233333 0.136111 0.848426 0.067751 6.422222 0.136111 0.874136 0.068770 6.611111 0.136111 0.899846 0.069774 6.800000 0.136111 0.925556 0.070764 6.988889 0.136111 0.951265 0.071740 7.177778 0.136111 0.976975 0.072703 7.366667 0.136111 1.002685 0.073654 7.555556 0.136111 1.028395 0.074592 7.744444 0.136111 1.054105 0.075519 7.933333 0.136111 1.079815 0.076434 8.122222 0.136111 1.105525 0.092162 8.311111 0.136111 1.131235 0.101883 8.500000 0.136111 1.156944 0.109099 8.688889 0.136111 1.182654 0.115184 8.877778 0.136111 1.208364 0.120581 9.066667 0.136111 1.234074 0.125503 9.255556 0.136111 1.259784 0.130069 9.444444 0.136111 1.285494 0.134356 9.633333 0.136111 1.311204 0.138416 9.822222 0.136111 1.336914 0.142285 10.01111 0.136111 1.362623 0.145993 10.20000 0.136111 1.388333 0.149559 10.38889 0.136111 1.414043 0.153002 10.57778 0.136111 1.439753 0.156336 10.76667 0.136111 1.465463 0.159570 10.95556 0.136111 1.491173 0.162716 11.14444 0.136111 1.516883 0.165780 11.33333 0.136111 1.542593 0.168770 11.52222 0.136111 1.568302 0.171691 11.71111 0.136111 1.594012 0.174549 11.90000 0.136111 1.619722 0.177348 12.08889 0.136111 1.645432 0.212454 12.27778 0.136111 1.671142 0.239993 12.46667 0.136111 1.696852 0.259580 12.65556 0.136111 1.722562 0.275913 12.84444 0.136111 1.748272 0.290330 13.03333 0.136111 1.773981 0.303438 13.22222 0.136111 1.799691 0.315575 13.41111 0.136111 1.825401 0.326955 13.60000 0.136111 1.851111 0.337718 13.78889 0.136111 1.876821 0.347967 13.97778 0.136111 1.902531 0.357779 14.16667 0.136111 1.928241 0.367210 14.35556 0.136111 1.953951 0.376309 14.54444 0.136111 1.979660 0.385111 14.73333 0.136111 2.005370 0.393647 14.92222 0.136111 2.031080 0.401942 15.11111 0.136111 2.056790 0.410018 15.30000 0.136111 2.082500 0.417894 15.48889 0.136111 2.108210 0.425585 15.67778 0.136111 2.133920 0.433104 15.86667 0.136111 2.159630 0.440465 16.05556 0.136111 2.185340 0.655948 16.24444 0.136111 2.211049 2.332060 16.43333 0.136111 2.236759 4.450519 16.62222 0.136111 2.262469 6.000530 16.81111 0.136111 2.288179 6.857590 17.00000 0.136111 2.313889 7.568478 17.18889 0.136111 2.339599 8.215332 END FTABLE 1 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:24:04 PM Page 29 <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** RCHRES 1 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1004 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1005 STAG ENGL REPL COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 601 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 901 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 2 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 2 MASS-LINK 3 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 3 MASS-LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 5 MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 MASS-LINK 16 RCHRES ROFLOW COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 16 END MASS-LINK END RUN 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:24:04 PM Page 30 Predeveloped HSPF Message File 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:24:04 PM Page 31 Mitigated HSPF Message File 22154-Preliminary 11/10/2022 2:24:04 PM Page 32 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2022; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com Tab 5.0 22154-TIR.docx 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The on-site conveyance system will be designed in accordance with the 2021 KCSWDM. The proposed conveyance system for this project is curb, gutter, catchbasins, and storm drainage pipe. The storm drainage pipe used will consist of smooth-walled corrugated polyethylene pipe with a Manning’s roughness coefficient of 0.014. 100-year conveyance calculations for the pipes will be completed using the rational method. The design intent of the conveyance system is to fully accommodate the 100-year storm event flowing at full condition. Conveyance calculations will be provided during final engineering. Tab 6.0 22154-TIR.docx 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES The following special reports and studies are included: 6.1 Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by GeoResources dated xxx 6.2 Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment for the Creekwood Plat prepared by Soundview Consultants dated December 16, 2022 Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by GeoResources dated December 30, 2022 6.1 Proposed Creekwood Development Page | i December 30, 2022 Revision History Version Description/Comment Date Notes, As Required 001 Updated Geotechnical Engineering Report April 28, 2017 002 Geotechnical Engineering Report Addendum: Revised Ravine Crossing and Comment Response Letter October 23, 2020 003 Updated Geotechnical Engineering Report December 20, 2022 Proposed Creekwood Development Page | ii December 30, 2022 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 1 2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS .................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Vertical Datum .............................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Exploration Program Summary ..................................................................................................... 2 3 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................................................ 4 4 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 5 4.1 Surface Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 5 4.2 Site Soils ........................................................................................................................................ 7 4.3 Site Geology .................................................................................................................................. 7 4.4 DNR Landslide Inventory ............................................................................................................... 8 4.5 Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................................................. 9 4.6 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................... 10 4.7 Aerial Photo Review .................................................................................................................... 11 5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ............................................................................................................................. 11 5.1 Seismic Hazards ........................................................................................................................... 11 5.2 Erosion Hazard Areas .................................................................................................................. 12 5.3 Landslide Hazard Areas ............................................................................................................... 12 5.4 Slope Stability .............................................................................................................................. 14 5.5 Buffers and Setbacks ................................................................................................................... 15 6 ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 16 6.1 Seismic Design Recommendations ............................................................................................. 16 Seismic Site Class ........................................................................................................ 17 Design Parameters ..................................................................................................... 17 Peak Ground Acceleration ......................................................................................... 17 Earthquake Induced Geologic Hazards ................................................................... 18 6.2 Shallow Foundation design .................................................................................................... 18 Spread Footing Design ............................................................................................... 19 6.3 Floor Slab Support ....................................................................................................................... 21 6.4 Subgrade/Basement Walls .......................................................................................................... 21 Design Values .............................................................................................................. 21 Wall Drainage .............................................................................................................. 22 6.5 Temporary Excavations ............................................................................................................... 23 6.6 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes .................................................................................................... 24 6.7 Site Drainage ............................................................................................................................... 24 7 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 25 7.1 Site Preparation and Grading ...................................................................................................... 25 7.2 Fill Material, Placement, and Compaction .................................................................................. 25 Structural Fill ............................................................................................................... 25 Materials ...................................................................................................................... 26 Placement and Compaction ...................................................................................... 26 Suitability of Excavated Material for Use as Fill ...................................................... 26 7.3 Wet Weather and Wet Condition Considerations ...................................................................... 27 7.4 Review of Plans and Specifications ............................................................................................. 28 7.5 Construction Observations ......................................................................................................... 28 Proposed Creekwood Development Page | iii December 30, 2022 8 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 29 9 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 30 Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3 – Site Vicinity Map Figure 4 – NRCS Soils Map Figure 5 – Geologic Map Figure 6 – DNR Landslide Inventory Figure 7 – Liquefaction Susceptibility Map Figure 8 – Fault Hazards Map Figure 9 – Typical Drainage and Backfilling Figure 10 – 2018 IBC Appendix J Detail Appendices Appendix A – Subsurface Explorations Appendix B – Laboratory Test Results Appendix C – Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Creekwood Page |1 December 30, 2022 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Updated Geotechnical Engineering Report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering studies for the proposed Creekwood residential plat to be constructed in Federal Way, Washington. The location of the project is shown on the attached Site Location Map, Figure 1. The project site is located between 21st Avenue SW and SW Dash Point Road. Our services included excavating a total of thirteen test pits, excavating three hand augers, drilling ten borings to depths of 4½ to 51½ feet below existing grades, performing laboratory testing on select samples, completing detailed slope stability analyses for the proposed grading plan, addressing the City of Federal Way (the City) Critical Areas Ordinance Title 18, and providing geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed residential plat. Our understanding of the updated project scope is based on our correspondence with you and your project civil engineer (Barghausen Consulting Engineers). We have reviewed our previously prepared Updated Geotechnical Engineering Report dated April 28, 2017 and all addendum/comment response letters to the City and their third party reviewer GeoDesign Inc (now NV5), our understanding of the Federal Way current Development Codes, and our experience in the area. The proposed Creekwood development includes twenty new residential lots with associated roads, stormwater tracts, utilities, and open space areas. The lots will be accessed off a new road that extends west from 21st Avenue SW. A secondary connection will be made to the current southern terminus of 22nd Avenue SW. The new road will generally be at grade, but some minor cuts will be required along the north side of the road in front of Lots 16 through 20. The originally proposed soldier pile wall where the new road crosses the ravine in the north-central portion of the site will be replaced with a constructed an earth fill embankment supported by cast-in-place retaining walls will be used. Also, the proposed lined stormwater detention pond with tiered retaining walls will be replaced with an underground detention vault. No grading or development will occur on the steep slope area at the back side of Lots 2 through 20. We anticipate the proposed residences will consist of conventional one or two-story wood-framed structures supported on shallow foundations and associated driveways. Some of the residences will have daylight basements in order to accommodate the proposed grading plan. The project site and the proposed development are shown on the attached Site and Exploration Plan and Site Vicinity Map, Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Proposed Creekwood Page |2 December 30, 2022 We received signed authorization to proceed with this updated report and our scope of services from Barry Margolese at Amalani LLC and Tom Barghausen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers (Barghausen) on November 10, 2022. This report is based on the current proposed civil design plans provided by Barghausen dated November 28, 2022. 2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS 2.1 Vertical Datum The elevations referred to in this report are based on the survey completed by Barghausen, Inc using the NGVD29 datum. Our assumptions and understanding of the proposed grading of the project are based on our conversations and email correspondence with Tom Barghausen, Teague Aalvik of Barghausen Consulting Engineers (Barghausen) and other members of the design team, as well as the Grading and Utility Plan provided to us on December 6, 2022. 2.2 Exploration Program Summary GeoResources, LLC (GeoResources) evaluated subsurface conditions across the project site by excavating a series of test pits, hollow-stem auger borings, and hand augers. Table 1, below, summarizes the approximate functional locations, surface elevations, and termination depths of our explorations. The test pits, designated TP-1 through TP-13 and boring B-1 were excavated and drilled on January 3, 2014. We returned to the site on January 14, 2014 and completed borings B-2 through B-4. In order to address third-party review comments, we drilled borings B-5 through B-9 between August 10, 2015 and August 14, 2015. Three hand auger explorations were excavated on August 24, 2015. The specific number, locations, and depths of our explorations were selected based on the configuration of the proposed development and were adjusted in the field based on site access limitations. The approximate locations of the subsurface explorations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. Descriptions of the exploration program and exploration logs are presented in Appendix A. Proposed Creekwood Page |3 December 30, 2022 TABLE 1 APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS, ELEVATIONS, AND DEPTHS OF EXPLORATIONS Test Pit/ Boring Number Functional Location Surface Elevation1 (feet) Termination Depth (feet) Termination Elevation1 (feet) TP-1 NE corner of site 276 11.0 265.0 TP-2 Above top of slope, proposed lot 23 277 9.0 268.0 TP-3 Along existing trail, on proposed roadway 274 11.0 270.0 TP-4 Top of Slope 130’ SW of TP-3 245 10.0 235.0 TP-5 East knob, proposed stormwater tract 250 8.0 242.0 TP-6 West knob, proposed stormwater tract 250 8.0 242.0 TP-7 West knob, SW of TP-6 246 8.0 238.0 TP-8 West of TP-7 251 8.0 243.0 TP-9 Center of west portion of site 256 9.0 247.0 TP-10 West knob, near north slope 259 10.0 249.0 TP-11 North-center of west knob, East of TP-9 256 8.0 248.0 TP-12 West knob 250 5.0 245.0 TP-13 West knob, near 22nd Av SW 238 7.0 231.0 B-1 Center of north property line 234 11.5 222.5 B-2 275’ SW of B-1, 115’ NE of slope 244 41.5 202.5 B-3 305’ S by 175 W of NE property corner 246 31.0 215 B-4 90’ N of B-3 249 51.5 197.5 B-5 160’ SW of B-1 248 50.8 197.2 B-6 Top of Slope, 200’ S of B-5 250 51.5 198.5 B-7 E of Slope, 65’ S of N property line 240 51.5 188.5 B-8 Top of slope, 215’ SE of B-7 270 51.5 218.5 B-9 Bottom of Slope, 250’ SE of B-6 196 16.5 179.5 B-10 Bottom of Slope, 315’ W of B-9 202 14.0 188.0 HA-1 On slope, 135’ S of TP-5 210 7.5 202.5 HA-2 300’ S of N property line, E of stream 195 5.5 189.5 HA-3 Bottom of Slope, 275’ W of B-6 210 4.5 203.5 1 Elevation datum: Grading and Utility Plan prepared by Barghausen using the City of Federal Way NGVD29 datum. The explorations completed as part of this evaluation indicate the subsurface conditions at specific locations only, as actual conditions can vary across the site. Furthermore, the nature and extent of such variation would not become evident until additional explorations are performed or until construction activities have begun. Based on our experience in the area and extent of prior explorations in the area, it is our opinion that the soils encountered in the explorations are generally representative of the soils at the site. Proposed Creekwood Page |4 December 30, 2022 Test Pits The test pits were excavated by a medium sized track-mounted excavator operated by a licensed earthwork contractor working under subcontract to GeoResources. Our field representative logged the subsurface conditions encountered in each test pit and obtained representative soil samples. The soil densities presented on the test pit logs were based on the difficulty of excavation and our experience. The test pits were backfilled with excavated soil and tamped in place, but not otherwise compacted. Borings During drilling, soil samples were obtained at 2½ and 5 foot depth intervals in accordance with Standard Penetration Test (SPT) as per the test method outlined by ASTM D1586. The SPT method consists of driving a standard 2 inch-outer-diameter split-spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140 pound hammer. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6 inch interval is counted, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or “SPT blow count”. If a total of 50 blows are recorded within any 6-inch interval (refusal), the driving is stopped, and the blow counts are recorded as 50 blows for the actual distance the sampler was driven. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Each boring was then abandoned by the driller in accordance with state law. Hand Augers A field representative from our office continuously excavated our hand auger test holes, maintained logs of the subsurface conditions encountered, obtained representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. Soil densities presented on the hand auger logs were estimated based on the difficulty of excavation and our experience. Each hand auger was then backfilled with the excavated soil. 3 LABORATORY TESTING Geotechnical laboratory tests were performed on select samples retrieved from our explorations to estimate the index engineering properties of the soils encountered. Laboratory testing included visual soil classification per ASTM D2487 and ASTM D2488, moisture content determinations per ASTM D2216, and grain size analyses per ASTM D6913 standard procedures. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized below in Table 2 and graphical outputs are included in Appendix B. Proposed Creekwood Page |5 December 30, 2022 TABLE 2: LABORATORY TEST RESULTS FOR ON-SITE SOILS Exploration Number Moisture Content (percent) Gravel Content (percent) Sand Content (percent) Silt/Clay Content (percent) D10 Ratio (mm) TP-1, D: 8’ 7.3 25.0 69.0 6.0 0.1569 TP-3, D: 3’ 10.4 25.0 68.0 7.0 0.1275 TP-4, D: 6-10’ 7.1 16.0 76.0 8.0 0.1278 TP-5, D: 1.5-3.5’ 11.4 2.0 78.0 20.0 <0.075 TP-7, D: 2-6’ 12.1 18.0 68.0 14.0 <0.075 B-5, S-5, D: 15’ 8.3 1.7 87.3 11.0 <0.075 B-5, S-7, D: 25’ 5.9 0.1 89.3 10.6 <0.075 B-5, S-9, D: 35’ 18.0 0.5 91.4 8.1 0.0951 B-5, S-10, D: 40’ 14.7 17.6 73.0 9.4 0.0844 B-6, S-2, D: 5’ 4.3 0.3 89.2 10.5 <0.075 B-8, S-1, D: 5’ 5.7 4.5 81.3 14.2 <0.075 B-9, S-2, D: 5’ 19.4 16.5 72.1 11.4 <0.075 B-9, S-5, D: 12.5’ 18.9 2.9 92.5 4.6 0.2092 4 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 Surface Conditions As stated, the subject parcel is located west of 21st Avenue SW and south of the end of 22nd Avenue SW in the Dash Point area of Federal Way, Washington. The parcel is rectangular in shape, measuring approximately 655 feet (north to south) by 1,322 feet (east to west) and encompassing approximately 20 acres. The site is currently vacant. The site is bounded by existing single family development and the south terminus of 22nd Avenue SW on the north, 21st Avenue SW and existing commercial development on the east, and by wooded slopes and trails on the south and west. Located along the western margin of the Federal Way glacial upland area, the site generally slopes down from the north to south to the Dakota Creek drainage, while the western side of the site slopes down to the west. In the northwest portion of the site there are slopes inclined down to the north at about 30 to 50 percent. The west central and northeast portions of the site vary in steepness, mostly sloping down to the south and southeast at inclinations of 20 to 50 percent, with areas of the proposed buildings sites flatter than 20 percent. Near the south end of 22nd Avenue SW is the head of an unnamed stream, which flows to the south. The side slopes of this Proposed Creekwood Page |6 December 30, 2022 unnamed stream are inclined at approximately 35 to 55 percent. This unnamed stream flows into the west flowing Dakota Creek in the south-central portion of the site. The north side wall of Dakota Creek slopes down to the south at 20 to 50 percent. The existing site conditions are shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Figure 3. The total topographic relief across the site is on the order of 150 feet. No surface water or seepage was observed on the flatter upland portion of the site or on the steep slope areas along the north property line. There are mapped wetlands on the sloping, southern portions of the site. Soundview Consultants has performed a Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan dated December 2022. These wetlands are generally located in the central and eastern portions of the site (below proposed lots 17 through 20). There were no observed seeps or other delineated wetland areas on the slopes below lots 3 through 16. Dakota Creek flows from east to west along the southern portion of the site. A walking /utility access path is located along the north side of Dakota Creek and along the ravine that bisects the site from the stream up to the south terminus of 22nd Avenue SW. Erosion was observed at the northern terminus of the ravine that begins south of the end of 22nd Avenue SW. This erosion appears related to uncontrolled discharging of stormwater runoff from the adjacent plat, significant yard waste dumping into the ravine, and the past installation of the stormwater bypass line that extends south along the west side of the ravine. The old culvert discharged above the ravine and based on information obtained from the City, caused the erosion that created the ravine. Erosion was observed on the east side of the ravine in the form of exposed soils. Uncontrolled yard waste along the north side of the property has inhibited vegetation growth. Erosion was observed along the margins of the ravine headwalls and a landslide deposit is mapped in the eastern portion of the site. Since our original report was prepared, we understand that a landslide occurred about 700 feet north of the site on the slope that extends down from the top of the glacial upland area to SW Dash Point Road (SR 509). The landslide occurred on March 16, 2017. The City hired Landau Associates to do an initial review of the slide. In their July 6, 2017 Technical Memorandum to the City, they concluded that the rise of the “true” groundwater table within the deeper advanced outwash caused the shallow colluvium to fail, along with surface water from the ditch along SW 308th Street and above the failure. The topography, surface water runoff, and soil conditions differ in this area from the main Creekwood Plat property, and the area of the slide should have no impact on the proposed project. Proposed Creekwood Page |7 December 30, 2022 4.2 Site Soils The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey maps the soils in the area of the site as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgB and AgD) and Alderwood & Kitsap soil (AkF). An excerpt of the NRCS map for the site vicinity is attached as Figure 4. • Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgB and AgD): The Alderwood soils are derived from glacial till that form on slopes of 0 to 6 percent (AgB) or 15 to 30 percent (AgD) slopes and are listed as having “slight” (AgB) or “moderate” (AgD) erosion hazards, respectively. These soils are included in hydrologic group B/C. • Alderwood & Kitsap soil (AkF): The Kitsap soils are described as being derived from undifferentiated glacial till and/or lacustrine deposits. The Alderwood-Kitsap soils form on very steep slopes and have a “very severe” erosion hazard when exposed. These soils are included in hydrologic group C/D. 4.3 Site Geology Since our original report was completed, the originally referenced Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Washington (Booth, D.B., Waldron, H.H., and Troost, K.G., 2003) was updated. The newer Lidar-revised geologic map of the Poverty Bay 7.5’ quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties, Washington by Tabor, Booth, and Troost (2014) indicates the upper, flatter portions of the site are underlain by ice contact deposits (Qvi), that are similar to the originally referenced recessional outwash deposits but are less well sorted and have a higher silt content. The ice contact soils may also locally contain larger intact clasts of the underlying glacial till. The site area is also underlain glacial till (Qvt) and advance outwash (Qva). The new map shows a landslide deposit (Qls) in the eastern portion of the site and alluvium (Qva) along the flowing creek on the south side of the site. These glacial soils were deposited during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, approximately 12,000 to 15,000 years ago. An excerpt of the above referenced map is included as Figure 5. • Alluvium (Qa): Alluvial soils generally consist of normally consolidated, stratified deposits of sand, silt, clay, and occasional peat that were deposited along Dakota Creek flowing from east to west across the south side of the site. The existing topography, as well as the surficial and shallow soils in the area, are the result of fluvial action, including down- cutting by the river, channel meandering and migration, and flood deposits. • Landslide deposits (Qls): Landslide deposit consists of jumbled mixtures of gravel, sand, silt and clay that are typically in a loose condition. The landslides deposits are associated with mass wasting events along the coastal bluffs along the Puget Sound, particularly where coarse deposits overly finer grain deposits. Some of the large areas of landslide debris are associated with prehistoric mass wasting events associated with the retreat of the prehistoric continental ice mass, while other areas are more recent. Proposed Creekwood Page |8 December 30, 2022 • Ice contact deposits (Qvi): The ice contact deposits typically consist of a poorly sorted, lightly stratified mixture of silt, sand and gravel that may locally contain intact pieces of glacial till. The ice contact soils were deposited by along the margins of the ice mass. The ice- contact deposits may or may not have been overridden by continental ice mass and are typically considered normally consolidated and off moderate strength characteristics. This soil unit is generally observed to be in a normally consolidated condition and exhibits moderate strength and moderate compressibility characteristics where undisturbed. Stormwater infiltration potential in recessional outwash soils is generally favorable. • Glacial till (Qvt): The glacial till consists of a heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, sand and gravel that was deposited at the base of the continental ice mass and is typically encountered in a very dense condition. Because the glacial till was overridden by the ice mass, it is considered over consolidated and is found in a very dense condition and exhibits high strength and low compressibility characteristics where undisturbed. Because of the compact and silty nature of glacial till, the potential for stormwater infiltration is low. • Advance outwash (Qva): The advance outwash typically consists of a poorly sorted, lightly stratified mixture of sand and gravel that may locally contain silt and clay. The advance outwash was deposited by meltwaters emanating from the advancing ice mass. Because these soils were subsequently overridden by the continental ice mass, they are considered over-consolidated, and exhibit high strength and low compressibility characteristics where undisturbed. Stormwater infiltration potential in advance outwash soils is generally favorable. 4.4 WGS Landslide Mapping We reviewed the Washington Geological Survey (WGS) protocol landslide mapping for the site and surrounding area, which maps landslide landforms using lidar based on the criteria provided in the Protocol for Landslide Mapping from LiDAR Data in Washington State (Slaughter, et al, 2017). This data was not available at the time our original report was prepared. The WGS protocol landslide mapping has identified two landslides within the areas identified as natural hazards areas in both this report and our original report. The western of the two slides, generally aligns with the City of Federal Way sewer and storm drain easements that extend south from the terminus of 22nd Avenue SW. This slide is identified as a non-field verified prehistoric (more than 150 years old) earth or debris flow with an estimated head scarp height of 28 feet and estimate failure depth of 24 feet. The larger eastern landslide is identified as a non-field verified pre- historic earth or debris flow with a 47-foot tall head scarp and 43-foot failure depth. An excerpt of the WGS protocol landslide mapping that includes the nearest landslide features to the site is attached as Figure 6. Proposed Creekwood Page |9 December 30, 2022 4.5 Subsurface Conditions At the locations of our explorations, we encountered slightly variable subsurface conditions that generally confirmed the mapped stratigraphy. The subsurface conditions encountered in each exploration are included below in Table 3 and descriptions of the various soil types encountered across the site are summarized in the following sections. TABLE 3 APPROXIMATE THICKNESSES, DEPTHS, AND ELEVATIONS OF SOIL LAYERS Test Pit / Boring Number Thickness of Forest Duff / Topsoil (feet) Thickness of Alluvium (feet) Thickness of Weathered Till / Outwash (feet) Depth to Dense Glacial Till / Outwash (feet) Elevation1 of Dense Glacial Till / Outwash (feet) TP-1 NE NE NE 2.0 261.5 TP-2 1.0 NE 3.0 4.0 262.3 TP-3 1.5 NE 2.5 4.0 263.5 TP-4 2.0 NE 2.5 3.5 229.5 TP-5 1.5 NE 2.0 3.5 236.2 TP-6 1.0 NE 2.0 3.0 236.5 TP-7 1.0 NE 5.0 5.7 229.3 TP-8 1.0 NE 4.0 5.0 N/E TP-9 0.5 NE 4.5 5.0 N/E TP-10 1.0 NE 4.0 5.0 N/E TP-11 1.0 NE 3.0 4.0 N/E TP-12 1.0 NE 2.5 3.5 240.8 TP-13 1.0 NE 2.0 3.0 228.5 B-1 1.5 10.0 + NE N/E N/E B-2 2.5 12.5 7.5 20.0 214.0 B-3 1.0 4.0 2.0 7.0 237.0 B-4 2.5 2.5 5.0 10.0 239.0 B-5 0.5 9.5 N/E 10.0 230.0 B-6 0.5 9.5 N/E 10.0 240.0 B-7 1.0 14.0 N/E 15.0 221.0 B-8 0.5 14.5 25.0 * 40.0 222.0 B-9 0.5 16 + N/E N/E N/E B-10 1.5 12.5 + N/E N/E N/E HA-1 1.0 6.5 N/E N/E N/E HA-2 0.5 5.0 N/E N/E N/E HA-3 1.0 3.5 N/E N/E N/E 1 Elevation datum: Grading and Utility Plan prepared by Barghausen using the City of Federal Way NGVD29 datum. Notes: + Encountered to the full depth explored, * Recessional outwash Proposed Creekwood Page |10 December 30, 2022 • Surficial Materials: The site is typically covered by 6 to 12 inches of forest duff and topsoil, with localized areas as thick as 18 to 30 inches. We anticipate that deeper areas of topsoil and forest duff will be encountered in areas of larger trees and in localized depressions across the site. • Alluvium: In the lower portion of the site, near the wetland area and Dakota Creek, several of our explorations encountered a medium stiff to stiff silt with some sand. The silt had elevated moisture contents. Laboratory tests indicate that the silt is non-plastic. We interpret these cohesive soils to be alluvium. The silt was typically underlain by loose to medium dense sand with minor amounts of silt and variable amounts of gravel that we also interpret to be alluvium. • Recessional/Ice Contact Deposits: Below the surficial forest duff, our test pits typically encountered loose to medium dense silty fine to medium sand with varying amounts of gravel and minor amounts of roots. We interpret these shallow soils to be a shallow soil horizon between the topsoil and the deeper glacial till. • Glacial Till: The weathered and un-weathered glacial till soils encountered in upper portions of many of our borings appear marginally suitable for reuse as structural fill at their present moisture contents. However, these soils will be difficult or impossible to reuse during wet weather, due to their moderately high fines contents, and may become suitable for reuse during a period of dry weather if they can be aerated to reduce their moisture content. • Advance Outwash: The gravelly sands and sandy gravels underlying parts of the site will provide a favorable source of fill soils that can be used in a broad range of weather conditions, although aeration or sprinkling might be needed to achieve optimum moisture content during especially wet or dry (more than 3 percent from optimum moisture) conditions, respectively. Any boulders or large cobbles present in these soils would need to be removed from the matrix for certain fill applications. 4.6 Groundwater No groundwater seepage was observed in the test pits at the time of excavation, but three of our deeper borings encountered groundwater seepage. Several of our test pits encountered mottling at shallow depths which can be indicative of a perched groundwater table. As discussed above in “Surface Conditions” of this report, there are several mid-slope seeps and wetland areas in the central and eastern portions of the site. These areas have been identified by the project wetland consultant, Soundview Consultants and described in detail in their Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment. The depth of water in boring B-2 generally correlates to the seeps/wetland areas of the south and east. However, the depth to perched groundwater in boring B-4 and lack of wetlands/seeps on the slope below boring B-4 indicates that the perched Proposed Creekwood Page |11 December 30, 2022 water table daylights at about the stream elevation further to the south. This water level, where encountered, is depicted on the slope stability cross sections attached in Appendix C. We interpret the observed mottling and mid-slope seeps/wetlands to be indicative of a perched groundwater table. Perched groundwater develops when the vertical infiltration rate of precipitation through a more permeable soil is slowed at depth by a deeper, less permeable soil type. We expect that perched groundwater may develop seasonally atop the deeper and denser glacial till or silt interbeds. The deeper groundwater seepage encountered in our borings generally corresponded to the elevations of the mapped wetlands on the sloping portion of the site. We anticipate fluctuations in the local groundwater levels likely will occur in response to precipitation patterns, off site construction activities, and site utilization. After the site is developed, the amount of seasonal perched groundwater should decrease over time. We expect the water to be shallower in the wetter, winter months and deeper during the drier winter months. Changes in local groundwater levels will also occur in response to off-site construction activities and site utilization. 4.7 Aerial Photo Review On April 28, 2015, a geologist from our office reviewed historic aerial photos at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources’ air photo archives. We reviewed aerial photos collected pre and post development of the Lakota Ridge plat. Aerial photographs reviewed dated from 1976 to 1995. Most of these photographs were from high elevations and had stereo-pairs, which provided a three dimension view the site vicinity. The images supported the timeline described above, with the scour channel below the Lakota Ridge plat visible in the 1978 photograph, and the City of Federal Way stormwater bypass visible in the 1989 photograph. 5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5.1 Seismic Hazards Earthquake-induced geologic hazards per City of Federal Way Revised Code (2016 FWRC), Chapter 19.05.070.G(3) may include liquefaction, lateral spreading, slope instability, and ground surface fault rupture. In our opinion, the potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading is not significant because of the dense nature of the on-site soils and the groundwater depth. Additionally, the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of King County (Figure 7) indicates the site is an are mapped as having a “very low” susceptibility to liquefaction. As previously described, the ground surface in the site area generally slopes down to the south from the existing terminus of 22nd Avenue SW. Proposed Creekwood Page |12 December 30, 2022 Based on our review, subsurface explorations and slope stability modeling, it is our opinion the potential for earthquake-induced slope instability is low. In addition, the site is located near the Tacoma fault zone, as show on Figure 8, but no evidence of ground fault rupture was observed in the subsurface explorations. Therefore, in our opinion the potential for ground surface fault rupture is low. 5.2 Erosion Hazard Areas The FWRC, Chapter 19.05.070.G(1) defines erosion hazard areas as “those areas identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as having a moderate to severe or severe to very severe rill and inter-rill erosion hazard due to natural agents such as wind, rain, splash, frost action or stream flow; those areas containing the following group of soils when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: Alderwood-Kitsap (“AkF”), Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (“AgD”), Kitsap silt loam (“KpD”), Everett (“EvD”), and Indianola (“InD”); and those areas impacted by shore land and/or stream bank erosion” The USDA NRCS web soil survey (Figure 4) maps the soils on the flatter upland area as the Alderwood soils, the Alderwood soils typically have “slight” or “moderate” erosion hazards, depending on slope inclination. The soils along the more steeply sloping southwestern and western margin of the site are mapped as the Alderwood-Kitsap formation which have a “severe” erosion hazard. Based on the mapping, the more steeply sloping portions of the site meet the technical definition of an Erosion Hazard area per the City code. 5.3 Landslide Hazard Areas The FWRC, Chapter 19.05.070.G(2) defines landslide hazard areas as “those areas potentially subject to episodic downslope movement of a mass of soil or rock including but not limited to the following areas”: a. Any area with a combination of: i. Slopes greater than 15 percent; ii. Permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock; iii. Springs or groundwater seeps. b. Any area which has shown movement during the Holocene epoch, from 10,000 years ago to the present, or which is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch. c. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion or undercutting by wave action. d. Any area located in a ravine or on an active alluvial fan, presently or potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or flooding. Proposed Creekwood Page |13 December 30, 2022 e. Those areas mapped as Class U (unstable), UOS (unstable old slides), and URS (unstable recent slides) by the Department of Ecology’s Coastal Zone Atlas. f. Areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthflows, mudflows, lahars, or landslides on maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey or Washington State Department of Natural Resources. g. Slopes having gradients greater than 80 percent subject to rockfall during seismic shaking h. Any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of 10 or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and is measured by averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief. The slopes on the south side of the parcel are steeper than 15 percent and have several mid- slope wetlands/seepage zones. The seeps did not extend the full length of the slope, but were generally isolated to the eastern portion of the parcel consistent with the wetland mapping performed by Soundview Consultants. No landslide deposits were mapped on the original 2003 Poverty Bay Quadrangle, but the 2014 update identified two landslides as described above in section 4. 4 of this report. Neither slide shown on the WGS landslide mapping (Figure 6) has been field verified. Based on our field reconnaissance, review of aerial photographs, and subsurface explorations, the smaller, western landslide generally aligns with the City utilities that were installed in 1989 that predates the Lidar mapping. The eastern landslide appears consistent with topographic features observed onsite. The proximity of both features to the proposed development has been evaluated by our slope stability analyses in section 5.4 of this report. An area of landslide debris/mass wasting deposit is noted on the 2003 geologic map, but this area is located north and west of the site and west of Dash Point Road. The stream that flows from east to west (Dakota Creek) is located in a shallow, incised stream channel. More deeply incised stream bank erosion was noted along the ravine that extends south from 22nd Avenue SW, which appears directly related to uncontrolled discharging from the municipal storm drainage system. No areas of alluvial fans were noted or observed on or within the vicinity of the subject site. The Alderwood-Kitsap soils mapped on the more steeply sloping southern portion of the site are listed as having a “severe” limitation for building because of slopes by the USDA Soil Conservation Service. The Coastal Atlas does not extend to the subject site. We would anticipate that the flatter, upland portion of the site would be mapped as stable while the more steeply sloping southern and western portions of the site and offsite areas would be mapped as “intermediate” or “unstable” because of the height and inclination of the slopes. Additionally, several slopes below the proposed lots are steeper than 40 percent with more than 10 feet of relief. Proposed Creekwood Page |14 December 30, 2022 Based on our observations and literature review, the more steeply sloping eastern portion of the site meets the technical definition (15 percent slopes with seeps and 40 percent slopes with more than 10 feet of relief) of a Landslide Hazard Area. The top of slope is depicted on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. 5.4 Slope Stability We originally analyzed the global and internal slope stability of both the existing and proposed slope geometries using cross sections A-A’, B-B’, C-C’, D-D’, E-E’. To address previous third party review comments, we included four additional profiles, F-F’, G-G’, ND-ND’, and SP-SP’, in our slope stability analysis. The locations of all profiles are shown on Figure 2. At each location, a piezometric (groundwater) table was used based on the depth to water in our borings and locations of mid-slope seeps and springs, as wells as the stream channel on the south side of the site. The cross section for each of these locations, as well as stability results using both static and dynamic conditions are included in Appendix C. We used the computer program SLIDE2 version 9.026, from RocScience 2022, to perform the slope stability analyses. The computer program SLIDE uses a number of methods to estimate the factor of safety (FS) of the stability of a slope by analyzing the shear and normal forces acting on a series of vertical “slices” that comprise a failure surface. Each vertical slice is treated as a rigid body; therefore, the forces and/or moments acting on each slice are assumed to satisfy static equilibrium (i.e., a limit equilibrium analysis). The FS is defined as the ratio of the forces available to resist movement to the forces of the driving mass. An FS of 1.0 means that the driving and resisting forces are equal; an FS less than 1.0 indicates that the driving forces are greater than the resisting forces (indicating failure). We used the Generalized Limit Equilibrium method using the Morgenstern-Price analysis, which satisfies both moment and force equilibrium, to search for the location of the most critical failure surfaces and their corresponding FS. The most critical surfaces are those with the lowest FS for a given loading condition, and are therefore the most likely to move. Since our original report and addendum were completed, the City adopted the 2018 International Building Code which results in a significant increase of the seismic acceleration used in the stability analysis. The proposed ground surface elevations were modified according on the various cross sections from our previous work to reflect the current grading plan. Some of the soil index properties referenced above are slightly higher than in our previous report, but they still fall within parameters of both the Geotechnical Properties of Geologic Materials by Koloski, Schwarz, and Tubbs as presented in the Engineering Geology In Washington, Volume 1 (Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Bulletin 78) and the Washington State Proposed Creekwood Page |15 December 30, 2022 Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM). Details of the slope stability analyses are included in Appendix C. Table 4, below, summarizes the results of our slope stability analyses. TABLE 4 SLOPE STABILTY ANALYSIS RESULTS Cross Section Line Existing Static Existing Seismic Proposed Static Proposed Seismic A-A’ 1.3 0.6 2.3 1.2 B-B’ 2.9 1.2 2.8 1.2 C-C’ 2 1.3 4.5 2.1 D-D’ 2.2 1.4 2.2 1.3 E-E’ 1.2 0.7 1.2/3.5 0.7/1.5 F-F’ 1.4 0.7 1.4/2 0.7/1.2 G-G’ 2.6 1.4 2.6 1.4 SP-SP’ 2.2 1.3 2.6 1.3 ND-ND’ 2.2 1.3 2.2 1.3 5.5 Buffers and Setbacks The FWRC 19.145.230 – “Landslide hazard areas protection measures” requires a standard 50-foot setback from geologically hazardous areas. The code (FWRC 19.145.230 (4) allows for reduction of the buffers and setbacks, and even for improvements within the landslide hazard area, when a qualified professional demonstrates that the improvements will not lead to or create any increased slide hazard or be at risk of damage by the landslide hazard. The proposed lot layout was originally created using a reduced buffer/setback of 25-feet. Lots that are located above the delineated landslide hazard areas provide building pad areas with factors of safety greater 1.5 and 1.1 for the static and seismic conditions, respectively, while maintaining the required 25-foot setback from the determined geologically hazardous areas. As shown on the current Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2, the building envelope for each lot is setback 25 feet from the top of slope/landslide hazard area line. The proposed lot layout satisfies this requirement and provides lots that have sufficient building area while maintaining the required 25-foot setback from the determined geologically hazardous areas. Some grading and filling may be required along the western side of lots 6-11, but all grading will occur outside of the landslide hazard area. Any such grading on these lots should conform to Proposed Creekwood Page |16 December 30, 2022 the recommendation outlined in Appendix J of the International Building Code for grading on slopes steeper than 5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) as discussed below in the “Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes” section of this report. As shown in the slope stability modeling (section A-A’), there is no adverse impact to the slopes or proposed development from the modification to the setback areas required on lots in this area. Buffer modifications will be required where Road B crosses the ravine and connects to Road A (extension of 22nd Avenue SW). In this location, the roadway is required for fire and EVA access, as well as for traffic connectivity. The road will cross the incised ravine. The ravine is not a natural occurring feature but was created by uncontrolled discharge from the municipal storm system and yard waste dumping. The proposed structural fill soil embankment supported by cast-in- place retaining walls will minimize intrusion in the wetland/stream buffer downslope of the roadway. Dense soils were observed on the eastern wall of the ravine, while the soils encountered in the boring on the west side of the ravine were generally in a medium dense condition. The proposed modifications will result in an increase of the overall stability of this portion of the site. It is our opinion that this report and accompanying plans prepared by Barghausen, satisfy the requirements of FWRC 19.145.230 for allowing a development activity or land surface modification within the required 25-foot buffer/setback from a geologic hazard. Furthermore, the reduced buffer was accepted by the City’s third-party reviewer. 6 ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIO NS Based on our current understanding of the proposed project and on the results of our geotechnical analyses, we have developed geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed Creekwood Plat Project. The following sections provide recommendations for seismic design considerations, foundation design, permanent building walls, floor slabs, drainage, pavements, and other pertinent geotechnical design and construction issues. 6.1 Seismic Design Recommendations The site is located in the Puget Sound region of western Washington, which is seismically active. Seismicity in this region is attributed primarily to the interaction between the Pacific, Juan de Fuca and North American plates. The Juan de Fuca plate is subducting beneath the North American plate at the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). This produces both intercrustal (between plates) Proposed Creekwood Page |17 December 30, 2022 and intracrustal (within a plate) earthquakes. In the following sections we discuss the design criteria and potential hazards associated with the regional seismicity. Seismic Site Class Based on our observations and the subsurface units mapped at the site, we interpret the structural site conditions to correspond to a seismic Site Class “C” in accordance with the 2018 IBC documents and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) standard 7-16 Chapter 20 Table 20.3-1. This is based on the reviewed and anticipated range of SPT (Standard Penetration Test) blow counts for the soil types in the site area. These conditions were assumed to be representative for the subsurface conditions for the site. Design Parameters The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) completed probabilistic seismic hazard analyses (PSHA) for the entire country in November 1996, which were updated and republished in 2002 and 2008. We used the ATC Hazard by Location website to estimate seismic design parameters at the site. Table 5, below, summarizes the recommended design parameters. TABLE 5: 2018 IBC PARAMETERS FOR DESIGN OF SEISMIC STRUCTURES Spectral Response Acceleration (SRA) and Site Coefficients Short Period Risk Category II/III Mapped SRA Ss = 1.358g Site Coefficients (Site Class C) Fa = 1.200 Maximum Considered Earthquake SRA SMS = 1.630g Design SRA SDS = 1.087 Peak Ground Acceleration The mapped peak ground acceleration (PGA) for this site is 0.574g. To account for site class, the PGA is multiplied by a site amplification factor (FPGA) of 1.2. The resulting site modified peak ground acceleration (PGAM) is 0.688g. In general, estimating seismic earth pressures (kh) by the Mononobe-Okabe method or seismic inputs for slope stability analysis are taken as 50 percent of the PGAM, or 0.34g. Proposed Creekwood Page |18 December 30, 2022 Earthquake Induced Geologic Hazards Earthquake-induced geologic hazards may include liquefaction, lateral spreading, slope instability, and ground surface fault rupture. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in pore water pressure in soils. The increase in pore water pressure is induced by seismic vibrations. Liquefaction primarily affects geologically recent deposits of loose, uniformly graded, fine-grained sands and granular silts that are below the groundwater table. The site is mapped as having a “very low” liquefaction susceptibility by the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of King County, Washington (palmer et al, 2004); an excerpt of this map is included as Figure 7. The soils encountered in our explorations primarily consist of medium dense to very dense sand (advance outwash sand and glacial till), alluvium was observed near the creek beds. In our opinion, the glacial soils are not prone to liquefaction induced settlements during a seismic event, the alluvium may experience some liquefaction induced settlement, but due to the limited depth of alluvium and distance to the proposed development, the settlement should be minimal. Based on our slope stability analyses (see Appendix C), it is our opinion that the potential for earthquake-induced slope instability on the site is low. According to the Department of Natural Resources Geologic Hazards Map (Geologic Information Portal), the site is located within the Tacoma Fault zone, with delineated faults being about 0.8 to 1.55 miles south and north of the site, respectively. As mentioned previously a copy of the USGS Interactive Fault Map for the general area is included as Figure 8. No evidence of ground fault rupture was observed in the subsurface explorations or out site reconnaissance. Therefore, in our opinion, the proposed structure should have no greater risk for ground fault rupture than other structures located in the area. 6.2 Shallow Foundation design Based on the encountered subsurface conditions at the locations explored and the preliminary site layout, it is our opinion that the residences, vault, and retaining walls associated with the Road “B” alignment be supported by shallow foundations. Some of the walls will need to be supported on pin piles, discussed below is Section 6.3. Spread footings should be founded on the medium dense to dense to very dense native glacial soils, or on structural fill that extends to suitable native soils. Based on our understanding of the proposed locations of the single-family residences it is our opinion that shallow foundations may be used to support the buildings; however, considerations for setbacks from the steep slope should be taken. We have not been Proposed Creekwood Page |19 December 30, 2022 provided with the design loads and have assumed that the residences will be lightly loaded, but the vault and Road “B” retaining wall will impose higher loads. Spread Footing Design Footings should bear either on properly placed and compacted structural fill or suitable native soils. Removal of unsuitable soils below the footings should extend beyond the foundation edges 1-foot horizontally for every 1-foot of vertical excavation. Loose, soft, or other unsuitable material present at the base of the excavation should be removed prior to placement of structural fill. The soil at the base of the excavations should be protected against disturbance from weather, traffic, or other adverse conditions. The excavation should be backfilled with suitable materials as described in the “Structural Fill” section of this report. If Control Density Fill (CDF) is used as backfill, the horizontal extent of the excavation can be limited to 1H:2V on each side of the footing. We recommend a minimum width of 24 inches for isolated footings and at least 18 inches for continuous wall footings. All footing elements should be embedded at least 18 inches below grade for frost protection. For footing bearing surfaces prepared as described in this report we recommend using an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,500 psf (pounds per square foot) for design of the residence but the vault and retaining walls can be designed for 3,500 provided they are cast directly on the deeper, dense glacially consolidated soils. This value is for combined dead and long-term live loads. The weight of the footing and any overlying backfill may be neglected. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as those induced by seismic events or wind loads. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of footings and floor slabs and as passive pressure on the sides of footings. We recommend that an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.30 be used to calculate friction between the concrete and the underlying structural fill. Passive pressure may be determined using an allowable equivalent fluid density of 300 pcf (pounds per cubic foot). Factors of safety have been applied to these values. We estimate that settlements of footings designed and constructed as recommended will be less than 1 inch, for the anticipated load conditions, with differential settlements between comparably loaded footings of ½ inch or less. Most of the settlements should occur essentially as loads are being applied; however, disturbance of the foundation subgrade during construction could result in larger settlements than estimated. Proposed Creekwood Page |20 December 30, 2022 6.3 Pin Piles Pin piles consist of small to midsize diameter Schedule-80 steel pipe that are driven into the underlying soils to refusal. The pin pile diameters typically range from 2 to 8 inches. Individual pipe segments typically range from about 5 to 21 feet in length and are successively joined with external threaded couplings, internal slip couplings, or butt welds as pile driving progresses. The large diameter piles use a pneumatic or hydraulic hammer mounted on the arm of a construction vehicle. The pin piles have little to no lateral strength, unless battered. The pin piles must obtain adequate embedment to provide support to the structure. We recommend a minimum embedment of 15 feet below the ground surface at existing grades. Regardless of diameter or installation method, we recommend that each pin pile be driven to refusal during sustained driving. Refusal criteria should be based on load test data from the contractor for the given pile diameter and hammer type. Because refusal depths are difficult to predict and soil conditions could vary significantly across the site, we recommend a test pile be installed. The contractor should be prepared for variable pile lengths. Also, it may be necessary to modify pile layouts if obstructions are encountered during pile-driving. When refusal criteria has been met, the pin piles can be cut to a predetermined height or elevation. To provide a good bond between the piles and the existing foundation, a steel bracket is typically installed on the foundation element, with an adjustable element to provide a pre- loaded condition. A structural engineer should be responsible for designing the reinforced steel and foundation elements. The minimum pile spacing (center to center) shall be determined by the structural engineer. TABLE 6: PIN PILE CAPACITIES Design Parameter 3 inch diameter 4 inch diameter 6 inch diameter Static Compressive Capacity 12,000 pounds 20,000 pounds 30,000 pounds Transient Compressive Capacity 16,000 pounds 26,000 pounds 40,000 pounds Notes: Capacities are provided as allowable values. Uplift capacity is not applicable if slip couplings are used. For the proposed walls, we recommend that 3 to 6 inch pin piles be utilized. These pilings will need to be installed by a larger, machine-mounted hammer. A properly installed pin pile driven Proposed Creekwood Page |21 December 30, 2022 to refusal (defined by the required capacity, installation contractor, and/or accepted construction practice) should provide the following allowable axial capacities. In areas where the lengths of the pin piles are exposed and not directly incorporated into the foundation grade beams, the area around the pin piles should be backfilled with a well-draining material such as angular quarry spalls. Verification testing should be performed in accordance with the ASTM Quick Test Method (ASTM D1143) on 5 percent of the installed piles, or a minimum of 3, whichever is greater. 6.4 Floor Slab Support We anticipate that the floors of the residences and vault will consist of a slab-on-grade floor. Slab- on-grade floors should be supported on the still native soils or on structural fill prepared as described above. Areas of old fill material should be evaluated during grading activity for suitability of structural support. Areas of significant organic debris should be removed. We recommend that floor slabs for the residences be directly underlain by a minimum 4 inch thick pea gravel or washed 5/8 inch crushed rock and should contain less than 2 percent fines. This layer should be placed in a single lift and compacted to an unyielding condition. A synthetic vapor retarder is recommended to control moisture migration through the slabs for the residences. This is of particular importance where moisture migration through the slab is an issue, such as where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or tile to the slab. A subgrade modulus of 200 pci (pounds per cubic inch) may be used for floor slab design. We estimate that settlement of the floor slabs designed and constructed as recommended, will be 1/2 inch or less over a span of 50 feet. 6.5 Subgrade/Basement Walls The lateral pressures acting on retaining walls (such as basement or grade separation walls) will depend upon the nature and density of the soil behind the wall as well as the presence or absence of hydrostatic pressure. Below we provide recommended design values and drainage recommendations for retaining walls. Design Values For walls backfilled with granular well-drained soil such as gravel backfill for walls or permeable ballast, we provided the appropriate active and at-rest equivalent fluid pressures in Table 7 below. If walls taller than 6 feet are required, as seismic surcharge should be included where Proposed Creekwood Page |22 December 30, 2022 required by the code. If walls will be constructed with a backslope and will be braced or otherwise restrained against movement, we should be notified so that we can evaluate the anticipated conditions and recommend an appropriate at-rest earth pressure. TABLE 7: RECOMMENDED LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR DESIGN OF RETAINING WALLS Lateral Earth Pressure Condition, equivalent fluid density (PCF) Backfill Material Gravel Backfill for Walls (WSDOT 9-03.12(2)) Permeable Ballast (WSDOT 9-03.9(2)) At-rest, level backslope 55 45 Active, level backslope 35 27 Active, 3H:1V backslope 48 32 Active, 2H:1V backslope 55 36 Seismic Surcharge 16H 12H Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of footings and as passive pressure on the sides of footings and the buried portion of the wall, as described in the “Foundation Support” section of this report. Wall Drainage Adequate drainage behind retaining structures is imperative. Positive drainage which controls the development of hydrostatic pressure can be accomplished by placing a zone of drainage behind the walls. Granular drainage material should contain less than 2 percent fines and at least 30 percent retained on the US No. 4 sieve. A minimum 4 inch diameter perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be placed in the drainage zone along the base and behind the wall to provide an outlet for accumulated water and direct accumulated water to an appropriate discharge location. We recommend that a nonwoven geotextile filter fabric be placed between the soil drainage material and the remaining wall backfill to reduce silt migration into the drainage zone. The infiltration of silt into the drainage zone can, with time, reduce the permeability of the granular material. The filter fabric should be placed such that it fully separates the drainage material and the backfill, and should be extended over the top of the drainage zone. Typical wall drainage and backfilling details are shown on Figure 9. Proposed Creekwood Page |23 December 30, 2022 A soil drainage zone should extend horizontally at least 18 inches from the back of the wall. The drainage zone should also extend from the base of the wall to within 1 foot of the top of the wall. The soil drainage zone should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD), as determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. Over-compaction should be avoided as this can lead to excessive lateral pressures on the wall. A geocomposite drain mat may also be used instead of free draining soils, provided it is installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. 6.6 Temporary Excavations All job site safety issues and precautions are the responsibility of the contractor providing services/work. The following cut/fill slope guidelines are provided for planning purposes only. Temporary cut slopes will likely be necessary during grading operations or utility installation. All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches and retaining walls, must be completed in accordance with local, state, or federal requirements including Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and Washington Industrial Safety and Health Administration (WISHA). Excavation, trenching, and shoring is covered under WAC 296-155 Part N. Based on WAC 296-155-66401, it is our opinion that the very dense glacial till would be classified as Type A soils; the advance outwash would be classified as Type B soils; and the recessional outwash/ice contact and alluvial soils would be classified as Type C soils. According to WAC 296-155-66403, for temporary excavations of less than 20 feet in depth, the side slopes in Type A soils should be sloped at a maximum inclination of ¾H:1V or flatter from the toe to top of the slope; the side slopes in Type B soils should be sloped at a maximum inclination of 1H:1V or flatter from the toe to top of the slope; and the side slopes in Type C soils should be sloped at a maximum inclination of 1½H:1V or flatter from the toe to top of the slope. All exposed slope faces should be covered with a durable reinforced plastic membrane during construction to prevent slope raveling and rutting during periods of precipitation. These guidelines assume that all surface loads are kept at a minimum distance of at least one half the depth of the cut away from the top of the slope and that significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter cut slopes will be necessary where significant raveling or seepage occurs, or if construction materials will be stockpiled along the slope crest. Where it is not feasible to slope the site soils back at these inclinations, a retaining structure should be considered. Retaining structures greater than 4 feet in height (bottom of footing to Proposed Creekwood Page |24 December 30, 2022 top of structure) or that have slopes of greater than 15 percent above them, should be engineered per Washington Administrative Code (WAC 51-16-080 item 5). This information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants, and should not be construed to imply that GeoResources assumes responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. 6.7 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes Where cut and fill slopes are required, we recommend a maximum slope of 2H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) for permanent cut and fill slopes. In areas where 2H:1V slopes are not feasible, retaining structures should be considered. Retaining structures taller than 4 feet in height (bottom of footing to top of structure) or have slopes of greater than 15 percent above them, they should be designed by a qualified engineer and will require a separate building permit from the City. Fill slopes constructed on grades that are steeper than 5H:1V (20 percent) should be "keyed" into the undisturbed native soils by cutting a series of horizontal benches and should be constructed in accordance with Appendix J of the 2018 IBC, as shown on Figure 10. The benches should be 1½ times the width of the equipment used for grading and be a maximum of 3 feet in height. Subsurface drainage may be required in areas where significant seepage is encountered during grading. Collected drainage should be directed to an appropriate discharge point. 6.8 Site Drainage All ground surfaces, pavements and sidewalks at the site should be sloped to direct surface water away from the structures, slopes, and property lines. Surface water runoff should be controlled by a system of curbs, berms, drainage swales, and or catch basins, and conveyed to an appropriate discharge point. We recommend that footing drains are installed for the residences in accordance with IBC 1805.4.2, and basement walls (if utilized) have a wall drain as describe above. The downsp outs should not be connected to directly the footings drains until they are combined to tightline to the discharge point. If the basement cut extends below the adjacent municipal stormwater system, a sump and pump system may be required. Proposed Creekwood Page |25 December 30, 2022 7 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Site Preparation and Grading All structural areas on the site to be graded should be stripped of vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious materials including previously placed, undocumented fill, and any construction debris. Organic topsoil is not suitable for use as structural fill but may be used for limited depths in non-structural areas. We anticipate that stripping depths ranging from 6 to 30 inches should be expected to remove unsuitable soils. Where placement of fill material is required, the stripped/exposed subgrade areas should be compacted to a firm and unyielding surface prior to placement of any fill. Excavations for debris removal should be backfilled with structural fill and compacted to the densities described in the “Structural Fill” section of this report. The exposed subgrade soil should be proof-rolled with heavy rubber-tired equipment during dry weather or probed with a ½-inch-diameter steel rod during wet weather conditions prior to placement of structural fill. Soft, loose, or otherwise unsuitable areas delineated during proof rolling or probing should be recompacted, if practical, or over-excavated and replaced with structural fill. The depth and extent of over-excavation should be evaluated by our field representative at the time of construction. The areas of previously placed, undocumented fill material should be evaluated during grading operations to determine if they need mitigation, recompaction or removal. 7.2 Fill Material, Placement, and Compaction According to the provided site plans, there will be minimal amounts of cutting and filling required to achieve design grades. Cuts and fills will typically be on the order of a couple feet. The thickest fills will be isolated to the area of lots 9 through 13, and where Road B crosses the incised ravine. Structural Fill All material placed as fill for the proposed wall should be placed as structural fill. Material placed as structural fill should be free of debris, organic matter, trash, and cobbles greater than 4-inches in diameter. The moisture content of the fill material should be adjusted as necessary for proper compaction. Proposed Creekwood Page |26 December 30, 2022 Materials The suitability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing US No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. During wet weather, we recommend the use of well-graded sand and gravel with less than 5 percent (by weight) passing the US No. 200 sieve based on that fraction passing the ¾-inch sieve, such as Gravel Backfill for Walls (WSDOT 9-03.12(2)). If prolonged dry weather prevails during the wall construction, higher fines content (up to 10 to 12 percent) may be acceptable. Placement and Compaction The appropriate lift thickness will depend on the structural fill characteristics and compaction equipment used, but it is typically limited to 4 to 6 inches for hand operated equipment; thicker lifts may be appropriate for larger equipment. For larger equipment such as a hoe-pac or drum roller, we recommend a maximum loose-lift thickness of 12 inches. Structural fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD as determined by the Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557), except for within 12 inches of the back of the wall, as described in the “Wall Drainage” section of this report. Additionally, the moisture content should be maintained within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM D1557. Suitability of Excavated Material for Use as Fill Based on our visual classification and results of the grain size analysis performed (see Appendix B), some of the on-site soil would not satisfy the structural fill gradation recommendations for use during wet weather or in wet conditions. In general, the potential to reuse the encountered site soils is described below. • Surficial Organic Soils: The forest duff, topsoil, and organic-rich soils mantling most of the site are not suitable for use as structural fill under any circumstances, due to their high organic content. Consequently, these materials can be used only for non-structural purposes, such as in landscaping areas. • Ice-Contact Soils: The shallow silty sand encountered 1 to 3 feet below existing grades, which we interpret to be recessional/ice contact soils, are comparable to sandy “pit run” and may be used for use as structural fill during moderate wet weather months, depending on their fines content. Proposed Creekwood Page |27 December 30, 2022 • Glacial Till: The glacial till soils underlying most of the site appear suitable for reuse as structural fill at their present moisture contents. However, these soils will be difficult or impossible to reuse during wet weather, due to their relatively high silt contents. • Advance Outwash: The gravelly sands and sandy gravels underlying parts of the site will provide a favorable source of fill soils that can be used in a broad range of weather conditions, although aeration or sprinkling might be needed to achieve an optimum moisture content during especially wet or dry conditions, respectively. Any boulders or large cobbles present in these soils would need to be removed from the matrix for certain fill applications. On-site soil could be used as fill in dry weather and dry conditions, but may require thinner lifts and/or more effort to achieve the compaction requirements. On-site soil containing organics or fill debris would be unsuitable for use as structural fill. 7.3 Wet Weather and Wet Condition Considerations In the Puget Sound area, wet weather generally begins about mid-October and continues through about May, although rainy periods could occur at any time of year. Therefore, it would be advisable to schedule earthwork during the dry weather months of June through September. Most of the soil at the site likely contains sufficient fines to produce an unstable mixture when wet. Such soil is highly susceptible to changes in water content and tends to become unstable and difficult or impossible to proof-roll and compact if the moisture content significantly exceeds the optimum. In addition, during wet weather months, the groundwater levels could increase, resulting in seepage into site excavations. Performing earthwork during dry weather would reduce these problems and costs associated with rainwater, construction traffic, and handling of wet soil. However, should wet weather/wet condition earthwork be unavoidable, the following recommendations are provided: • The ground surface in and surrounding the construction area should be sloped as much as possible to promote runoff of precipitation away from work areas and to prevent ponding of water. • Work areas or slopes should be covered with plastic. The use of sloping, ditching, sumps, dewatering, and other measures should be employed as necessary to permit proper completion of the work. • Earthwork should be accomplished in small sections to minimize exposure to wet conditions. That is, each section should be small enough so that the removal of unsuitable soils and placement and compaction of clean structural fill could be accomplished on the same day. The size of construction equipment may have to be Proposed Creekwood Page |28 December 30, 2022 limited to prevent soil disturbance. It may be necessary to excavate soils with a backhoe, or equivalent, and locate them so that equipment does not pass over the excavated area. Thus, subgrade disturbance caused by equipment traffic would be minimized. • Fill material should consist of clean, well-graded, sand and gravel, of which not more than 5 percent fines by dry weight passes the No. 200 mesh sieve, based on wet-sieving (ASTM D1140) the fraction passing the ¾-inch mesh sieve. The gravel content should range from between 20 and 50 percent retained on a No. 4 mesh sieve. The fines should be non- plastic. • No soil should be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. A smooth-drum vibratory roller, or equivalent, should roll the surface to seal out as much water as possible. • In-place soil or fill soil that becomes wet and unstable and/or too wet to suitably compact should be removed and replaced with clean, granular soil (see gradation requirements above). • Excavation and placement of structural fill material should be observed on a full-time basis by a geotechnical engineer (or representative) experienced in wet weather/wet condition earthwork to determine that all work is being accomplished in accordance with the project specifications and our recommendations. • Grading and earthwork should not be accomplished during periods of heavy, continuous rainfall. The above are supplemental recommendations to the Temporary Sediment and Erosion Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required by the city. 7.4 Review of Plans and Specifications We recommend that GeoResources be retained to review those portions of the plans and specifications pertaining to the foundations, shoring, and earthwork prior to printing the 90 percent drawings to determine that they are in accordance with recommendations presented in this report. 7.5 Construction Observations We recommend that GeoResources continue to be retained to observe the geotechnical aspects of construction, particularly the shoring (if necessary), foundations, retaining walls, temporary dewatering, fill placement and compaction, and drainage activities. This observation would allow us to continue to verify the subsurface conditions as they are exposed during construction and to determine that work is accomplished in accordance with our recommendations. If conditions Proposed Creekwood Page |29 December 30, 2022 encountered during construction differ from those anticipated, we can provide recommendations for the conditions actually encountered. 8 LIMITATIONS This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Amalani, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, and the project design team for specific application to this project. This report should be provided to prospective contractors for information of factual data only, and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions, such as those interpreted from the exploration logs and discussions of subsurface conditions included in this report. The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they presently exist. We assume that the exploratory test pits and soil borings made for this project are representative of the subsurface conditions through the site; i.e., the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the explorations. If conditions different from those described in this report are observed or appear to be present during construction, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations, where necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of our report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions have changed because of natural forces or construction operations at or near the site, it is recommended that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations. Within the limitations of the scope, schedule, and budget, the analyses, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering principles and practice in this area at the time this report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined by merely taking soil samples. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project. Therefore, some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs. The scope of our services did not include environmental assessment or evaluation regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air at the subject site other than those activities described in this report. GeoResources, LLC. Proposed Creekwood Page |30 December 30, 2022 9 REFERENCES ASTM International (ASTM), 2007, Annual book of standards, Construction, v. 04.08, Soil and Rock (I): D 420 – D 5779: West Conshohocken, Pa. Booth, D.B., Waldron, H.H., and Troost, K.G., The Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Washington, 1:24,000, Miscellaneous Field Study - MF2854 Federal Way, Revised Code, A Codification of the General Ordinances of the City of Federal Way, Washington (http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/federalway/) International Building Code (IBC) 2018 Koloski, J., Schwarz, S., and Tubbs, D., Geotechnical Properties of Geologic Materials, in Engineering Geology in Washington, Volume I, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Bulletin 78. 1978 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2008, National seismic hazard database (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazmaps/). Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Geologic Information Portal, (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/publications-and-data/geologic- information-portal). Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2019, Geotechnical Design Manual. Olympia, Wash., Washington State Department of Transportation. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2019, Standard specifications for road, bridge, and municipal construction: Olympia, Wash., Washington State Department of Transportation. Proposed Creekwood Page |31 December 30, 2022 Appendix A – Subsurface Explorations Proposed Creekwood Page | A December 22, 2022 Appendix B – Laboratory Test Results Proposed Creekwood Page | B December 22, 2022 Appendix C – Slope Stability Analyses Approximate Site Location Figure created from King County iMap (https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/iMap/) Not to Scale Site Location Map Proposed Creekwood Plat xxx 21st Avenue SW Federal Way, Washington PN: 1221039037 Doc ID: Amalani.CreekWood.F_Rev05 December 2022 Figure 1 Scale:1" = 100' Notes: Site and Exploration Plan developed from Preliminary Grading and tility Plan ̀by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Dated 11/28/2022 Site and Exploration Plan Proposed Creekwood Plat Federal Way, Washington PN: 1221039037 DocID: Amalani.Creekwood.F2.Rev05 December 2022 Figure 24809 Pacific Hwy. E. | Fife, Washington 98424 | 253.896.1011 | www.georesources.rocks B-3 TP-10 B-4 TP-11 TP-12 TP-7 TP-8 TP-9 TP-6 TP-13 TP-4 TP-5 TP-2 TP-1 TP-3 B-6 B-2 B-5 B-9 B-10 B-8 B-7 B-1 E E' ND' ND D D' F' F A' A B B' C C' SP SP' G G' TP-1 Approximate Test Pit Location HA-1 Approximate Hand Auger Location B-2 Approximate Boring Location A-A' Cross Section Location HA-1HA-2 HA-3 Approximate Site Location Figure created from King County iMap (https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/iMap/) Not to Scale Site Vicinity Map Proposed Creekwood Plat xxx 21st Avenue SW Federal Way, Washington PN: 1221039037 Doc ID: Amalani.CreekWood.F_Rev05 December 2022 Figure 3 Approximate Site Location Figure created from Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) Soil Type Soil Name Parent Material Slopes Erosion Hazard Hydrologic Soils Group AgB Alderwood gravelly sandy loam Glacial Till 0 to 6 Slight B/C AgD 15 to 30 Moderate B/C AkF Alderwood & Kitsap Undifferentiated glacial till and/or lacustrine sediments Very steep Very Severe C/D Not to Scale NRCS Soils Map Proposed Creekwood Plat xxx 21st Avenue SW Federal Way, Washington PN: 1221039037 Doc ID: Amalani.CreekWood.F_Rev05 December 2022 Figure 4 Approximate Site Location An excerpt from the Lidar-revised Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5' Quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties, Washington, by Tabor, R.W., Booth, D.B., and Troost, K.G. (2014) Symbol Geologic Unit Qls Landslide Deposits (Holocene) Qa Alluvium (Holocene) Qvi Ice-contact deposits Qvt Vashon Till Qva Advance Outwash Not to Scale Geologic Map Proposed Creekwood Plat xxx 21st Avenue SW Federal Way, Washington PN: 1221039037 Doc ID: Amalani.CreekWood.F_Rev05 December 2022 Figure 5 Approximate Site Location Map created from the Washington Geologic Information Portal (geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov) Not to Scale WGS Landslide Mapping Proposed Creekwood Plat xxx 21st Avenue SW Federal Way, Washington PN: 1221039037 Doc ID: Amalani.CreekWood.F_Rev05 December 2022 Figure 6 Approximate Site Location Map created from the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of King County, Washington by Stephen P. Palmer, Sammantha L. Magsino, Eric L. Bilderback, James L. Poelstra, Derek S. Folger, and Rebecca A. Niggemann (September 2004) Not to Scale Liquefaction Susceptibility Map Proposed Creekwood Plat xxx 21st Avenue SW Federal Way, Washington PN: 1221039037 Doc ID: Amalani.CreekWood.F_Rev05 December 2022 Figure 7 Approximate Site Location Map created from the Washington Geologic Information Portal (geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov) Not to Scale Fault Hazards Map Proposed Creekwood Plat xxx 21st Avenue SW Federal Way, Washington PN: 1221039037 Doc ID: Amalani.CreekWood.F_Rev05 December 2022 Figure 8 1.55 mi 0.80 mi Typical Drainage and Backfill Detail Proposed Creekwood Plat xxx 21st Avenue SW Federal Way, Washington PN: 1221039037 DocID: Amalani.CreekWood.F_Rev05 December 2022 Figure 9 6.The subdrain should consist of 4” diameter (minimum), slotted or perforated plastic pipe meeting the requirements of AASHTO M 304; 1/8-inch maximum slot width; 3/16- to 3/8- inch perforated pipe holes in the lower half of pipe, with lower third segment unperforated for water flow; tight joints; sloped at a minimum of 6”/100’ to drain; cleanouts to be provided at regular intervals. 7.Surround subdrain pipe with 8 inches (minimum) of washed pea gravel (2” below pipe” or 5/8” minus clean crushed gravel. Washed pea gravel to be graded from 3/8-inch to No.8 standard sieve. 8.See text for floor slab subgrade preparation. 1.Washed pea gravel/crushed rock beneath floor slab could be hydraulically connected to perimeter/subdrain pipe. Use of 1” diameter weep holes as shown is one applicable method. Crushed gravel should consist of 3/4” minus. Washed pea gravel should consist of 3/8” to No. 8 standard sieve. 2.Wall backfill should meet WSDOT Gravel Backfill for walls Specification 9-03-12(2). 3.Drainage sand and gravel backfill within 18” of wall should be compacted with hand-operated equipment. Heavy equipment should not be used for backfill, as such equipment operated near the wall could increase lateral earth pressures and possibly damage the wall. The table below presents the drainage sand and gravel gradation. 4.All wall back fill should be placed in layers not exceeding 4” loose thickness for light equipment and 8” for heavy equipment and should be densely compacted. Beneath paved or sidewalk areas, compact to at least 95% Modified Proctor maximum density (ASTM: 01557-70 Method C). In landscaping areas, compact to 90% minimum. 5.Drainage sand and gravel may be replaced with a geocomposite core sheet drain placed against the wall and connected to the subdrain pipe. The geocomposite core sheet should have a minimum transmissivity of 3.0 gallons/minute/foot when tested under a gradient of 1.0 according to ASTM 04716. IBC Appendix J Detail Proposed Creekwood Plat xxx 21st Avenue SW Federal Way, Washington PN: 1221039037 Doc ID: Amalani.CreekWood.F_Rev05 December 2022 Figure 10 Appendix A Subsurface Explorations SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME COARSE GRAINED SOILS More than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve GRAVEL More than 50% Of Coarse Fraction Retained on No. 4 Sieve CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL GRAVEL WITH FINES GM SILTY GRAVEL GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND More than 50% Of Coarse Fraction Passes No. 4 Sieve CLEAN SAND SW WELL-GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY-GRADED SAND SAND WITH FINES SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEY SAND FINE GRAINED SOILS More than 50% Passes No. 200 Sieve SILT AND CLAY Liquid Limit Less than 50 INORGANIC ML SILT CL CLAY ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY Liquid Limit 50 or more INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil Dry- Absence of moisture, dry to the touch in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90. Moist- Damp, but no visible water 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D6913. Wet- Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from below water table 3. Description of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of soils, and or test data. Unified Soils Classification System Proposed Creekwood Plat xxx 21st Avenue SW Federal Way, Washington PN: 1221039037 Doc ID: Amalani.CreekWood.F_Rev05 December 2022 Figure A-1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Topsoil Tan mottled silt with sand, small gravel (medium stiff to stiff, moist to wet) Tan silt gradation to sandy silt (medium stiff, moist) (stiff, moist) Bottom of Boring CompletedJanuary 13, 2014 1 2 3 4 2 4 5 4 5 5 12 3 3 3 3 6 TOTAL DEPTH:11.5ft DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY:RMP TOP ELEVATION:DRILLING COMPANY:Boretec,Inc.HAMMER TYPE:Cathead LATITUDE:DRILL RIG:HAMMER WEIGHT:140 lb LONGITUDE:NOTES: NOTES Creekwood Residential Plat 1. Refer to log key for definition of symbols, abbreviations and codes XXX 21st Ave SW/22nd Ave SW 2. USCS designation is based on visual manual classification Federal Way, WA and selected lab testing 3. Groundwater level, if indicated, is for the date shown and may vary 4. N.E. = Not Encountered LOG OF BORING B-1 5. ATD = At the Time of Drilling JOB: Amalani.Creekwood Sheet 1 of GeoResources, LLC FIG.A-2DepthElevationSOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING NOTES SampleSamplerSymbolTEST RESULTS 10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - (blows per foot) % Fines (<0.075mm) % Water Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit BlowCountGroundWater1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Brown fine sandy silt (stiff, moist to wet) as above with 3" thick brown sand lens Brown silty SAND with gravel (dense, damp) Brown SAND with trace gravel, silt (very dense, moist) (Advance SAND?) Brown coarse SAND with trace gravel (very dense, moist) on rock/ bouncing sandy cuttings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 84 90* 100 7 9 11 7 7 10 11 15 17 10 10 11 23 41 43 16 40 50/5 2 50/6 50/3 100/5" TOTAL DEPTH:41.5 DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY:DCB TOP ELEVATION:DRILLING COMPANY:Boretec,Inc.HAMMER TYPE:CatHead LATITUDE:DRILL RIG:HAMMER WEIGHT:140 lb LONGITUDE:NOTES: NOTES Creekwood Residential Plat 1. Refer to log key for definition of symbols, abbreviations and codes XXX 21st Ave SW/22nd Ave SW 2. USCS designation is based on visual manual classification Federal Way, WA and selected lab testing 3. Groundwater level, if indicated, is for the date shown and may vary 4. N.E. = Not Encountered LOG OF BORING B-2 5. ATD = At the Time of Drilling JOB: Amalani.Creekwood Sheet 1 of GeoResources, LLC FIG.A-3DepthElevationSOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING NOTES SampleSamplerSymbolTEST RESULTS 10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - (blows per foot) % Fines (<0.075mm) % Water Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit BlowCountGroundWater2 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Bottom of Boring CompletedJanuary 14, 2014 rocky drilling 10 11 90* 50/5" 24 40 50/6 ATD TOTAL DEPTH:41.5 DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY:DCB TOP ELEVATION:DRILLING COMPANY:Boretec,Inc.HAMMER TYPE:CatHead LATITUDE:DRILL RIG:HAMMER WEIGHT:140 lb LONGITUDE:NOTES: NOTES Creekwood Residential Plat 1. Refer to log key for definition of symbols, abbreviations and codes XXX 21st Ave SW/22nd Ave SW 2. USCS designation is based on visual manual classification Federal Way, WA and selected lab testing 3. Groundwater level, if indicated, is for the date shown and may vary 4. N.E. = Not Encountered LOG OF BORING B-2 5. ATD = At the Time of Drilling JOB: Amalani.Creekwood Sheet 2 of GeoResources, LLC FIG.A-3DepthElevationSOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING NOTES SampleSamplerSymbolTEST RESULTS 10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - (blows per foot) % Fines (<0.075mm) % Water Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit BlowCountGroundWater2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Topsoil Tan mottled silty SAND Tan mottled silty SAND (loose, moist) Gray brown silty SAND (medium dense, moist to wet) fine to medium SAND with silty sand lenses (dense, moist) as above with cobbles/gravel (very dense) Tan SAND with gravel (very dense, moist) Bottom of Boring CompletedJanuary 14, 2014 heave perched at 7' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 93 90* 4 3 6 7 11 17 13 15 21 50/3" 2 24 43 50/6 13 18 25 27 40 50/5 29 50/6 ATD TOTAL DEPTH:31 DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY:RMP TOP ELEVATION:DRILLING COMPANY:Boretec,Inc.HAMMER TYPE:CatHead LATITUDE:DRILL RIG:HAMMER WEIGHT:140 lb LONGITUDE:NOTES: NOTES Creekwood Residential Plat 1. Refer to log key for definition of symbols, abbreviations and codes XXX 21st Ave SW/22nd Ave SW 2. USCS designation is based on visual manual classification Federal Way, WA and selected lab testing 3. Groundwater level, if indicated, is for the date shown and may vary 4. N.E. = Not Encountered LOG OF BORING B-3 5. ATD = At the Time of Drilling JOB: Amalani.Creekwood Sheet 1 of GeoResources, LLC FIG.A-4DepthElevationSOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING NOTES SampleSamplerSymbolTEST RESULTS 10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - (blows per foot) % Fines (<0.075mm) % Water Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit BlowCountGroundWater1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Tan mottled SILT & SAND with gravel (medium dense, moist) gravel (dense, moist) (Weathered Glacial Till?) Gray silty SAND with gravel (very dense, moist) (Glacial Till?) Brown SAND with trace silt (dense to very dense, moist) (Advance SAND) increased density 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 90* 66 88 64 9 12 13 10 15 23 9 12 21 29 40 50/4 35 50/4 15 22 28 22 29 37 28 40 48 15 22 42 50/6 ATD TOTAL DEPTH:51.5 DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY:RMP/DCB TOP ELEVATION:DRILLING COMPANY:Boretec,Inc.HAMMER TYPE:cathead LATITUDE:DRILL RIG:HAMMER WEIGHT:140 lb LONGITUDE:NOTES: NOTES Creekwood Residential Plat 1. Refer to log key for definition of symbols, abbreviations and codes XXX 21st Ave SW/22nd Ave SW 2. USCS designation is based on visual manual classification Federal Way, WA and selected lab testing 3. Groundwater level, if indicated, is for the date shown and may vary 4. N.E. = Not Encountered LOG OF BORING B-4 5. ATD = At the Time of Drilling JOB: Amalani.Creekwood Sheet 1 of GeoResources, LLC FIG.A-5DepthElevationSOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING NOTES SampleSamplerSymbolTEST RESULTS 10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - (blows per foot) % Fines (<0.075mm) % Water Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit BlowCountGroundWater2 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 as above with silt lense (damp) (wet) (saturated) Bottom of Boring CompletedJanuary 14, 2014 11 12 13 14 92* 47 50/5 44 50/5 25 50/6 22 42 50/5 TOTAL DEPTH:51.5 DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY:RMP/DCB TOP ELEVATION:DRILLING COMPANY:Boretec,Inc.HAMMER TYPE:cathead LATITUDE:DRILL RIG:HAMMER WEIGHT:140 lb LONGITUDE:NOTES: NOTES Creekwood Residential Plat 1. Refer to log key for definition of symbols, abbreviations and codes XXX 21st Ave SW/22nd Ave SW 2. USCS designation is based on visual manual classification Federal Way, WA and selected lab testing 3. Groundwater level, if indicated, is for the date shown and may vary 4. N.E. = Not Encountered LOG OF BORING B-4 5. ATD = At the Time of Drilling JOB: Amalani.Creekwood Sheet 2 of GeoResources, LLC FIG.A-5DepthElevationSOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING NOTES SampleSamplerSymbolTEST RESULTS 10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - (blows per foot) % Fines (<0.075mm) % Water Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit BlowCountGroundWater2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 245 240 235 230 225 220 Forest duff/ root mat Tan to grey sandy SILT w/ gravel (mottling)(med. dense dense, damp) Grey to tan silty medium sand (dense, moist) Grey medium SAND with silt (Very dense, moist) (advance outwash?) NM- 5.9% Grey medium SAND with trace silt (very dense, moist) (advance outwash?) 5 7 68 81 90 9 9 11 13 9 11 15 22 29 29 21 25 14 28 40 22 31 50/6 18 40 50/6 27 50/6 TOTAL DEPTH:50.8 DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY:KEB TOP ELEVATION:248'DRILLING COMPANY:Boretec, Inc.HAMMER TYPE:Cathead LATITUDE:DRILL RIG:EC95 HAMMER WEIGHT:140 lb LONGITUDE:NOTES:West side of ravine in Tract A NOTES Creekwood Residential Plat 1. Refer to log key for definition of symbols, abbreviations and codes XXX 21st Ave SW/22nd Ave SW 2. USCS designation is based on visual manual classification Federal Way, WA and selected lab testing 3. Groundwater level, if indicated, is for the date shown and may vary 4. N.E. = Not Encountered LOG OF BORING B-5 5. ATD = At the Time of Drilling JOB: Amalani.Creekwood Sheet 1 of GeoResources, LLC FIG.A-6DepthElevationSOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING NOTES SampleSamplerSymbolTEST RESULTS 10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - (blows per foot) % Fines (<0.075mm) % Water Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit BlowCountGroundWater2 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 215 210 205 200 195 190 185 Grey medium SAND with trace silt (very dense, wet) (advance outwash?) Grey medium SAND with trace silt and occ gravel(very dense, wet)(advance outwash?) Tan to grey sandy SILT (very dense, moist) Bottom of Boring CompletedAugust 10, 2015 9 10 86 90 24 36 50/6 18 40 50/5 31 50/6 29 50/4 ATD TOTAL DEPTH:50.8 DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY:KEB TOP ELEVATION:248'DRILLING COMPANY:Boretec, Inc.HAMMER TYPE:Cathead LATITUDE:DRILL RIG:EC95 HAMMER WEIGHT:140 lb LONGITUDE:NOTES:West side of ravine in Tract A NOTES Creekwood Residential Plat 1. Refer to log key for definition of symbols, abbreviations and codes XXX 21st Ave SW/22nd Ave SW 2. USCS designation is based on visual manual classification Federal Way, WA and selected lab testing 3. Groundwater level, if indicated, is for the date shown and may vary 4. N.E. = Not Encountered LOG OF BORING B-5 5. ATD = At the Time of Drilling JOB: Amalani.Creekwood Sheet 2 of GeoResources, LLC FIG.A-6DepthElevationSOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING NOTES SampleSamplerSymbolTEST RESULTS 10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - (blows per foot) % Fines (<0.075mm) % Water Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit BlowCountGroundWater2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Forest Duff Tan SAND w/ some silt (medium dense, damp) Tan SAND w/ some silt and occ gravel (medium dense, moist) Grey medium SAND w/ some silt and occ. gravel (medium dense, moist) Grey medium gravelly SAND w/ some silt (Dense, moist) Grey medium SAND w/ some silt (dense to very dense, moist) 2 7 9 10 9 10 12 8 11 15 10 12 14 13 14 13 19 24 26 14 22 27 18 24 29 TOTAL DEPTH:51.5 DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY:KEB TOP ELEVATION:DRILLING COMPANY:Boretec, Inc.HAMMER TYPE:Cathead LATITUDE:DRILL RIG:EC95 HAMMER WEIGHT:140 lb LONGITUDE:NOTES:West side of ravine, near proposed lot 19 NOTES Creekwood Residential Plat 1. Refer to log key for definition of symbols, abbreviations and codes XXX 21st Ave SW/22nd Ave SW 2. USCS designation is based on visual manual classification Federal Way, WA and selected lab testing 3. Groundwater level, if indicated, is for the date shown and may vary 4. N.E. = Not Encountered LOG OF BORING B-6 5. ATD = At the Time of Drilling JOB: Amalani.Creekwood Sheet 1 of GeoResources, LLC FIG.A-7DepthElevationSOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING NOTES SampleSamplerSymbolTEST RESULTS 10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - (blows per foot) % Fines (<0.075mm) % Water Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit BlowCountGroundWater2 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Grey medium SAND w some silt and occ fine gravel (very dense, moist) Grey silty medium SAND (very dense, saturated) Bottom of Boring CompletedAugust 10, 2015 76 75 72 15 25 25 26 26 50/6 29 35 40 25 26 36 ATD TOTAL DEPTH:51.5 DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY:KEB TOP ELEVATION:DRILLING COMPANY:Boretec, Inc.HAMMER TYPE:Cathead LATITUDE:DRILL RIG:EC95 HAMMER WEIGHT:140 lb LONGITUDE:NOTES:West side of ravine, near proposed lot 19 NOTES Creekwood Residential Plat 1. Refer to log key for definition of symbols, abbreviations and codes XXX 21st Ave SW/22nd Ave SW 2. USCS designation is based on visual manual classification Federal Way, WA and selected lab testing 3. Groundwater level, if indicated, is for the date shown and may vary 4. N.E. = Not Encountered LOG OF BORING B-6 5. ATD = At the Time of Drilling JOB: Amalani.Creekwood Sheet 2 of GeoResources, LLC FIG.A-7DepthElevationSOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING NOTES SampleSamplerSymbolTEST RESULTS 10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - (blows per foot) % Fines (<0.075mm) % Water Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit BlowCountGroundWater2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 240 235 230 225 220 215 210 Topsoil/ forest duff Tan/orange SAND with silt (mottling)(medium dense, damp) Tan to grey sandy SILT (med. dense/dense, moist) Brown silty SAND w/ gravel (very dense, moist) Grey medium SAND w/ trace silt (very dense, moist)(advance outwash?) Grey medium silty SAND (dense, wet)(advance outwash?) 64 62 72 10 7 7 10 12 21 9 9 14 7 8 13 18 27 37 16 21 41 17 28 44 17 21 26 ATD TOTAL DEPTH:51.5 ft DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY:KEB TOP ELEVATION:240'DRILLING COMPANY:Boretec, Inc.HAMMER TYPE:Cathead LATITUDE:DRILL RIG:EC95 HAMMER WEIGHT:140 lbs LONGITUDE:NOTES:East side of ravine at top of slope nearest to 22nd Ave SW NOTES Creekwood Residential Plat 1. Refer to log key for definition of symbols, abbreviations and codes XXX 21st Ave SW/22nd Ave SW 2. USCS designation is based on visual manual classification Federal Way, WA and selected lab testing 3. Groundwater level, if indicated, is for the date shown and may vary 4. N.E. = Not Encountered LOG OF BORING B-7 5. ATD = At the Time of Drilling JOB: Amalani.Creekwood Sheet 1 of GeoResources, LLC FIG.A-8DepthElevationSOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING NOTES SampleSamplerSymbolTEST RESULTS 10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - (blows per foot) % Fines (<0.075mm) % Water Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit BlowCountGroundWater2 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 205 200 195 190 185 180 175 Grey medium SAND (very dense, wet) (advance outwash?) Grey medium SAND (very dense, saturated) (advance outwash?) Bottom of Boring CompletedAugust 10, 2015 74 95 91 65 14 24 50/6 11 45 50/6 25 41 50/5 25 25 40 TOTAL DEPTH:51.5 ft DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY:KEB TOP ELEVATION:240'DRILLING COMPANY:Boretec, Inc.HAMMER TYPE:Cathead LATITUDE:DRILL RIG:EC95 HAMMER WEIGHT:140 lbs LONGITUDE:NOTES:East side of ravine at top of slope nearest to 22nd Ave SW NOTES Creekwood Residential Plat 1. Refer to log key for definition of symbols, abbreviations and codes XXX 21st Ave SW/22nd Ave SW 2. USCS designation is based on visual manual classification Federal Way, WA and selected lab testing 3. Groundwater level, if indicated, is for the date shown and may vary 4. N.E. = Not Encountered LOG OF BORING B-7 5. ATD = At the Time of Drilling JOB: Amalani.Creekwood Sheet 2 of GeoResources, LLC FIG.A-8DepthElevationSOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING NOTES SampleSamplerSymbolTEST RESULTS 10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - (blows per foot) % Fines (<0.075mm) % Water Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit BlowCountGroundWater2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 270 265 260 255 250 245 240 Topsoil/ forest duff Tan medium SAND with some silt (medium dense, damp) Grey medium SAND with trace silt (medium dense becomes dense, moist) 1 8 12 14 14 40 17 12 18 20 17 17 21 15 17 21 13 20 26 TOTAL DEPTH:51.5 DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY:KEB TOP ELEVATION:270 ft DRILLING COMPANY:Boretec, Inc.HAMMER TYPE:Cathead LATITUDE:DRILL RIG:EC95 HAMMER WEIGHT:140 lbs LONGITUDE:NOTES:East of ravine SE of B-7 at top of slope NOTES Creekwood Residential Plat 1. Refer to log key for definition of symbols, abbreviations and codes XXX 21st Ave SW/22nd Ave SW 2. USCS designation is based on visual manual classification Federal Way, WA and selected lab testing 3. Groundwater level, if indicated, is for the date shown and may vary 4. N.E. = Not Encountered LOG OF BORING B-8 5. ATD = At the Time of Drilling JOB: Amalani.Creekwood Sheet 1 of GeoResources, LLC FIG.A-9DepthElevationSOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING NOTES SampleSamplerSymbolTEST RESULTS 10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - (blows per foot) % Fines (<0.075mm) % Water Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit BlowCountGroundWater2 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 235 230 225 220 215 210 205 Grey to tan silty SAND (very dense, moist)(advance outwash?) Grey medium SAND (very dense, moist)(advance outwash?) Bottom of Boring CompletedAugust 10, 2015 61 89 66 16 24 37 14 23 28 22 42 47 19 25 41 TOTAL DEPTH:51.5 DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY:KEB TOP ELEVATION:270 ft DRILLING COMPANY:Boretec, Inc.HAMMER TYPE:Cathead LATITUDE:DRILL RIG:EC95 HAMMER WEIGHT:140 lbs LONGITUDE:NOTES:East of ravine SE of B-7 at top of slope NOTES Creekwood Residential Plat 1. Refer to log key for definition of symbols, abbreviations and codes XXX 21st Ave SW/22nd Ave SW 2. USCS designation is based on visual manual classification Federal Way, WA and selected lab testing 3. Groundwater level, if indicated, is for the date shown and may vary 4. N.E. = Not Encountered LOG OF BORING B-8 5. ATD = At the Time of Drilling JOB: Amalani.Creekwood Sheet 2 of GeoResources, LLC FIG.A-9DepthElevationSOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING NOTES SampleSamplerSymbolTEST RESULTS 10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - (blows per foot) % Fines (<0.075mm) % Water Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit BlowCountGroundWater2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 195 190 185 180 175 170 165 Gravelly topsoil/forest duffBrown SAND with gravel Dark gray medium SAND (loose wet) Brown to gray medium SAND with trace silt (loose, saturated) Light gray medium SAND (dense, wet) Bottom of Boring Completed8/14/2015 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 2 5 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 9 15 17 10 17 18 ATD TOTAL DEPTH:16.5 DRILLING METHOD:HSA LOGGED BY:STM TOP ELEVATION:196 DRILLING COMPANY:Boretec, Inc HAMMER TYPE:cathead LATITUDE:DRILL RIG:EC-95 HAMMER WEIGHT:140 lbs LONGITUDE:NOTES: NOTES Creekwood Residential Plat 1. Refer to log key for definition of symbols, abbreviations and codes XXX 21st Ave SW/22nd Ave SW 2. USCS designation is based on visual manual classification Federal Way, WA and selected lab testing 3. Groundwater level, if indicated, is for the date shown and may vary 4. N.E. = Not Encountered LOG OF BORING B-9 5. ATD = At the Time of Drilling JOB: Amalani.Creekwood Sheet 1 of GeoResources, LLC FIG.A-10DepthElevationSOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING NOTES SampleSamplerSymbolTEST RESULTS 10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - (blows per foot) % Fines (<0.075mm) % Water Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit BlowCountGroundWater1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 200 195 190 185 180 175 170 Topsoil/Forest Duff (wet) Dark brown SAND with some gravel, silt (loose, wet) Gray medium SAND with trace silt (loose, saturated) becomes dense Bottom of Boring Completed8/14/2015 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 3 1 1 0 2 2 2 3 7 5 10 14 19 ATD TOTAL DEPTH:14 DRILLING METHOD:HSA LOGGED BY:STM TOP ELEVATION:202 DRILLING COMPANY:Boretec, Inc HAMMER TYPE:cathead LATITUDE:DRILL RIG:EC-95 HAMMER WEIGHT:140lbs LONGITUDE:NOTES: NOTES Creekwood Residential Plat 1. Refer to log key for definition of symbols, abbreviations and codes XXX 21st Ave SW/22nd Ave SW 2. USCS designation is based on visual manual classification Federal Way, WA and selected lab testing 3. Groundwater level, if indicated, is for the date shown and may vary 4. N.E. = Not Encountered LOG OF BORING B-10 5. ATD = At the Time of Drilling JOB: Amalani.Creekwood Sheet 1 of GeoResources, LLC FIG.A-11DepthElevationSOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING NOTES SampleSamplerSymbolTEST RESULTS 10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - (blows per foot) % Fines (<0.075mm) % Water Content Plastic Limit Liquid Limit BlowCountGroundWater1 Test Pit TP-1 Location: East knob, NE corner of site along east property line. Approximate Elevation: 276 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0 - 2 SP Brown SAND with gravel, debris (medium dense, moist) 2 - 11 SP Brown gravelly SAND with some silt, slightly compact (medium dense to dense, moist) (Outwash Deposits) Terminated at 11 feet below ground surface. No caving observed No groundwater seepage or mottling observed. Test Pit TP-2 Location: Above top of slope, proposed lot 23 Approximate Elevation: 277 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0 - 1 - Forest Duff/Topsoil with numerous roots 1 - 4 SP Brown gravelly SAND with some silt, scattered roots (medium dense, moist) (Weathered Outwash Deposits) 4 - 9 SP Brown SAND with gravel, trace silt, slightly compact(medium dense to dense, moist) (Outwash Deposits) Terminated at 9 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage or mottling observed. Test Pit TP-3 Location: Along existing trail, on proposed roadway Approximate Elevation: 274 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0 - 1½ - Forest Duff/Topsoil with numerous roots 1½ - 4 SP Brown gravelly SAND with some silt, scattered roots (medium dense, moist) (Weathered Outwash Deposits) 4 - 11 SP Brown medium grained SAND with gravel (medium dense, moist) (Outwash Deposits) Terminated at 4 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. Logged by: R.M. Phillips Excavated on: January 3, 2014 GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Test Pit Logs Proposed Residential Plat xxx 21st Way SW Federal Way, Washington Job: Amalani.CreekWood July 2016 Figure A-12 Test Pit TP-4 Location: East knob, proposed stormwater tract Approximate Elevation: 245 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0 - 2 - Forest Duff/Topsoil with numerous roots 2 - 3½ SM Brown silty SAND with scattered roots (loose, moist) (Weathered Outwash Deposits) 3½ - 10 SP Brown gravelly fine to medium SAND with some silt, slightly compact (medium dense to dense, moist) (Outwash Deposits) Terminated at 10 feet below ground surface. Minor sloughing observed in upper 3 feet. No groundwater seepage or mottling observed. Test Pit TP-5 Location: East knob, proposed stormwater tract Approximate Elevation: 250 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0 - 1½ - Forest Duff/Topsoil with numerous roots 1½ - 3½ SM Brown silty fine to medium SAND with scattered roots (loose, moist) (Weathered Outwash Deposits) 3½ - 8 SP Brown SAND with gravel (medium dense to dense, moist) (Outwash Deposits) Terminated at 8 feet below ground surface. Minor sloughing observed in upper 3 feet. No groundwater seepage or mottling observed. Test Pit TP-6 Location: West knob, proposed stormwater tract Approximate Elevation: 250 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0 - 1 - Forest Duff/Topsoil with numerous roots 1 - 3 SM Brown silty fine to medium grained SAND with scattered roots (medium dense, moist) (Weathered Outwash) 3 - 8 SP Brown fine to medium grained SAND with trace gravel, compact (dense, moist) (Outwash Deposits) Terminated at 8 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. Logged by: R.M. Phillips Excavated on: January 3, 2014 GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Test Pit Logs Proposed Residential Plat xxx 21st Way SW Federal Way, Washington Job: Amalani.CreekWood July 2016 Figure A-13 Test Pit TP-7 Location: West knob, SW of TP-6 Approximate Elevation: 246 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0 - 1 - Forest Duff/Topsoil with numerous roots 1 - 6 SM Gray mottled gravelly SAND with some silt (medium dense, moist) (Weathered Outwash Deposits) 6 - 8 ML Gray fine sandy SILT (stiff to very stiff, moist) (Glacial Lacustrine Sediments) 8 - 11 SP/GP Brown to gray SAND/GRAVEL with trace silt (dense, moist) (Outwash Deposits) Terminated at 11 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. Mottling observed between depths of 1 to 6 feet. Test Pit TP-8 Location: W est of TP-7 Approximate Elevation: 251 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0 - 1 - Forest Duff/Topsoil with numerous roots 1 - 5 SM Gray mottled silty SAND with gravel, trace roots (medium dense, moist) (Weathered Till/Lacustrine?) 5 - 8 SM Gray silty SAND with gravel, cobbles, compact (dense to very dense, moist) (Glacial Till) Terminated at 8 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. Mottling observed between depths of 1 to 5 feet. Test Pit TP-9 Location: Center of west portion of site Approximate Elevation: 256 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0 - ½ - Topsoil with numerous roots ½ - 5 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, mottled (medium dense, m oist) (Weathered Recessional Outwash) 5 - 9 SM Gray silty SAND with gravel (dense, moist) (Glacial Till) Terminated at 9 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. Mottling observed above depth of 5 feet. Logged by: R.M. Phillips Excavated on: January 3, 2014 GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Test Pit Logs Proposed Residential Plat xxx 21st Way SW Federal Way, Washington Job: Amalani.CreekWood July 2016 Figure A-14 Test Pit TP-10 Location: West knob, near north slope Approximate Elevation: 259 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0 - 1 - Forest Duff/Topsoil with numerous roots 1 - 5 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, mottled (medium dense, moist) (Weathered Recessional Outwash) 5 - 10 SM Gray silty SAND with gravel, cobbles, compact but friable (medium dense to dense, moist) (weak Glacial Till) Terminated at 10 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage or mottling observed. Test Pit TP-11 Location: North-center of west knob, East of TP-9 Approximate Elevation: 256 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0 - 1 - Forest Duff/Topsoil with numerous roots 1 - 4 SP Brown SAND with silt, mottling at basal contact (medium dense, moist) (Native Weathered Outwash Deposits) 4 - 6 SP Brown SAND with gravel (medium dense to dense, moist) (Native Outwash Deposits) 6 - 8 GP Sandy GRAVEL with cobbles, compact (medium dense to dense, moist) Terminated at 8 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. Minor mottling observed at 4 feet below the ground surface. Test Pit TP-12 Location: West knob Approximate Elevation: 250 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0 - 1 - Forest Duff/Topsoil with numerous roots 1 - 3 ½ SM Brown silty fine to medium grained SAND with scattered roots (medium dense, moist) (Weathered Outwash) 3 ½ - 5 SM/ML Gray SILT/ SAND with gravel (medium dense to dense/stiff , moist) (weak Glacial Till/Lacustrine?) Terminated at 5 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. Logged by: R.M. Phillips Excavated on: January 3, 2014 GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Test Pit Logs Proposed Residential Plat xxx 21st Way SW Federal Way, Washington Job: Amalani.CreekWood July 2016 Figure A-15 Test Pit TP-13 Location: W est knob, near 22nd Av SW Approximate Elevation: 238 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0 - 1 - Forest Duff/Topsoil with numerous roots 1 - 3 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, mottled (medium dense, moist) (Weathered Recessional Outwash) 3 - 7 SM Gray silty SAND with gravel (dense, moist) (Glacial Till) Terminated at 7 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. Minor mottling observed above 3 feet depth. Logged by: R.M. Phillips Excavated on: January 3, 2014 GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Test Pit Logs Proposed Residential Plat xxx 21st Way SW Federal Way, Washington Job: Amalani.CreekWood July 2016 Figure A-16 Hand Auger HA-1 Location: Approximately ½ way up slope between proposed Lot 21 and Tract C Approximate Elevation: 210 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 1.0 - Forest Duff, Topsoil 1.0 - 3.5 - Light brown / tan fine SAND with some gravel (medium dense, dry) 3.5 - 5.0 - Brown SAND (medium dense, moist) 5.0 - 6.0 SP Brown SAND (medium dense to dense, moist to wet) 6.0 - 7.5 SP Tan SAND (medium dense to dense, moist) Terminated at 7 feet below ground surface. Caving observed from surface. Groundwater seepage observed at 5.5 feet depth. Hand Auger HA-2 Location: Approximately in the middle of “Road B” and Tract C near 6’ mulch trail Approximate Elevation: 195 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 0.5 - Black Topsoil, Forest Duff 0.5 - 3.5 SP Grey/ Brown SAND with some gravel (medium dense, moist) 3.5 - 5.0 SP Grey coarse SAND with some organics (medium dense, wet) 5.0 - 5.5 SP Tan SAND (medium dense to dense, moist) Terminated at 5.5 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. Groundwater seepage observed at 3.5 to 5 feet depth. Hand Auger HA-3 Location: 10’ upslope from the center of back edge of proposed Lot 19 Approximate Elevation: 210 feet Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 1.0 - Forest Duff, Topsoil 1.0 - 4.5 SP Tan SAND with silt, organics, and some gravel (dense, dry) Terminated at 4.5 feet below ground surface. Caving observed from surface. No groundwater seepage observed. Logged by: DRT Excavated on: August 24, 2015 GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Hand Auger Logs Proposed Residential Plat xxx 21st Way SW Federal Way, Washington Job: Amalani.CreekWood July 2016 Figure A-17 Appendix B Laboratory Test Results These results are for the exclusive use of the client for whom they were obtained. They apply only to the samples tested and are not indicitive of apparently identical samples.Tested By: Checked By: GeoResources, LLC Fife, WA (no specification provided)* PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks Grey medium SAND with silt (Very dense, moist) (advance outwash?) NM-8.3%1.25 1 .75 .5 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.3 95.3 89.0 66.2 29.1 16.4 11.0 SP-SM 0.9194 0.6789 0.3878 0.3392 0.2541 0.1297 JPK Amalani, LLC Creekwood Residential Plat Amalani.Creekwood Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Sampled:Source of Sample: B-5 Depth: 15Sample Number: 5 Client: Project: Project No:Figure TEST RESULTS Opening Percent Spec. *Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.0 29.1 55.2 11.06 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report B-6 These results are for the exclusive use of the client for whom they were obtained. They apply only to the samples tested and are not indicitive of apparently identical samples.Tested By: Checked By: GeoResources, LLC Fife, WA (no specification provided)* PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks Poorly graded san NM- 5.9% 1.25 1 .75 .5 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.4 95.2 77.2 32.5 16.5 10.6 0.5608 0.4880 0.3452 0.3098 0.2400 0.1307 JPK 8/10/15 Amalani, LLC Creekwood Residential Plat Amalani.Creekwood Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Sampled:Source of Sample: B-5 Depth: 25Sample Number: 7 Client: Project: Project No:Figure TEST RESULTS Opening Percent Spec. *Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 22.2 66.6 10.66 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report B-7 These results are for the exclusive use of the client for whom they were obtained. They apply only to the samples tested and are not indicitive of apparently identical samples.Tested By: Checked By: GeoResources, LLC Fife, WA (no specification provided)* PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks Grey medium SAND with trace silt (very dense, wet) (advance outwash?) 1.25 1 .75 .5 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5 99.5 98.9 97.4 79.4 26.6 12.9 8.1 SP-SM 0.5936 0.4997 0.3489 0.3189 0.2612 0.1894 0.0951 3.67 2.06 NM-18% JPK Amalani, LLC Creekwood Residential Plat Amalani.Creekwood Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Sampled:Source of Sample: B-5 Depth: 35Sample Number: 9 Client: Project: Project No:Figure TEST RESULTS Opening Percent Spec. *Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 19.5 71.3 8.16 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report B-8 These results are for the exclusive use of the client for whom they were obtained. They apply only to the samples tested and are not indicitive of apparently identical samples.Tested By: Checked By: GeoResources, LLC Fife, WA (no specification provided)* PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks Grey medium SAND with trace silt and occ gravel(very dense, wet)(advance outwash? NM-14.7%1.25 1 .75 .5 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100.0 100.0 93.4 90.7 86.0 82.4 80.6 77.8 68.5 29.0 14.4 9.4 SP-SM 11.9804 8.8857 0.3736 0.3295 0.2539 0.1584 0.0844 4.42 2.04 JPK Amalani, LLC Creekwood Residential Plat Amalani.Creekwood Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Sampled:Source of Sample: B-5 Depth: 40Sample Number: 10 Client: Project: Project No:Figure TEST RESULTS Opening Percent Spec. *Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 6.6 11.0 1.8 12.1 59.1 9.46 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report B-9 These results are for the exclusive use of the client for whom they were obtained. They apply only to the samples tested and are not indicitive of apparently identical samples.Tested By: Checked By: GeoResources, LLC Fife, WA (no specification provided)* PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks NM-4.3 1.25 1 .75 .5 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.0 94.5 67.5 27.8 14.9 10.5 SP-SM 0.6897 0.5915 0.3845 0.3398 0.2598 0.1509 JPK Amalani, LLC Creekwood Residential Plat Amalani.Creekwood Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Sampled:Source of Sample: B-6 Depth: 5Sample Number: 2 Client: Project: Project No:Figure TEST RESULTS Opening Percent Spec. *Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 31.5 57.0 10.56 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report B-10 These results are for the exclusive use of the client for whom they were obtained. They apply only to the samples tested and are not indicitive of apparently identical samples.Tested By: Checked By: GeoResources, LLC Fife, WA (no specification provided)* PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks NM-5.7% 1.25 1 .75 .5 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.7 95.5 91.8 85.0 61.6 29.0 19.2 14.2 SP-SM 1.3614 0.8487 0.4135 0.3545 0.2557 0.0838 JPK Amalani, LLC Creekwood Residential Plat Amalani.Creekwood Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Sampled:Source of Sample: B-8 Depth: 5Sample Number: 1 Client: Project: Project No:Figure TEST RESULTS Opening Percent Spec. *Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 4.5 3.7 30.2 47.4 14.26 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report B-11 These results are for the exclusive use of the client for whom they were obtained. They apply only to the samples tested and are not indicitive of apparently identical samples.Tested By: Checked By: GeoResources, LLC Fife, WA (no specification provided)* PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks NM-19.4% 1.25 1 .75 .5 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100.0 100.0 95.2 87.2 86.5 83.5 80.5 76.8 61.2 30.1 16.9 11.4 15.1849 6.1890 0.4151 0.3498 0.2496 0.1261 JPK Amalani, LLC Creekwood Residential Plat Amalani.Creekwood Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Sampled:Source of Sample: B-9 Depth: 5Sample Number: 2 Client: Project: Project No:Figure TEST RESULTS Opening Percent Spec. *Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 4.8 11.7 3.0 19.3 49.8 11.46 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report B-12 These results are for the exclusive use of the client for whom they were obtained. They apply only to the samples tested and are not indicitive of apparently identical samples.Tested By: Checked By: GeoResources, LLC Fife, WA (no specification provided)* PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks Light gray medium SAND (dense, wet) NM-18.9% 1.25 1 .75 .5 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.4 97.1 94.8 88.2 46.7 14.7 7.4 4.6 SP 1.0282 0.7843 0.5121 0.4447 0.3343 0.2520 0.2092 2.45 1.04 JPK Amalani, LLC Creekwood Residential Plat Amalani.Creekwood Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Sampled:Source of Sample: B-9 Depth: 12.5Sample Number: 5 Client: Project: Project No:Figure TEST RESULTS Opening Percent Spec. *Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.3 48.1 42.1 4.66 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report B-13 Proposed Creekwood Page | B December 22, 2022 Appendix C – Slope Stability Analyses 1.31.3WW1.31.3Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeSat. Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name38350Mohr‐Coulomb140135Qva3050Mohr‐Coulomb90Duff40500Mohr‐Coulomb140Qvt31250Mohr‐Coulomb120115Weathered Till40030020010000100200300400500600700ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupAA' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 0.60.6WW0.60.6 0.325004003002001000-1000100200300400500600700800ScenarioDynamicGroupAA' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 2.32.3WW2.32.3Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeSat. Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name340Mohr‐Coulomb125120Qvr38350Mohr‐Coulomb140135Qva3050Mohr‐Coulomb90Duff370Mohr‐Coulomb130Structural Fill40500Mohr‐Coulomb140Qvt31250Mohr‐Coulomb120115Weathered TillEFP (lbs/ft3)Pressure Profile TypeConnection Strength (lbs/ft)Connection Strength InputTensile Strength (lbs/ft)Strip Coverage (%)AnchorageForce OrientationLocation of ForceFriction FactorInput TypeMaterial DependentForce ApplicationTypeColorSupport Name35TriangularHorizontalCentroid of the Pressure DiagramActive (Method A)Retaining Wall (EFP)Retaining Wall1000Constant2000100Slope FaceParallel to Reinforcement0.4Friction FactorNoActive (Method A)GeosyntheticMSE4003002001000100200300400500600ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupAA' Proposed 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 1.21.2WW1.21.2 0.324030020010000100200300400500600ScenarioDynamicGroupAA' Proposed 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 2.92.9WW2.92.9Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeSat. Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name340Mohr‐Coulomb125120Qvr38350Mohr‐Coulomb140135Qva3050Mohr‐Coulomb90Duff40500Mohr‐Coulomb140Qvt31250Mohr‐Coulomb120115Weathered Till350300250200150100150200250300350400450ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupBB' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 1.21.2WW1.21.2 0.32350300250200100150200250300350400450ScenarioDynamicGroupBB' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 2.82.8WW2.82.8Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeSat. Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name340Mohr‐Coulomb125120Qvr38350Mohr‐Coulomb140135Qva370Mohr‐Coulomb130Structural Fill40500Mohr‐Coulomb140Qvt31250Mohr‐Coulomb120115Weathered Till300250200150100150200250300350400450ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupBB' 2022 ProposedCompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 1.21.2WW1.21.2 0.32400350300250200100150200250300350400450ScenarioDynamicGroupBB' 2022 ProposedCompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 2.02.0WW2.02.0Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeSat. Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name3050Mohr‐Coulomb90Duff40500Mohr‐Coulomb140Qvt31250Mohr‐Coulomb120115Weathered Till2502001500255075100125150175200225250275300ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupCC' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 1.31.3WW1.31.3 0.322502001500255075100125150175200225250275300ScenarioDynamicGroupCC' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 4.54.5WW4.54.5Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeSat. Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name370Mohr‐Coulomb130Structural Fill40500Mohr‐Coulomb140Qvt31250Mohr‐Coulomb120115Weathered Till3002502001500255075100125150175200225250275300ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupCC' 2022 ProposedCompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 2.12.1WW2.12.1 0.32400350300250200150-100-50050100150200250300350400ScenarioDynamicGroupCC' 2022 ProposedCompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 2.22.2WW2.22.2Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeSat. Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name38350Mohr‐Coulomb140135Qva3050Mohr‐Coulomb90Duff40500Mohr‐Coulomb140Qvt31250Mohr‐Coulomb120115Weathered Till30025020015010050050100150200250300350400450ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupDD' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 1.41.4WW1.41.4 0.32300250200150100050100150200250300350400450ScenarioDynamicGroupDD' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 2.22.2WW2.22.2Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeSat. Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name38350Mohr‐Coulomb140135Qva370Mohr‐Coulomb130Structural Fill40500Mohr‐Coulomb140Qvt31250Mohr‐Coulomb120115Weathered Till30025020015010050050100150200250300350400450ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupDD' 2022 ProposedCompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 1.31.3WW1.31.3 0.32300250200150100050100150200250300350400450ScenarioDynamicGroupDD' 2022 ProposedCompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 1.21.21.21.2Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeUnit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name340Mohr‐Coulomb120Qvr38350Mohr‐Coulomb135Qva3050Mohr‐Coulomb90Duff3002001000050100150200250300350400450500550600ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupEE' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 0.70.70.70.7 0.323002001000050100150200250300350400450500550600ScenarioDynamicGroupEE' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 1.23.51.2 200.00 lbs/ft21.23.51.2139.8Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeUnit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name340Mohr‐Coulomb120Qvr38350Mohr‐Coulomb135Qva3050Mohr‐Coulomb90Duff500400300200100-1000100200300400500600700ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupEE' 2022 ProposedCompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 0.71.50.7 200.00 lbs/ft20.71.50.7 0.32500400300200100-1000100200300400500600700ScenarioDynamicGroupEE' 2022 ProposedCompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 1.41.41.41.4Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeUnit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name340Mohr‐Coulomb120Qvr38350Mohr‐Coulomb135Qva3050Mohr‐Coulomb90Duff35030025020015010050050100150200250300350400450500ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupFF' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 0.70.70.70.7 0.32400300200100-50050100150200250300350400450500550ScenarioDynamicGroupFF' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 1.42.01.4WW 200.00 lbs/ft21.42.01.4Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeSat. Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name340Mohr‐Coulomb125120Qvr38350Mohr‐Coulomb140135Qva3050Mohr‐Coulomb90DuffInfinite strength150Concrete147.0003530025020015010050050100150200250300350400450500ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupFF' 2022 ProposedCompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 0.71.20.7WW 200.00 lbs/ft20.71.20.7 0.3235030025020015010050-50050100150200250300350400450500550ScenarioDynamicGroupFF' 2022 ProposedCompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 2.62.6WW2.62.6Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeSat. Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name38350Mohr‐Coulomb140135Qva3050Mohr‐Coulomb90Duff40500Mohr‐Coulomb140Qvt31250Mohr‐Coulomb120115Weathered Till300250200150100500050100150200250300350400450500550ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupGG' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 1.41.4WW1.41.4 0.3235030025020015010050050100150200250300350400450500550ScenarioDynamicGroupGG' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 2.62.6WW 200.00 lbs/ft22.62.6Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeSat. Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name38350Mohr‐Coulomb140135Qva3050Mohr‐Coulomb90Duff40500Mohr‐Coulomb140Qvt31250Mohr‐Coulomb120115Weathered Till300250200150100500050100150200250300350400450500550ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupGG' 2022 ProposedCompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 1.41.4WW 200.00 lbs/ft21.41.4 0.3235030025020015010050050100150200250300350400450500550ScenarioDynamicGroupGG' 2022 ProposedCompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 2.22.2W2.22.2Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeSat. Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name38350Mohr‐Coulomb140135Qva3050Mohr‐Coulomb90Duff31250Mohr‐Coulomb120115Weathered Till2402302202102001901800102030405060708090100110ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupSPSP' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 1.31.3W1.31.3 0.322402202000102030405060708090100110ScenarioDynamicGroupSPSP' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 2.62.6 200.00 lbs/ft2 200.00 lbs/ft22.62.6Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeUnit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name38350Mohr‐Coulomb135Qva370Mohr‐Coulomb130Structural FillInfinite strength150Concrete31250Mohr‐Coulomb115Weathered TillForce OrientationPile Shear Strength (lbs)Failure ModeOut‐Of‐Plane Spacing (ft)Force ApplicationTypeColorSupport NameParallel to surface20000Shear5Active (Method A)Pile/Micro Pile4 inch pins2502402302202102001900102030405060708090100110ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupSPSP' 2022 ProposedCompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 1.31.3 200.00 lbs/ft21.31.3 0.32280260240220200-20020406080100120140ScenarioDynamicGroupSPSP' 2022 ProposedCompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 2.22.22.22.2Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeUnit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name340Mohr‐Coulomb120Qvr38350Mohr‐Coulomb135Qva3050Mohr‐Coulomb90Duff30020010000100200300400500600ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupNDND' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 1.31.31.31.3 0.3230020010000100200300400500600ScenarioDynamicGroupNDND' 2022CompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 2.22.2 200.00 lbs/ft22.22.2Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeUnit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name340Mohr‐Coulomb120Qvr38350Mohr‐Coulomb135Qva3050Mohr‐Coulomb90Duff30020010000100200300400500600ScenarioMaster ScenarioGroupNDND' 2022 ProposedCompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 1.31.3 200.00 lbs/ft21.31.3 0.3230020010000100200300400500600ScenarioDynamicGroupNDND' 2022 ProposedCompanyDrawn ByFile NameDecember 2022.aesrevision.slmdDate12/15/2022, 12:34:25 PMProjectSlide2 - An Interactive Slope Stability ProgramSLIDEINTERPRET 9.025 Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment for the Creekwood Plat prepared by Soundview Consultants dated December 16, 2022 6.2 WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN CREEKWOOD PLAT DECEMBER 2022 WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN CREEKWOOD PLAT DECEMBER 16, 2022 PROJECT LOCATION WEST ADJACENT TO: 31119 21ST AVENUE SOUTHWEST FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98023 PREPARED FOR AMALANI LLC 415 1ST AVENUE NORTH, UNIT 9998 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 PREPARED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 (253) 514-8952 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat i Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Executive Summary Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting Amalani, LLC (Applicant) with a Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment for the proposed residential development of a 19.86 -acre site located west adjacent to 31119 21st Avenue Southwest in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The subject property consists of one parcel situated in the Northeast ¼ of Section 12, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Number 1221039037). SVC previously investigated the subject property for the presence of potentially regulated wetlands, waterbodies, and fish and wildlife habitat in the fall and winter of 2013 and winter of 2014, with follow up investigations completed in spring 2017. The results of these assessments are documented in the revised Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment – Creekwood Plat prepared in October 2020 (SVC, 2020). Due to the time that has elapsed since the initial site investigations, an additional site visit was conducted in August 2022 to reconfirm the findings of the previous study. Using current methodology, SVC identified three wetlands (Wetlands B, D, E/F) and four streams (Drainages W, X, and Y and Stream Z) on the subject property and two wetlands (Wetland A and G) offsite within 225 feet of the subject property. Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G are classified as Category IV wetlands and subject to standard 50-foot buffers per FRWC 19.145.420(2) Table 1. Drainages W, X, and portions of Drainage Y north of flag Y-9 are classified as Type Np (non-fish bearing, perennial) streams and subject to standard 50-foot buffers per FWRC 19.145.270(1)(b). Portions of Drainage Y south of flag Y-9 and Stream Z are classified as Type F (fish-bearing) streams and subject to standard 100-foot buffers per FWRC 19.145.270(a). The Applicant proposes residential development of the subject property with a 20-lot residential plat and associated infrastructure including internal site access and parking, utilities, and stormwater infrastructure. The proposed project has been carefully designed to avoid impacts to the identified critical areas and associated buffers to the greatest extent feasible, and direct impacts, in-water work, and impacts to the buffers of Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, Drainages W and X, and Stream Z are avoided entirely. However, due to the need to provide site access in compliance with the City of Federal Way’s street design standards, steep slopes which limit the developable areas onsite, the need to maintain site drainage patterns, and the location of Drainage Y near the northern boundary of the subject property, complete avoidance is not feasible. The proposed project requires necessary unavoidable impacts to 6,115 square feet of the buffer of Drainage Y to provide an access road across the northern boundary of the subject property that complies with the City of Federal Way’s street design standards and to provide a stormwater connection that maintains existing site drainage patterns following development of the subject property. The proposed work will result in 148 square feet of permanent intrusion to the Drainage Y buffer due to the construction of a sidewalk and associated retaining wall. Non-compensatory buffer restoration and enhancement actions are proposed to offset intrusion to the buffer of Drainage Y. The 5,967 square feet of temporary intrusion due to grading within the Drainage Y buffer will be fully restored by stabilizing the ravine where Drainage Y is located. Stabilization measures will include filling and grading the ravine with a stabler slope and planting an erosion control mix to further stabilize soils and prevent future erosion. The remaining 59,167 square feet of buffer associated with Drainage Y will be enhanced by removing degradations including non-native invasive species, trash, and debris, and planting the understory with a suite of native shrubs and groundcover which will improve stability of the ravine where Drainage Y is located, and improve habitat in/adjacent to Drainage Y. In addition, the onsite buffers of the remaining critical areas (Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, Drainages W and X, 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat ii Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 and Stream Z) will be enhanced by removing trash and debris from the buffers. These actions are anticipated to provide a net lift in ecological functions associated with Drainage Y and the remaining critical areas identified on the subject property. Further details are provided in the buffer Enhancement Plan in Chapter 7. The table below identifies the onsite, existing critical areas and summarizes the potential regulatory status by local, state, and federal agencies. Wetland Name Size Onsite Category1 Regulated Under FWRC 19.145 Regulated Under RCW 90.48 Regulated Under Clean Water Act Wetland A N/A - Offsite IV Yes Yes Assumed Wetland B 8,251 square feet IV Yes Yes Assumed Wetland D 644 square feet IV Yes Yes Assumed Wetland E/F 9,351 square feet IV Yes Yes Assumed Wetland G N/A - Offsite IV Yes Yes Assumed Drainage W 184 linear feet Np Yes Yes Assumed Drainage X 117 linear feet Np Yes Yes Assumed Drainage Y 421 linear feet Np/F Yes Yes Assumed Stream Z 987 linear feet F Yes Yes Assumed Note: 1. Current Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) wetland rating system (Hruby, 2014) per FWRC 19.145.410(1) and DNR stream classification system (WAC 222-16-030) per FWRC 19.145.260(2). 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat ii Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 2. Proposed Project ....................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Abbreviated Project Description .......................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 3. Methods and Project History ................................................................................................ 4 Chapter 4. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................. 6 4.1 Landscape Setting ................................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 4.3 Critical Area Inventories ........................................................................................................................ 7 4.4 Prior Critical Areas Studies .................................................................................................................... 8 4.5 Precipitation ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Chapter 5. Results ........................................................................................................................................ 10 5.1 Upland Vegetation ................................................................................................................................ 10 5.2 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................................. 10 5.3 Waterbodies ........................................................................................................................................... 14 5.4 Non-Regulated Seep (Seep C) ............................................................................................................. 18 5.5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment ............................................................................................... 19 Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations ................................................................................................... 21 6.1 Local Considerations ............................................................................................................................ 21 6.2 State and Federal Considerations ....................................................................................................... 25 Chapter 7. Buffer Enhancement Plan .................................................................................................... 27 7.1 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................. 27 7.2 Description of Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 27 7.3 Buffer Enhancement Plan ................................................................................................................... 27 7.4 Approach and Best Management Practices ....................................................................................... 29 7.5 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards ............................................................................... 29 7.7 Maintenance & Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................................ 32 7.8 Reporting ................................................................................................................................................ 33 7.9 Contingency Plan .................................................................................................................................. 33 7.10 Critical Areas Protection .................................................................................................................... 34 Chapter 8. Closure ....................................................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 9. References ................................................................................................................................. 36 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map. ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Aerial Image of the Subject Property. ........................................................................................... 6 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat iii Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Tables Table 1. Precipitation Summary1 .................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2. Wetland Summary ........................................................................................................................... 10 Table 3. Wetland B Summary ....................................................................................................................... 11 Table 4. Wetland D Summary ....................................................................................................................... 12 Table 5. Wetland E/F Summary .................................................................................................................. 13 Table 6. Drainage W Summary ..................................................................................................................... 16 Table 7. Drainage X Summary ...................................................................................................................... 17 Table 8. Drainage Y Summary ...................................................................................................................... 17 Table 9. Stream Z Summary .......................................................................................................................... 18 Appendices Appendix A –– Methods and Tools Appendix B –– Background Information Appendix C –– Existing Condition and Buffer Enhancement Plans Appendix D –– Data Forms Appendix E –– Wetland Rating Forms Appendix F –– Wetland Rating Figures Appendix G –– Site Photos Appendix H –– Qualifications 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 1 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Chapter 1. Introduction Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting Amalani, LLC (Applicant) with a Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment for the proposed residential development of a 19.86 -acre site located west adjacent to 31119 21st Avenue Southwest in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The subject property consists of one parcel situated in the Northeast ¼ of Section 12, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Number 1221039037). The purpose of this wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment is to identify the presence of potentially regulated wetlands, waterbodies, and other fish and wildlife habitat on or near the subject site, assess potential impacts to critical areas from the proposed project, and provide recommendations for compensatory mitigation actions to offset unavoidable impacts to critical areas in the project area. This report provides conclusions and recommendations regarding: • Site description, project description, and area of assessment; • Background research and identification of potentially regulated critical areas within the vicinity of the proposed project; • Identification and assessment of potentially regulated wetlands and other aquatic features; • Identification and assessment of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat; • Existing site map detailing identified critical areas and standard buffers; • Site plan detailing the proposed development; • Documentation of wetland and fish and wildlife habitat impact avoidance and minimization measures; • Description of impacts and a Buffer Enhancement Plan; and • Supplemental information necessary for local regulatory review. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 2 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Chapter 2. Proposed Project 2.1 Project Location The subject property consists of a 19.86-acre site located west adjacent to 31119 21st Avenue Southwest in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The subject property consists of one parcel situated in the Northeast ¼ of Section 12, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Number 1221039037). To access the subject property from Interstate 5 North in the Federal Way area, take Exit 143 for South 320th Street toward Federal Way and turn left onto South 320th Street. After 1.8 miles, turn right onto 1st Avenue South. Continue for 0.5 mile and turn left onto Southwest 312th Street. After 0.8 mile, continue straight to stay on Southwest 312th Street. Proceed for 0.3 mile and continue straight onto 21st Place Southwest. After 0.4 mile, turn left onto Southwest 307th Street. Continue for 331 feet and turn left onto 22nd Avenue Southwest. 22nd Avenue Southwest terminates after 0.2 mile at the northern entrance of the subject property. Figure 1. Vicinity Map. Subject Property Location 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 3 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 2.2 Abbreviated Project Description The Applicant proposes residential development of the subject property with a 20-lot residential plat, internal access road and parking, utilities, stormwater infrastructure, and associated infrastructure. The proposed project avoids direct impacts to the identified critical areas (Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, Drainages W, X, and Y, and Stream Z). However, in order to comply with the City of Federal Way’s street design standards, the project requires an access road extending from 21st Way Southwest across the northern portion of the subject property. Due to the proximity of Drainage Y to the northern boundary of the subject property, the proposed access road requires necessary and unavoidable intrusion into the buffer of Drainage Y. A combination of buffer enhancement within the remaining portions of the buffer of Drainage Y and voluntary enhancement of the remaining critical area buffers is proposed to offset this intrusion and provide a net lift in ecological functions onsite. Further details are provided in Chapter 7 of this report. A site plan illustrating the identified critical areas and associated buffers, buffer impacts, and buffer restoration actions is included in Appendix C. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 4 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Chapter 3. Methods and Project History SVC investigated, assessed, and confirmed prior delineations of potentially-regulated wetlands, streams, drainages, and other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in the summer of 2022. All determinations were made using observable vegetation, hydrology, and soils in conjunction with data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI), Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) water typing system, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) and SalmonScape mapping tools, Federal Way and King County Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, and various orthophotographic resources. Appendix A contains further details for the methods and tools used to prepare this report. SVC investigated and delineated this site in December 2013 and August 2014. During this investigation wetland boundaries were determined using the routine approach described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) as modified by the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2010). Additionally, stream boundaries were determined using Ecology’s method as detailed in determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State (Olson, 2008); definitions provided in RCW 77.55.011 (11) and WAC 220.110.020 (69); and USACE’s Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05 Ordinary High Water Mark Identification (USACE 2005). The wetland and stream boundaries were preliminarily verified in the field with the City and ESA in 2014 (ESA, 2017). Ongoing work for this project continued through 2021, when a revised Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment (SVC, 2020) was submitted to the city. However, the wetland and OHW determinations documented in SVC’s 2020 report did not receive final approval by the city. Following submittal of the revised report, the project was paused and prior permits and approvals have since expired. In an effort to alleviate redundant costs for the Applicant and keep this project financially feasible, SVC has limited this assessment and re-delineation of the site to areas that are anticipated to project buffers that may affect development and/or in areas where wetland conditions appear to have changed. These areas include Drainage Y and the northern portions of Wetland B. Minor wetland boundary adjustments were made; however, SVC did not observe any entirely new wetland areas or waterbodies features. Wetland boundaries were confirmed or determined using the routine approach described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and 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 (NRCS, 2018). Orange surveyor’s flagging was labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation in areas considered for development as well as where the wetland boundaries appear to have changed from the prior delineation (namely the northern boundary of Wetland B). Where SVC agreed with the previously delineated wetland boundaries and no changes were required, no flags were hung to mark the onsite wetland boundaries. Select wetland plots (DP-6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14) were revisited to confirm wetland boundaries or upland conditions. Pink surveyor’s flagging was labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation at these locations and data was confirmed and updated to reflect current site conditions 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 5 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 during the summer 2022 site investigation. Additional tests pits were excavated at regular intervals inside and outside of the wetland boundaries to further confirm the delineations. Wetlands were classified using both the hydrogeomorphic (Brinson, 1993) and Cowardin (Cowardin, 1979; Federal Geographic Data Committee, 2013) classification systems. Following classification and assessment, the wetland was rated and categorized using the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington—Washington Department of Ecology, 2014, Publication No. 04-06-029, per Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145.420(1). Ordinary high water (OHW) mark determinations were confirmed using WSDOE’s method 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 drainage features, blue surveyor’s flagging was alpha- numerically labeled and tied to vegetation in areas considered for development (Drainage Y). Where SVC agreed with the previously delineated OHW boundaries and no changes were required, no flags were hung to mark the onsite wetland boundaries. 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 FWRC 19.145.260(2). 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. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 6 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Chapter 4. Existing Conditions 4.1 Landscape Setting The 19.86-acre subject property is located in a residential setting in the City of Federal Way, Washington (Figure 2). The subject property consists predominantly of undeveloped forest; however, an existing compacted gravel trail and other small concrete and metal drainage infrastructure were observed onsite. The subject property abuts a mix of residential development and undeveloped forest to the north, south, and west, and a self-storage facility to the east. Topography onsite generally slopes down from the north to the south, with elevations ranging from approximately 280 feet above mean sea level (amsl) on the northeast corner of the site to approximately 135 feet amsl on the southwest corner of the site. A King County Contours Map is provided in Appendix B1. The subject property is located in the Puyallup/White watershed (Water Resource Inventory Area 10). Figure 2. Aerial Image of the Subject Property. 4.2 Soils The NRCS Soil Survey of King County, Washington identifies three soil series on the subject property: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes (AgB), Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD), and Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep (AkF). A soil map is provided in Appendix B2. Below is a detailed description of the soil profiles. Subject Property Location 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 7 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes (AgB) According to the survey, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes is a moderately well- drained soil that is nearly level and undulating. This soil is similar to Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, but its surface layer may be 2 to 3 inches thicker in places. In a typical profile, Alderwood soils have a surface layer of very dark brown gravelly sandy loam to a depth of approximately 2 inches. The subsoil to a depth of 27 inches ranges from dark brown to grayish brown gravelly sandy loam. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches consists of a grayish brown weakly to strongly consolidated till. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes is listed as non-hydric on the King County Hydric Soils List, but as much as 10 percent of mapped areas may contain inclusions of hydric McKenna, Shalcar, and Norma soils (NRCS, n.d). Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) According to the survey, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes are elongated and range from 7 to 250 acres in size. In a typical profile, Alderwood soils have a surface layer of very dark brown gravelly sandy loam to a depth of approximately 2 inches. The subsoil to a depth of 27 inches ranges from dark brown to grayish brown gravelly sandy loam. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches consists of a grayish brown weakly to strongly consolidated till. This soil is similar to other soils in the Alderwood series, but the depth to substratum varies within short distances and is commonly observed at a depth of 40 inches. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes is listed as non-hydric on the King County Hydric Soils List, but as much as 5 percent of mapped areas may contain inclusions of hydric Shalcar and Norma soils (NRCS, n.d). Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep (AkF) According to the survey, Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep are moderately well drained and derived from basal till with some volcanic ash in moraines and till plains with 25 to 70 percent slopes. The series consists of approximately 50 percent of Alderwood and 25 percent of Kitsap soils with distribution varying greatly within short distances. The typical profile of Alderwood soils consists of very dark brown, dark-brown, and grayish brown gravelly ashy sandy loam in the upper 7 inches of the soil profile and grayish-brown very gravelly sandy loam in the substratum to a depth of 50 inches. The typical profile of Kitsap soils consists of very dark brown and dark yellowish-brown ashy silt loam in the upper 24 inches and stratified olive-gray silt to silty clay loam in the substratum to a depth of 60 inches. Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep is listed as non-hydric on the King County Hydric Soils List (NRCS, n.d). 4.3 Critical Area Inventories The Federal Way Critical Areas Map (Appendix B3), King County Sensitive Areas Map (Appendix B4), USFWS NWI Map (Appendix B5), and WDFW PHS Map (Appendix B6) do not identify any potentially-regulated wetlands on or within 225 feet of the subject property; however, Federal Way identifies a majority of the subject property within an erosion landslide area, and WDFW identifies the subject property and areas extending southeast, southwest, and northwest within a biodiversity corridor. The Federal Way Critical Areas Map, King County Sensitive Areas Map, USFWS NWI Map, and DNR Stream Typing Map (Appendix B7) identify one potential stream that appears to originate southeast of the subject property and travels east to west across the southern boundary of the site before continuing northwest offsite. An additional potential stream is also identified offsite to the southwest. DNR identifies both of the streams as fish-bearing (Type F) waters, and the WDFW SalmonScape map (Appendix B8) identifies the streams as gradient accessible for coho, Chinook, chum, and pink salmon and steelhead trout. No other potential wetlands, streams, or priority habitats 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 8 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 or species are documented on or within 225 feet of the subject property. 4.4 Prior Critical Areas Studies SVC previously investigated, assessed, and delineated potentially regulated wetlands, waterbodies, and other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas on and within 200 feet of the subject property in December of 2013, with consecutive follow-up visits in the summer of 2014. Identified critical areas were reevaluated in the spring of 2017 using current delineation and assessment methods. The results of these assessments are documented in the revised Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report – Creekwood Plat (SVC, 2020). Wetlands were delineated using the routine approach described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and 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 rated and categorized using the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014). Ordinary high water determinations were made using WSDOE’s method detailed in Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson et al, 2016) and classified using the DNR water typing system described in WAC 222-16. The 2020 report identified and documented three wetlands (Wetlands B and D, and Wetlands E and F, which were ultimately combined into Wetland E/F), three drainages (Drainage W, X, and Y), one stream (Stream Z), and one non-regulated seep (Seep C) on the subject property. In addition, two wetlands (Wetlands A and G) were identified offsite within 225 feet of the subject property. Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G were classified as Category IV slope wetlands using current methodology. Stream Z was classified as a Type F (fish-bearing) stream. Drainage Y was classified as a Type F water near its confluence with Stream Z, and as a Type Ns (non-fish bearing, seasonal) water on the northern portion of the subject property where the drainage narrows and traverses steeper gradients. Drainages W and X were identified as Type Ns (non-fish bearing, seasonal) waters. The Creekwood Plat project previously received a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) from the City of Federal Way (File No. 14-100958-00-SE) and went through several rounds of review and comments from the City, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Muckleshoot Tribe. However, the wetland and OHW determinations documented in SVC’s 2020 report did not receive final approval by the city. Following submittal of the revised report, the project was paused and prior permits and approvals have since expired. 4.5 Precipitation Precipitation data was acquired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) station at the Seattle Tacoma International Airport in order to obtain percent of normal precipitation during and preceding the investigations. A summary of data collected is provided in Table 1. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 9 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Table 1. Precipitation Summary1 Date Day Of Day Before 1 Week Prior 2 Weeks Prior 30 Days Prior Year to Date (Observed/Normal)2 Percent of Normal3 8/30/2022 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05/0.95 25.13/21.75 5/116 Notes: 1. Precipitation levels provided in inches. Data obtained from NOAA (http://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=pqr) for Sea-Tac International Airport. 2. Year-to-date precipitation is for the 2022 calendar year from January 1st to the site visit date.. 3. Percent of normal is shown for the year to date. Precipitation levels during the during the August 2022 site visit were within the statistical normal range (70 to 130 percent of normal) for the 2022 calendar year (116 percent of normal) and lower than the statistical normal range for the prior 30 days (5 percent of normal). Given that the month of August is typically one of the driest times of year in the Pacific Northwest region, this precipitation data suggests that hydrologic conditions encountered during the time of the site investigations were relatively normal for the time of year. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 10 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Chapter 5. Results SVC confirmed the presence and boundaries of the following potentially regulated critical areas onsite: three wetlands (Wetlands B, D, and E/F), three drainages (Drainages W, X, and Y), and one stream (Stream Z). In addition, one non-regulated seep (Seep C) was identified on the subject property, and two wetlands (Wetlands A and G) were identified offsite within 225 feet of the subject property. No other potentially regulated wetlands, waterbodies, or other fish and wildlife habitat were identified within 225 feet of the subject property during the site investigations. 5.1 Upland Vegetation Upland vegetation on the subject property consists of undeveloped forested areas dominated by a canopy of bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder (Alnus rubra), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), with an understory of vine maple (Acer circinatum), western swordfern (Polystichum munitum), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). Non-native invasive Himalyan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and English ivy (Hedera helix) were also observed. 5.2 Wetlands Three wetlands (Wetlands B, D, and E/F) were identified on the subject property. In addition, two wetlands were identified offsite, one to the south of the southwest corner of the subject property (Wetland A), and one to the north of the northwest corner of the subject property (Wetland G). In general, SVC agrees with the prior wetland delineations; however, the boundary of Wetland B has been modified based on current site conditions. The identified wetlands contained indicators of hydric soils (presumed for offsite wetlands), wetland hydrology, and a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation according to current wetland delineation methodology. Wetland data forms are provided in Appendix D, wetland rating forms are provided in Appendix E, and wetland rating maps are provided in Appendix F. Table 2 summarizes the wetlands identified during the site investigations. Table 2. Wetland Summary Wetland Cowardin1 HGM Federal Way2 Wetland Size Onsite (Sq. Feet) A PEMB Slope IV N/A - Offsite B PSSB Slope IV 8,251 D PSSB Slope IV 644 E/F PSS/EMAB Slope IV 9,351 G PFOB Slope IV N/A - Offsite Notes: 1. Cowardin et al. (1979); Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013); class based on vegetation: PFO = Palustrine Forested, PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, PEM = Palustrine Emergent. Modifiers for Water Regime: A = Temporarily Flooded, B = Seasonally Saturated. 2. FWRC 19.145.420(1) wetland rating categories. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 11 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Wetland B Wetland B is approximately 8,251 square feet (0.19 acre) in size and is located centrally on the southern portion of the subject property, adjacent to Stream Z. The northern boundary of Wetland B was re- delineated during the August 2022 site investigation due to changes in site conditions following the initial delineation efforts, resulting in a slight increase in the overall wetland size. Hydrology for Wetland B is provided by surface runoff from adjacent uplands, direct precipitation, and a seasonally high groundwater table. Wetland vegetation is dominated by salmonberry, stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), fringed willowherb (Epilobium ciliatum), and youth-on-age (Tolmiea menziesii). Wetland B is a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Saturated wetland (PSSB). Per FWRC 19.145.420(1), Wetland B is a Category IV slope wetland. Table 3 summarizes Wetland B. Table 3. Wetland B Summary WETLAND B – INFORMATION SUMMARY Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way WSDOE Rating (Hruby, 2014) IV Wetland Size (onsite) 8,251 square feet Cowardin Classification PEMB HGM Classification Slope Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-6 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP-5 Wetland Functions Summary Water Quality (Scores 4 out of 9 Points) • Low site potential to trap sediments and pollutants and remove nitrogen due to moderate slope (>2-5 percent) of the unit and less than 50 percent cover of dense, uncut herbaceous plants. • Moderate landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due other source of pollutants to wetland. • Low societal value for water quality functions due to lack of degraded waters upgradient of the wetland and lack of water quality issues in the sub-basin. Hydrologic (Scores 4 out of 9 points) • Low site potential to reduce flooding and erosion due to the lack of dense, uncut rigid plants in greater than 90 percent of the wetland. • Low landscape potential to provide flood protection due to lack of land uses that generates excess runoff upslope of the wetland. • Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to surface flooding within a downgradient sub-basin Habitat (Scores 5 out of 9 Points) • Low site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat as the has low habitat interspersion and species richness. • Low landscape potential to support habitat use due to the surrounding residential development. • High societal value for habitat functions due to the presence of 3 nearby WDFW Priority Habitats (Instream, Riparian, and Biodiversity Areas and Corridors) Buffer Condition The buffer is partially degraded due to the presence of a maintained, mowed utility easement. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 12 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Wetland D Wetland D is approximately 644 square feet (0.01 acre) in size and is located east of Drainage Y on the east-central portion of the subject property. Hydrology for Wetland D is provided by surface runoff from adjacent uplands, direct precipitation, and a seasonally high groundwater table. Wetland vegetation is dominated by mannagrass, creeping buttercup, horsetail, and ladyfern (Athyrium cyclosorum). Wetland D is a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Saturated wetland (PSSB). Per FWRC 19.145.420(1), Wetland D is a Category IV slope wetland. Table 4 summarizes Wetland D. Table 4. Wetland D Summary WETLAND D – INFORMATION SUMMARY Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way WSDOE Rating (Hruby, 2014) IV Wetland Size (onsite) 644 square feet Cowardin Classification PSSB HGM Classification Slope Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-11 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP-12 Wetland Functions Summary Water Quality (Scores 3 out of 9 Points) • Low site potential to trap sediments and pollutants and remove nitrogen due to steep slope (>5 percent) of the unit and less than 50 percent cover of dense, uncut woody or herbaceous plants. • Low landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due to lack of pollutant sources upslope of the wetland. • Low societal value for water quality functions due to lack of degraded waters upgradient of the wetland and lack of water quality issues in the sub-basin. Hydrologic (Scores 4 out of 9 points) • Low site potential to reduce flooding and erosion due to the lack of dense, uncut rigid plants in greater than 90 percent of the wetland. • Low landscape potential to provide flood protection due to lack of land uses that generates excess runoff upslope of the wetland. • Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to surface flooding within a downgradient sub-basin Habitat (Scores 5 out of 9 Points) • Low site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat as the wetland has low habitat interspersion and species richness. • Low landscape potential to support habitat use due to the surrounding residential development. • High societal value for habitat functions due to the presence of 3 nearby WDFW Priority Habitats (Instream, Riparian, and Biodiversity Areas and Corridors) Buffer Condition The buffer is partially disturbed due to the presence of a culvert and a compacted gravel road. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 13 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Wetland E/F Wetland E/F is approximately 9,351 square feet (0.21 acre) in size and is located adjacent to Drainage X on the eastern portion of the subject property. Hydrology for Wetland E/F is provided by surface runoff from adjacent uplands, direct precipitation, and a seasonally high groundwater table. Wetland vegetation is dominated by salmonberry, vine maple, ladyfern, stinging nettle, and skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanus). Wetland E/F is a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub/Emergent, Temporarily Flooded, Seasonally Saturated wetland (PSS/EMAB). Per FWRC 19.145.420(1), Wetland E/F is a Category IV slope wetland. Table 5 summarizes Wetland E/F. Table 5. Wetland E/F Summary WETLAND E/F – INFORMATION SUMMARY Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way WSDOE Rating (Hruby, 2014) IV Wetland Size (onsite) 9,351 square feet Cowardin Classification PSS/EMAB HGM Classification Slope Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-13, DP-15 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP-14, DP-16 Wetland Functions Summary Water Quality (Scores 3 out of 9 Points) • Low site potential to trap sediments and pollutants and remove nitrogen due to steep slope (>5 percent) of the unit and less than 50 percent cover of dense, uncut herbaceous plants. • Low landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due to lack of pollutant sources upslope of the wetland. • Low societal value for water quality functions due to lack of degraded waters upgradient of the wetland and lack of water quality issues in the sub-basin. Hydrologic (Scores 5 out of 9 points) • Moderate site potential to reduce flooding and erosion due to the presence of dense, uncut rigid plants in greater than 90 percent of the wetland. • Low landscape potential to provide flood protection due to limited pollutant sources upslope of the wetland. • Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to surface flooding within a downgradient sub-basin Habitat (Scores 6 out of 9 Points) • Moderate site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat due to the presence of multiple plant structures and hydroperiods and large, downed woody debris within the wetland. • Low landscape potential to support habitat use due to the surrounding residential development. • High societal value for habitat functions due to the presence of 3 nearby WDFW Priority Habitats (Instream, Riparian, and Biodiversity Areas and Corridors) Buffer Condition The buffer is partially degraded due to the presence of non-native invasive English Ivy and trash and debris. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 14 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Wetland A (offsite) Wetland A is a small (<100 square foot) wetland and is located offsite, to the south of the southwest corner of the subject property. Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by surface sheet flow from adjacent uplands, direct precipitation, a seasonal high groundwater table, southwesterly runoff from nearby Highway 509/Southwest Dash Point Road, and Stream Z. Wetland vegetation is dominated by mannagrass (Glyceria sp.), creeping buttercup, and horsetail (Equisetum arvense). Wetland A is a Palustrine Emergent, Seasonally Saturated wetland (PEMB). Per FWRC 19.145.420(1), Wetland A is a Category IV slope wetland. Wetland G (offsite) Wetland G is approximately 10,558 square feet (0.24 acre) in size and is located offsite to the north of the northwest corner of the subject property. Hydrology for Wetland G is provided by surface runoff from adjacent uplands, direct precipitation, and a seasonally high groundwater table. Wetland vegetation is dominated by salmonberry, ladyfern, skunk cabbage, and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). Wetland G is a Palustrine Forested, Seasonally Saturated wetland (PFOB). Per FWRC 19.145.420(1), Wetland G is a Category IV slope wetland. 5.3 Waterbodies Site investigation and research identified three drainages (Drainages W, X, and Y) and one stream (Stream Z) on the subject property. All three drainages are tributaries to Stream Z, and Stream Z is a tributary to Lakota Creek. A summary of the identified drainages and stream is provided below. Drainage W Drainage W originates from two seeps near the eastern edge of the parcel and drains south down a hillslope with an approximately 25 percent gradient, passing through a 12-inch culvert before discharging to Stream Z. The seeps that form Drainage W lack a defined bed or bank, but as they converge, flows become more channelized and form a defined channel approximately 1 to 2 feet wide on average. Due to the narrow width of the drainage channel, Drainage W was flagged at the center line; however, the mapped extent of Drainage W was increased to incorporate and protect existing seeps. Upgradient portions of Drainage W were observed to be degraded due to the presence of trash and debris. The lower reach of Drainage W is bisected by a utility easement crossing. Drainage W is not identified as a typed stream by the City of Federal Way, King County, WDFW, or DNR. As the drainage flows down a steep gradient (25 percent), it does not meet the criteria of a Type F stream per WAC 222-16-030. Drainage W was previously identified by SVC as a Type Ns (non-fish bearing, seasonal) stream; however, flowing water was observed in the channel during the August 2022 site investigation. As such, Drainage W appears to meet the definition of a Type Np (non-fish bearing, perennial) stream per FWRC 19.145.260(2)(b). Table 6 summarizes Drainage W. Drainage X Drainage X originates from two seeps in Wetland E/F on the eastern portion of the subject property and drains south down a steep slope with a 24 percent gradient, passing through a 12-inch culvert before discharging to Stream Z. The seeps converge just south of Wetland E/F, forming a defined channel approximately 1 foot wide on average. Due to the narrow width, Drainage X was flagged at the center line predominantly within the extent of Wetland E/F. Areas where Drainage X flows through uplands were observed to be heavily degraded due to the presence of non-native invasive 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 15 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 English ivy and trash and debris. The lower reach of the Drainage X is bisected by a utility easement crossing. Drainage X is not identified as a typed water by the City of Federal Way, King County, WDFW, or DNR. As the drainage flows down a steep gradient (24 percent) and is less than 2 feet wide on average, it does not meet the criteria of a Type F stream per WAC 222-16-030. Drainage X was previously identified by SVC as a Type Ns (non-fish bearing, seasonal) stream; however, flowing water was observed in the channel during the August 2022 site investigation. As such, Drainage X appears to meet the definition of a Type Np (non-fish bearing, perennial) stream per FWRC 19.145.260(2)(b). Table 7 summarizes Drainage X. Drainage Y Drainage Y originates from a hillside seep near the north-central boundary of the subject property and flows south, passing through two 24-inch culverts before discharging to Stream Z. SVC previously discussed flagging Drainage Y further north on the subject property with WDFW; however, during the August 2022 site investigation SVC determined that regulated portions of the drainage start further south and re-delineated the stream. This re-delineation was based on the observation that areas north of Y-1 lack a defined channel and as such do not meet the definition of a regulated stream per WAC 222-16-030. Photos of site conditions north and south of OHWM flag Y-1 are provided in Appendix G. On the northern portion of the subject property, north of flag Y-9, Drainage Y has a narrow, defined channel approximately 1 foot wide on average and flows through a hillslope with a gradient of 13 percent. Channel substrate consists predominantly of silt. As the drainage flows south, the gradient begins to flatten, and the drainage channel widens to approximately 2 to 4 feet on average. Substrate transitions to silt and sorted pebbles and cobble. Trash and debris were observed in patches along the channel of Drainage Y, and the seep where Drainage Y originates was particularly inundated with trash, including an abundance of tires. The lower reach of Drainage Y is bisected by a utility easement crossing. Drainage Y is not identified as a typed stream by the City of Federal Way, King County, WDFW, or DNR. An analysis of historic data demonstrated that a stormwater outfall associated with the adjacent plat to the north was discharging onto the subject property in an area with previously mapped flat slopes (Associated Earth Sciences, 2017; GeoResources 2019, and 2020). As the outfall was not created with proper erosion prevention standards, catastrophic erosion rates created a deep ravine in which Drainage Y is now located. After the ravine was created, the City of Federal Way decommissioned the original storm drain pipe and installed a new underground storm drain pipe just west of Drainage Y within the drainage setback associated with Drainage Y. The current stormwater outfall now discharges directly to Stream Z. However, following the rerouting of stormwater, the eroded ravine was not repaired. Prior erosion within the ravine was severe and intercepted the groundwater table, maintaining hydrology of the channel after the City’s stormwater outfall was relocated. As portions of Drainage Y north of flag Y-9 are less than 2 feet wide on average, the upper reach does not meet the criteria of a Type F stream per WAC 222-16-030. As such, Drainage Y north of flag Y-9 meets the definition of a Type Np (non-fish bearing, perennial) stream per FWRC 19.145.260(2)(b). The reach of Drainage Y south of flag Y-9 is greater than 2 feet wide on average and meets the criteria of Type F stream per FWRC 19.45.260(2)(a). Table 8 summarizes Drainage X. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 16 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Stream Z One stream (Stream Z) was identified along the southern boundary of the subject property. As no future development activities are proposed south of Stream Z, only the northern OHW boundary was flagged. Stream Z originates offsite to the east and flows west, crossing the southeast corner of the subject property and continuing west along the southern boundary of the site. Onsite, Stream Z turns south near the central portion of the subject property and continues south/west offsite where it eventually joins Lakota Creek. Stream Z has a defined bed and bank approximately 2 to 4 feet wide on average and stream substrate consists predominantly of silt with areas of sorted pebbles and cobble throughout. Portions of Stream Z onsite had indicators of stream restoration, such as anchoring and large woody debris. Other portions of the stream were degraded due to the presence of trash and debris and showed evidence of eutrophication and bacterial blooms. All three of the identified drainages onsite (Drainages W, X, and Y) drain to Stream Z. DNR identifies Stream Z as a Type F (fish-bearing) stream, and WDFW identifies Stream Z as gradient accessible for chum, coho, Chinook, and pink salmon and steelhead trout. As Stream Z has a defined bed and bank approximately 2 feet wide on average, it meets the definition of a Type F stream per FWRC 19.145.260(2). A summary of Stream Z is provided in Table 9 below. Table 6. Drainage W Summary DRAINAGE W INFORMATION SUMMARY Feature Name Drainage W WRIA 10 – Puyallup/White Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way City of Federal Way Classification Type Np City of Federal Way Buffer 50 feet Waterbody Length (feet) 184 linear feet Documented Fish Presence None Location of Feature Near the eastern boundary of the subject property. Connectivity (where stormwater drainage feature flows from/to) Originates from two seeps on the eastern portion of the subject property and flows south, passing through a culvert before discharging to Stream Z. Documented Fish Species N/A 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 17 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Table 7. Drainage X Summary DRAINAGE X INFORMATION SUMMARY Feature Name Drainage X WRIA 10 – Puyallup/White Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way City of Federal Way Classification Type Np City of Federal Way Buffer 50 feet Waterbody Length (feet) 117 linear feet Documented Fish Presence None Location of Feature Eastern portion of property, west of Drainage W. Connectivity (where stormwater drainage feature flows from/to) Originates from two seeps within Wetland E/F and flows south, passing through a culvert before discharging to Stream Z. Documented Fish Species N/A Table 8. Drainage Y Summary DRAINAGE Y INFORMATION SUMMARY Feature Name Drainage Y WRIA 10 – Puyallup/White Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way City of Federal Way Classification Type Np/Type F City of Federal Way Buffer 50 feet/100 feet Waterbody Length 421 linear feet Documented Fish Presence None Location of Feature Drainage Y bisects the property from north to south on the east- central portion of the subject property. Connectivity (where stormwater drainage feature flows from/to) Originates on-site at the toe of a steep slope near the north central portion of the subject property and flows south through two culverts before discharging to Stream Z Documented Fish Species N/A 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 18 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Table 9. Stream Z Summary STREAM Z INFORMATION SUMMARY Feature Name Stream Z WRIA 10 – Puyallup/White Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way DNR Stream Type Type F City of Federal Way Classification Type F City of Federal Way Buffer Width 100 feet Waterbody Length 987 linear feet (onsite) Documented Fish P Yes Location of Feature Stream Z is located on the southern boundary of the subject property, flowing from east to west. Connectivity (where stormwater drainage feature flows from/to) Stream Z originates offsite to the east and flows west, crossing the southeast corner of the subject property and continuing west along the southern boundary of the site. Onsite, Stream Z turns south near the central portion of the subject property and continues south/west offsite where it eventually joins Lakota Creek. Modeled Fish Species Winter steelhead trout, pink salmon, coho salmon, fall chum salmon and fall chinook salmon downstream. Riparian/Buffer Condition The buffer of Stream Z is partially degraded by residential developments to the south, but otherwise consists of relatively intact forest. 5.4 Non-Regulated Seep (Seep C) One non-regulated seep (Seep C) was identified on the east-central portion of the subject property, west of Drainage Y. The seep is situated over a stormwater line constructed by the City of Federal Way. Two data plots (DP-9 and D-10) were collected to document conditions within Seep C. Vegetation within Seep C generally met hydrophytic vegetation criteria due to a dominance of facultative and facultative wetland species including salmonberry, tall mannagrass (Glyceria elata), giant horsetail, bentgrass (Agrostis spp.), and ladyfern. However, hydric soil criteria were not observed during the initial site investigations in 2013 and 2014, or the follow-up investigations in 2017, 2019, and 2022. Soils at both DP-9 and DP-10 failed to meet hydric soil criteria due to a lack of redoximorphic features. No primary or secondary indicators of hydrology were observed at DP-9. Saturation was observed the surface at DP-10 during the site investigations, however, soils from 2 inches below ground surface and lower were dry, indicating that the saturation observed is not associated with a groundwater table and therefore does not meet wetland hydrology indicator A3 (Saturation to the Surface), which requires a groundwater table to be present immediately below the saturation except in cases of restrictive layers, which were not observed at this location. Given the steep topography of the site combined with the various groundwater or stormwater discharges known to occur onsite, it is likely that the observed surface saturation was due to groundwater discharging further upgradient. This lateral “flow through” movement of water would be aerated and oxygenated. Such conditions typically preclude reduced, anaerobic conditions and subsequently do not allow hydric soils to form. Therefore, 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 19 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 while the seep may exhibit hydrophytic vegetation and occasionally wetland hydrology, it does not support hydric soils. As such, the seep is not a regulated wetland. 5.5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment According to the USFWS IPaC mapping database, marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and Taylor’s checkerspot (Euphydryas editha taylori) have the potential to occur on or within 225 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 100 feet; preferred pray is includes small fish and crustaceans although nestlings may feed on larger fish (WDFW, 1991). Nests and roosts are found in mature and old growth forests of western Washington. Nest trees are typically greater than thirty-two inches diameter at breast height, with nesting preferences on large flat conifer branches, often covered in moss (WDFW, 1991). Marbled murrelets have been observed in the largest numbers near the coastal waters surrounding the Olympic Peninsula and are more sparsely distributed elsewhere in this region. The subject property is not suitable for marbled murrelet habitat because it is over 3,000 feet away from the shoreline of the Puget Sound. In addition, while large conifers are present onsite, the forested areas within 225 feet of the subject property are not considered mature or old-growth and are fragmented by surrounding commercial and residential developments. Yellow-billed cuckoo habitat consists of low to mid-level riparian forests dominated by cottonwoods and willows. Additional riparian species may include ash, walnut, mesquite, and tamarisk. Breeding cuckoos prefer larger and wider patches of riparian habitat. Habitat assessments of yellow-billed cuckoo from California indicate that 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 have been confirmed in Washington between the 1950s and 2017; none of these sightings were breeding birds. Further, sixteen of these twenty sightings were east of the Cascades, and the sighted birds were likely vagrants or migrants (Wiles & Kalasz, 2017). The subject property is connected to a forested corridor that meets the size requirements to provide suitable habitat for yellow-billed cuckoo; however, the vegetation on and within 225 feet of the subject property is dominated by Douglas-fir, western red cedar, and bigleaf maple and species that provide suitable riparian habitat. In addition, yellow-billed cuckoo are unlikely to be present on or near the subject property due to the lack of sightings in Washington. 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). Stream Z consists predominantly of silt substrates and lacks the habitat complexity to support bull trout populations. In addition, bacterial and algal blooms and trash and debris were observed in portions of Stream Z indicating that stream temperatures and pollutant levels likely exceed the requirements for bull trout. As such, Bull trout are not likely present on or within 225 feet of the subject property. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 20 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Taylor’s checkerspot are primarily found in open prairie and grass/woodland habitats (Potter, 2016). In Washington, there are seven populations remaining that are primarily found on coastal bluffs and estuarine grasslands along in Strait of Juan de Fuca and in post-glacial gravelly outwash prairies in Thurston, Mason, Pierce, and Lewis Counties. Females lays eggs in April and May, depositing up to 1,200 eggs on the undersides of host plants, which can include members of the figwort or snapdragon family, harsh paintbrush, marsh speedwell, American brooklime, native seashore plantain, goose tongue as well as golden paintbrush and non-native species such as ribwort plantain and thyme-leaved speedwell (USFWS, 2013). No open prairie or grass/woodland habitats are present on or within 225 feet of the subject property, and none of the host plants suitable for egg laying were identified on or near the subject property. As such, Taylor’s checkerspot are not likely present on or near the subject property. WDFW does not identify documented salmonid presence on or within 225 feet of the subject property, but does identify Stream Z as gradient accessible for coho, Chinook, chum, and pink salmon and steelhead trout. Stream Z may provide suitable habitat for these species. In addition, WDFW identifies the subject property and areas extending offsite to the southeast, southwest, and northwest as a biodiversity corridor. Due to the presence of a relatively intact native forest community onsite and extending offsite to the north/west, this area likely serves as a migration corridor and offers suitable nesting and foraging areas for common urban wildlife species. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 21 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations SVC confirmed the presence and boundaries of the following critical areas onsite: three wetlands (Wetland B, D, and E/F), three drainages (Drainages W, X, and Y), and one stream (Stream Z) In addition, one non-regulated seep (Seep C) was identified on the subject property, and two wetlands (Wetlands A and G) were identified offsite within 225 feet of the subject property. No other potentially regulated wetlands, waterbodies, or other fish and wildlife habitat were identified within 225 feet of the subject property during the site investigations. 6.1 Local Considerations 6.1.1 Buffer Standards FWRC 19.145.410(1) has adopted the current wetland rating system for western Washington (Hruby, 2014). Category IV wetlands generally provide low levels of function and are typically more disturbed, smaller, and/or more isolated in the landscape than Category I, II, or III wetlands. Category IV wetlands score less than 16 overall points. Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G are classified as Category IV wetlands and subject to standard 50-foot buffers per FWRC 19.145.420(2) Table 1. Drainages W, X, and Drainage Y north of flag Y-9 are classified as Type Np streams and subject to standard 50-foot buffers per FWRC 19.145.270(1)(b). Stream Z and portions of Drainage Y south of flag Y-9 are classified as Type F streams and subject to standard 100-foot buffers per FWRC 19.145.270(1)(a). An additional 5-foot structure setback is required from the edge of all critical area buffers per FWRC 19.145.160. 6.1.2 Stream Buffer Intrusion The proposed project requires intrusion into the buffer of Drainage Y to provide access from 21st Way Southwest to the northeast and northwest portions of the subject property and to provide a stormwater connection to the existing storm pipe adjacent to Drainage Y for the proposed development. The location of the proposed access road is necessary to meet the City of Federal Way’s street design standards. The location of the proposed storm pipe connection is necessary due to the existing slope of the subject property and need to maintain existing site drainage patterns. The proposed necessary development actions will result in minor (148 square feet) of permanent intrusion due to the sidewalk and retaining wall, however the remainder of the buffer intrusion will be temporary in nature and will be restored and planted. Per FWRC 19.245.330(3), the City may approve stream buffer intrusion based on the following criteria: a. It will not adversely affect water quality. The proposed access road and stormwater connection are not anticipated to adversely affect water quality. Construction of the proposed access road and stormwater connection will require 6,115 square feet of intrusion to the buffer of Drainage Y. The existing buffer is degraded due to ongoing erosion issues associated with the ravine where Drainage Y is located, and the presence of trash, debris, and non-native invasive species and a sparse understory. In order to offset impacts to the drainage, the northern end of the ravine will be filled and graded 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 22 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 to replicate site conditions prior to erosion of the ravine. The impacts to the buffer of Drainage Y will be restored by seeding the fill slope with an erosion control mix. The remaining buffer will be enhanced by removing degradations (trash, debris, and non-native invasive species) and planting native shrubs and groundcover. Overall, these actions will prevent excess sediment loads from entering Drainage Y, reduce turbidity associated with excess sediment, remove sources of pollutants from the buffer, and provide a dense suite of native shrubs and groundcover in the understory which will improve filtration for surface runoff entering Drainage Y, resulting in a net lift in water quality for surface runoff entering Drainage Y. b. It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or buffer area. The proposed access road and stormwater connection will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within Drainage Y or the associated buffer. Buffer enhancement actions will remove degradations (non-native invasive species, trash, and debris) and improve habitat within the buffer by planting a suite of native understory plantings. The establishment of a native plant community in the understory will improve habitat by providing increased cover and shading along the banks of the drainage and providing potential food sources and cover for native wildlife. As such, the stormwater connection will not adversely affect existing wildlife habitat within Drainage Y or the associated buffer. c. It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. The proposed access road and stormwater connection will not adversely affect the existing drainage or stormwater retention capabilities associated with the buffer of Drainage Y. The existing buffer has little potential to retain stormwater due to the steep slope. As part of the construction of the proposed access road, the buffer will be filled and graded to make the ravine more gradual and stable. These actions, combined with the addition of native plantings within the buffer, will improve drainage and stormwater retention capabilities by slowing surface runoff entering Drainage Y and preventing further erosion, and therefore sedimentation of Drainage Y and downgradient waters. d. It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards The proposed access road and stormwater connection will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create erosion hazards. As mentioned above, as part of the access road construction, 6,115 square feet of the ravine north of where Drainage Y is situated will be graded, filled, and seeded with an erosion control mix to improve slope stability and prevent future erosion hazards. In addition, the remaining buffer areas will be planted with a suite of native shrubs and groundcover, which will provide increased root structure to improve slope stability. Overall, the proposed project is anticipated to improve earth conditions and alleviate existing erosion hazards. e. It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the City as a whole The proposed project will not be materially detrimental to other properties in the vicinity of the subject property or the City. As mentioned above, the proposed project will improve stability of the ravine where Drainage Y is located. The stability of the ravine has been an 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 23 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 ongoing issue of concern for adjacent property owners and the City (Associated Earth Sciences, 2017; GeoResources 2019, and 2020). f. It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. The proposed access road is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property as it is necessary to access the developable upland areas on the northwest portion of the site. In addition, stormwater facilities are necessary to offset increases in impervious surfaces associated with the proposed development. The location of the proposed stormwater connection due to the existing slope of the subject property and the need to maintain existing site drainage patterns. Additionally, the proposed intrusion into the stream buffer will utilize proper best management practices (BMPs) and installation of appropriate temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures, and clearing and grading will adhere to the requirements detailed in FWRC 19.145.340 which include: 1. Grading is allowed only during the dry season (May 1st to October 1st). The director may extend or shorten the dry season on a case-by-case basis, determined on actual weather conditions. 2. The soil duff layer shall remain undisturbed to the maximum extent possible. Where feasible, any soil disturbed shall be redistributed to other areas of the project area. 3. The moisture-holding capacity of the topsoil layer shall be maintained by minimizing soil compaction or reestablishing natural soil structure and infiltrative capacity on all areas of the project area not covered by impervious surfaces. 4. Erosion and sediment control that meets requirements of FWRC Title 16. 5. All fill material used must be nondissolving and nondecomposing. The fill material must not contain organic or inorganic material that would be detrimental to water quality or the existing habitat. 6. The applicant may deposit dredge spoils on the subject property only if part of an approved development on the subject property. 7. The applicant shall stabilize all areas left exposed after clearing and grading activities with native vegetation normally associated with the stream or buffer area. 6.1.3 Mitigation Sequencing Per FWRC 19.145.130, Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas. When alteration to a critical area is propped, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated for in the following order of preference: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. The proposed project has been carefully designed to avoid critical area and buffer impacts to the greatest extent feasible by avoiding direct impacts and in-water work, and avoiding impacts to the buffers of Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, Drainages W and X, and Stream Z. However, due to the need to provide access across the northern boundary of the subject property to meet City of Federal Way street design standards, the presence of steep slopes that limit the 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 24 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 developable areas onsite, the need to maintain existing site drainage patterns, and the location of Drainage Y near the northern boundary of the subject property, complete avoidance is not feasible. The proposed project requires intrusion into the buffer of Drainage Y to provide an access road from 21st Way Southwest across the northern portion of the subject property in order to meet the City of Federal Way’s street design standards and access the developable upland areas on the northwest portion of the subject property and in order to provide a stormwater connection that disperses flow down-gradient and maintains existing site drainage patterns. 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts. As mentioned above, the proposed impacts to the buffer of Drainage Y are unavoidable and necessary to achieve the goals of the proposed project, comply with the City’s street design standards, and provide a stormwater connection that maintains existing site drainage patterns. The proposed project will incorporate all appropriate BMPs and TESC measures for the duration of the project to minimize any construction impacts to Drainage Y and the other critical areas identified onsite. In addition, the proposed access road design and buffer enhancement measures will improve the stability of the ravine where Drainage Y is located, reducing excess sediment load and turbidity caused by excess erosion and scour of the ravine. 3. Rectifying the impact to the critical area by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project. Non-compensatory mitigation to help offset impacts to the buffer of Drainage Y will be provided through a combination of stream buffer restoration for the temporarily impacted portion of the Drainage Y buffer, and voluntary enhancement actions for the remainder of the Drainage Y buffer. In general, trash and debris will be removed from critical area buffers throughout the site to improve habitat and water quality for surface runoff entering the critical areas. The buffer of Drainage Y will be further enhanced through a combination of construction techniques that will improve stability of the ravine where Drainage Y is located, and the removal of non-native invasive plants and native understory plantings. Construction techniques to improve ravine stability include the installation of a concrete retaining wall to support the access road and filling and grading of the adjacent ravine slopes to restore eroded banks. Following fill and grading, the 5,967 square feet of fill slope will be seeded with a native erosion control mix to stabilize the slope and reduce sedimentation and turbidity within Drainage Y. Outside of the grading limits, 59,167 square feet of Drainage Y buffer will be enhanced with native understory plantings to improve habitat adjacent to Drainage Y. Overall, the proposed buffer enhancement actions are anticipated to provide a net lift in ecological functions onsite. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. The remaining wetland, stream, and associated buffer areas onsite will be protected via the establishment of a critical area tracts consistent with the requirements of FWRC 19.145.150. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 25 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 In addition, critical area fencing and signs will be installed along the perimeter of these areas to further prevent intrusion into these areas as required per FWRC 19.145.180. 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. See the response to part 3 above. Mitigation for impacts to the buffer of Drainage Y will be provided through a combination of buffer restoration for Drainage Y, and additional voluntary enhancement of the remainder of Drainage Y buffer. 6. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. The proposed buffer restoration and enhancement actions will be monitored for a period of 5 years consistent with the requirements of FWRC 19.145.150. 6.1.4 State Priority Habitats and Species The biodiversity area/corridor on the subject property is identified as a priority habitat by WDFW and likely regulated under FWRC 19.145.260(5); however, this area does not have a primary association with state or federal listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species. As such, protection measures listed under FWRC 19.145.400 are not applicable to the proposed project. 6.2 State and Federal Considerations In a December 2, 2008 memorandum from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE, joint guidance is provided that describes waters that are to be regulated under section 404 of the CWA (USACE, 2008). This memorandum was amended on February 2, 2012 where the EPA and USACE issued a final guidance letter on waters protected by the CWA. The 2012 guidance describes the following waters where jurisdiction would be asserted: 1) traditional navigable waters, 2) interstate waters, 3) wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters, 4) non- navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent meaning they contain water at least seasonally (e.g. typically three months and does not include ephemeral waters), and 5) wetlands that directly abut permanent waters. The regulated waters are those associated with naturally occurring waters and water courses and not artificial waters (i.e. stormwater pond outfalls). The 2012 memorandum further goes on to describe waters where jurisdiction would likely require further analysis: 1) Tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters, 2) Wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters, and 3) Waters that fall under the “other waters” category of the regulations. In addition, the 2012 guidance identifies thirteen waters or areas where jurisdiction will not be asserted: 1) Wet areas that are not tributaries or open waters and do not meet the agencies regulatory definition of “wetlands”, 2) Waters excluded from coverage under the CWA by existing regulations, 3) Waters that lack a “significant nexus: where one is required for a water to be jurisdictional, 4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased, 5) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/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 pools or swimming pools excavated in uplands, 7) Small ornamental waters created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons, and puddles, 8) Water-filled depressions 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 26 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 created incidental to construction activity, 9) Groundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface drainage systems, 10) Erosional features (gullies and rills), 11) Non-wetland swales, 12) Ditches that are excavated wholly in uplands, drain only uplands or non-jurisdictional waters, and have no more than ephemeral flow, and 13) Ditches that do not contribute flow, either directly or through other waterbodies, to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or territorial sea. Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, and Drainages W, X, and Y, and Stream Z are assumed to be regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) due to their likely surface water connectivity to Lakota Creek, a tributary to the Puget Sound. All of the identified wetlands and streams/drainages are considered natural waters that are likely regulated by the WSDOE through the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.48. No direct impacts to any regulated wetlands or waterbodies are proposed, therefore state and federal authorizations are not anticipated to be required. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 27 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Chapter 7. Buffer Enhancement Plan The proposed buffer enhancement actions for the project attempt to strike a balance between achieving project goals as well as a positive ecological result. The proposed stream buffer impacts closely adhere to the mitigation standards specified in FWRC 19.145.140 while also utilizing the best available science (Granger et al., 2005; Sheldon et al., 2005; WSDOE et al., 2006; WSDOE et al., 2021). This Buffer Enhancement Plan utilizes City of Federal Way’s mitigation guidance (FWRC 19.145.140) and serves to outline the Applicant’s plan to offset impacts to the buffer of Drainage Y from a proposed access road across the northern boundary of the subject property. 7.1 Purpose and Need The purpose of the project is to provide residential housing for the City of Federal Way, consistent with the City’s Comprehensive plan and current zoning. The proposed project will provide approximately 20 single-family homes with associated utilities and infrastructure to increase residences in the City of Federal Way. 7.2 Description of Impacts The proposed project is for residential development of the subject property with a 20-lot residential plat and associated infrastructure including internal site access and parking, utilities, and stormwater infrastructure. The proposed project has been carefully designed to avoid impacts to the identified critical areas and associated buffers to the greatest extent possible, and direct impacts, in-water work, and impacts to the buffers of Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, Drainages W and X, and Stream Z are avoided entirely. However, due to the need to provide site access in compliance with the City of Federal Way’s street design standards, the presence of steep slopes which limit the developable areas onsite, the need to maintain site drainage patterns, and the location of Drainage Y near the northern boundary of the subject property, complete avoidance is not feasible. The City of Federal Way’s street design standards limit the length of dead-end roadways, as such access cannot be provided exclusively via an extension of 22nd Avenue Southwest (north of the subject property). As such, an access road extending from 21st Way Southwest across the northern boundary of the subject property is required. Due to the location of Drainage Y near the northern boundary of the subject property, the proposed access road requires intrusion into the buffer of Drainage Y. In addition, due to the slope of the subject property and the need to maintain existing site drainage patterns, the proposed project requires the location of a stormwater connection to an existing storm pipe within the buffer of Drainage Y. Overall, the proposed access road will result in 6,115 square feet of impacts to the buffer of Drainage Y, of which 148 square feet are permanent intrusions due to the installation of the sidewalk and associated retaining wall, and 5,967 square feet are temporary in nature and will be restored through grading, seeding, and planting. 7.3 Buffer Enhancement Plan Non-compensatory buffer restoration and enhancement actions are proposed to help offset of impacts to the buffer of Drainage Y from the proposed access road and stormwater connection. Per FWRC 19.145.330, applicants for stream buffer intrusion shall provide a buffer enhancement plan that demonstrates that the remaining and enhanced buffer will function at an equivalent or higher level than the standard buffer. The plan shall provide an assessment of the existing habitat and water 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 28 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 quality functions, stormwater retention capabilities, groundwater recharge, and erosion protection and the effects of the modification on those functions. The existing buffer of Drainage Y is degraded due to the presence of non-native invasive species, trash and debris, and existing erosion issues associated with a since-decommissioned stormwater outfall previously located north of the drainage (Associated Earth Sciences, 2017; GeoResources 2019, and 2020). The buffer of Drainage Y provides limited habitat functions as the understory is dominated by non-native invasive species which limits food sources and browse, cover, and forage habitat for native wildlife. Water quality functions provided by the buffer are also limited due to the presence of trash and debris within the buffer which increases pollutant sources entering Drainage Y. Due to the steep eroded slopes associated with the ravine where Drainage Y is located, the buffer of Drainage Y has little to no stormwater retention capabilities, groundwater recharge, or erosion protection. The eroded slopes also contribute to degraded water quality within Drainage Y, and further downgradient waters include Stream Z, due to increased sediment loads and turbidity within the drainage. The proposed access road will implement several measures to stabilize the ravine where Drainage Y is situated. The road itself will be supported by a concrete retaining wall. Below the retaining wall, the ravine will be filled and graded to create a more gradual, stable slope down to Drainage Y. Following fill and grading of the slope, the 5,967 square feet of the buffer of Drainage Y will be restored by seeding the fill slope with an erosion control mix to stabilize soils and reduce future erosion. The remaining 59,167 square feet of the buffer of Drainage Y will be enhanced by removing degradations including non-native invasive species, trash, and debris and planting the understory with native shrubs and groundcover. The removal of non-native invasive species and planting of native shrubs and groundcover within the buffer will improve habitat functions by providing browse, cover, and nesting for small birds and mammals, which will in turn provide prey for raptors and other small mammals. The removal of trash and debris and stabilization of the ravine will improve water quality by removing pollutant sources from the buffer of Drainage Y and reducing sediment loads and turbidity within Drainage Y. Native plantings also have the potential to improve water quality by increasing filtration for stormwater runoff entering Drainage Y. Stormwater retention capabilities, groundwater recharge, and erosion protection will all be improved by filling, grading, and stabilizing the ravine where Drainage Y is located with an erosion control mix. These measures will slow the rate of surface runoff entering Drainage Y, allowing for more surface runoff to infiltrate, and will also provide increased erosion protection by stabilizing soils with native plantings. The proposed stormwater connection will facilitate controlled release of treated stormwater to an existing storm pipe located in the Drainage Y buffer. As such, the connection will not adversely affect water quality, habitat, stormwater retention, groundwater recharge, or erosion protection. Overall, the proposed buffer restoration and enhancement actions will provide a net lift in ecological functions and values associated with the existing degraded buffer associated with Drainage Y. In addition to enhancing the buffer of Drainage Y to allow for buffer intrusion pursuant to FWRC 19.145.330, voluntary enhancement of the remaining onsite critical area buffers associated with Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, Drainages W and X, and Stream Z onsite is also proposed. The buffers will be enhanced by removing trash and debris that is prevalent throughout the site. The removal of trash and debris will reduce pollutant sources entering the identified wetlands and streams and provide a net lift in ecological functions onsite. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 29 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 7.4 Approach and Best Management Practices Any earthwork adjacent to the identified critical areas and associated buffers will incorporate all appropriate BMPs and TESC measures to minimize impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control measures will include high-visibility fencing (HVF) installed around native vegetation along the perimeter of the grading limits, silt fencing between the graded areas and undisturbed buffers, plastic sheeting on stockpiled materials, and seeding of disturbed soils. These TESC measures should be installed prior to the start of development or restoration actions and actively managed for the duration of the construction or restoration activities. All equipment staging and materials stockpiles should be kept out of the identified critical areas and associated buffers, and the areas will need to be kept free of spills and/or hazardous materials. All fill material should 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 should be effectively managed and stockpiled on paved surfaces and kept free of the remaining shoreline buffer area. Following completion of the development, the entire site should be cleaned and detail graded using hand tools wherever necessary, and TESC measures will need to be removed. 7.5 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards The goals and objectives for the proposed buffer enhancement actions are based on providing improved habitat and protection for Drainage Y and improving habitat for Wetlands B, D, and E/F, Drainages W and X, and Stream Z. The buffer enhancement actions are capable of improving habitat functions for Drainage Y over time by stabilizing the ravine where Drainage Y is situated, removing degradations such as non-native invasive species, trash, and debris, and the establishment of a native vegetation barrier between the project and Drainage Y. Habitat functions associated with Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, Drainages W and X, and Stream Z will be improved by removing pollutant sources (i.e., trash and debris) from the associated buffer areas. Goal 1 – Improve and protect stream functions associated with Drainage Y by restoring and enhancing approximately 59,167 square feet of stream buffer area onsite. Objective 1 – Restore 5,967 square feet of the buffer of Drainage Y by stabilizing the ravine where Drainage Y is located. Performance Standard 1.2 – The buffer restoration area will be seeded with a native erosion control seed mix by the end of Year 1. Performance Standard 1.1 – No evidence of erosion or scour will be observed within the 5,967 square-foot restoration area during any monitoring year. If erosion or scour are observed, contingency measures will be implemented to ensure the stability of the ravine. Performance Standard 1.3 – Non-native invasive plants will not make up more than 20 percent cover in any growing season during the monitoring periods following Year 1. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 30 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Performance Standard 1.3 – No trash or debris will be present within the buffer restoration area during the monitoring period. Objective 2 – Establish a community of native trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs within the buffer enhancement areas associated with Drainage Y to create diverse horizontal and vertical vegetation structure and improve wildlife habitat. Performance Standard 2.1 – By the end of Year 5, the buffer enhancement areas will have at least 3 species of native shrubs (native volunteer species can be included) present within all of the buffer restoration areas. To be considered, the native species must make up at least 5 percent of the vegetation class. Performance Standard 2.2 – Minimum plant survivorship will be 100 percent of installed plants at the end of Year 1 (native recruitment and replacement of lost plants allowed), 85 percent at the end of Year 2, 80 percent at the end of Year 3, and 70 percent at the end of Year 5. Performance Standard 2.3 – Minimum native woody species in the buffer enhancement areas will be 30 percent total cover at the end of Year 3 and 50 percent at the end of Year 5. Performance Standard 2.4 – Non-native invasive plants will not make up more than 20 percent cover in any growing season during the monitoring periods following Year 1. Performance Standard 2.5 – No trash or debris will be present within the buffer restoration area during the monitoring period. Goal 2 – Improve onsite buffer functions associated with the remaining identified critical areas (Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, Drainages W and X, and Stream Z) by providing voluntary buffer enhancement. Objective 3 – Remove trash and debris from the onsite buffers areas Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, Drainages W and X, and Stream Z. Performance Standard 3.1 – No trash or debris will be present within the buffer restoration area during the monitoring period. 7.6 Plant Materials and Installation 7.6.1 Plant Materials All plant materials to be used for restoration actions will be nursery grown stock from a reputable, local source. 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 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 31 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 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 qualified 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. 7.6.2 Plant Scheduling, Species, Size, and Spacing Plant installation should occur as close to conclusion of the redevelopment construction activities as possible to limit erosion and limit the temporal loss of function provided by the stream, wetlands, and associated 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. 7.6.3 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. 7.6.4 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 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. 7.6.5 Preparation and Installation of Plant Materials The planting contractor shall verify the location of all elements of the restoration and enhancement 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 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 32 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 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 Agroform 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. 7.6.6 Temporary Irrigation Specifications While the native species selected for restoration and enhancement 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 will be provided as necessary for the duration of the first two growing seasons, two times per week while the native plants become established. Irrigation may be discontinued after two growing seasons if plants are well established. The frequency and amount of irrigation will be dependent upon climatic conditions and may require more or less frequent watering than two times per week. 7.6.7 Invasive Plant Control and Removal Invasive species onsite to be removed include English Ivy and any listed noxious weeds or other invasive species. These species can also be found nearby; therefore, to ensure these species do not expand following the restoration actions, invasive shrubs within the enhancement area will be pretreated with a root-killing herbicide approved for use in aquatic sites (e.g., Rodeo) a minimum of two weeks prior to being removed from the shoreline buffer. The pre-treatment with herbicide should occur prior to all planned restoration and enhancement 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. 7.7 Maintenance & Monitoring Plan The Maintenance and Monitoring Plan is described below in accordance with FWRC 19.145.140(8). The Applicant is committed to compliance with the buffer enhancement plan and overall success of the project. As such, the Applicant will continue to maintain the project, keeping the site free from non-native invasive vegetation, trash, and waste. The City of Federal Way will require continued monitoring and maintenance to ensure the buffer enhancement actions are successful. Therefore, the project site will be monitored for a period of five years with formal inspections by a qualified Project Scientist. Monitoring events will be scheduled at the time of construction, 30 days after planting, early in the growing season and the end of the growing 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 33 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 season for Year 1, and annually in Years 2-5, in accordance with FWRC 19.145.140(8). A closeout assessment will also be conducted in Year 5 to ensure the goals of the buffer enhancement plan have been achieved. Monitoring will consist of percent cover measurements at permanent monitoring stations, walk- through surveys to identify invasive species presence and dead or dying restoration plantings, photographs taken at fixed photo points, wildlife observations, and general qualitative habitat and wetland function observations. To determine percent cover, observed vegetation will be identified and recorded by species and an estimate of areal cover of dominant species within each sampling plots. Circular sample plots, approximately 30 feet in diameter (706 square feet), are centered at each monitoring station. The sample plots encompass the specified wetland areas and terminate at the observed wetland boundary. Trees and shrubs within each 30-foot diameter monitoring plot are then recorded to species and areal cover. Herbaceous vegetation is sampled from a 10-foot diameter (78.5 square feet) within each monitoring plot, established at the same location as the center of each tree and shrub sample plot. Herbaceous vegetation within each monitoring plot is then recorded to species and includes an estimate of percent areal cover. A list of observed tree, shrub, and herbaceous species including percent areal cover of each species and wetland indicator status is included within the monitoring report. 7.8 Reporting Following each monitoring event, a brief monitoring report detailing the current ecological status of the buffer restoration and enhancement actions, measurement of performance standards, and management recommendations will be prepared and submitted to the City of Federal Way within 90 days of each monitoring event to ensure full compliance with the buffer enhancement plan. 7.9 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 portion of the buffer enhancement area fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with City approval. Such plans are adaptive and should be prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed restoration characteristics. 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 buffers associated with the proposed project site. Contingency/maintenance activities may include, but are not limited to: 1. Replacing plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary; 2. Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate after 2 growing seasons with the same species or native species of similar form and function; 3. Irrigating the restoration areas only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water; 4. Reseeding and/or repair of buffer areas as necessary if erosion or sedimentation occurs; 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 34 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 5. Spot treat non-native invasive plant species; and 6. Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the buffer areas, as necessary. 7.10 Critical Areas Protection Signage will be provided around the buffers as required under FWRC 19.145.140.180. A temporary fence along the construction limits will prevent encroachment into the critical area during construction, which will be replaced by permanent fencing and signage after completion of the project. In addition, the project proposes to install fencing between the identified critical areas and developed areas. A performance and maintenance security will be provided as required under FWRC 19.145.140(10); a bond estimate will be prepared once preliminary approvals are obtained on this buffer enhancement plan. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 35 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Chapter 8. Closure The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to Creekwood Plat 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 wetland and OHW boundaries identified by Soundview Consultants LLC are based on conditions present at the time of the site inspection and considered preliminary until the flagged wetland and OHW boundaries are validated by the jurisdictional agencies. Validation of the wetland and OHW boundaries by the regulating agencies provides a certification, usually written, that the wetland and OHW boundaries 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 wetlands and waterbodies are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities, changes in wetland and waterbody boundaries may be expected; therefore, wetland and OHW delineations cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time. Local agencies typically recognize the validity of critical area delineations for a period of 5 years after completion of a wetland delineation and fish and wildlife habitat report. Development activities on a site 5 years after the completion of this report may require revision of the wetland 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. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 36 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Chapter 9. References Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 2017. Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation – Creekwood Plat, Federal Way, Washington. Prepared May 12, 2017. Kirkland, Washington. Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). 2022. Chapter 19.145 – Environmentally Critical Areas. Website: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/#!/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html. Current through July 19, 2022. 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 and Wildlife Service. 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. ESA. 2017. Creekwood Preliminary Plat 2017 Submittal. Prepared December 14, 2017. Seattle, Washington. 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. GeoResources. 2019. Response to Comments – Creekwood Preliminary Plat (File No’s 17-103948-00- SE/17-103947-SU), Federal Way, Washington. Prepared June 14, 2019. Fife, Washington. GeoResources, 2020. Geotechnical Engineering Report Addendum – Revised Ravine Crossing and Comment Response Letter – Creekwood Residential Plat, Federal Way, Washington. Prepared October 23, 2020. Fife, Washington. Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, Washington. April 2005. 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. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Munsell Color, 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 37 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 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. Potter, A. 2016. Periodic Status Review for Taylor’s Checkerspot. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 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 Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. Soundview Consultants, LLC. 2020. Revised Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment – Creekwood Plat. Prepared March 8, 2017; revised October 30, 2020. Gig Harbor, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. EPA/USACE. December 2, 2008. USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, Mississippi. USACE and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act. EPA/USACE. February 17, 2012. USACE. 2020. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5. http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly and Streaked Horned Lark. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17. USFWS. 2015. Recovery plan for the coterminous United States population of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Portland, Oregon. xii + 179 pages. 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. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 38 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 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. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1991. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Habitats and Species. May 1991. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. N.d. “Marbled Murrelet.” Website: wdfw.wa.gov/species- habitats/species/brachyramphus-marmoratus. Accessed 7 July 2022. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 292pp. 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. 1001.0032 - Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Appendix A –– Methods and Tools Table A1. Methods and tools used to prepare the report. Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference Wetland Delineation USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual http://el.erdc.usace.army.mi l/elpubs/pdf/wlman87.pdf Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Regional Supplement http://www.usace.army.mil /Portals/2/docs/civilworks /regulatory/reg_supp/west _mt_finalsupp.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Wetland Classification USFWS / Cowardin Classification System http://www.fws.gov/wetlan ds/Documents/Classificatio n-of-Wetlands-and- Deepwater-Habitats-of-the- United-States.pdf https://www.fgdc.gov/stan dards/projects/wetlands/nv cs-2013 Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 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. Hydrogeomorphic Classification (HGM) System http://el.erdc.usace.army.mi l/wetlands/pdfs/wrpde4.pd f Brinson, M. M. (1993). “A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands,” Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Wetland Rating Washington State Wetland Rating System http://www.ecy.wa.gov/bib lio/0406025.html Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington –Revised. Publication # 04-06-029. Wetland Indicator Status 2020 National Wetland Plant List https://www.fws.gov/wetla nds/documents/National- Wetland-Plant-List-2016- Wetland-Ratings.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2020. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5. http://wetland- plants.usace.army.mil/. Plant Names and Identification USDA Plant Database http://plants.usda.gov/ Website. Flora of the Pacific Northwest http://www.pnwherbaria.or g/florapnw.php 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. Soils Data NRCS Soil Survey http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.u sda.gov/app/ Website GIS data based upon: Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in 1001.0032 - Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station Soil Color Charts Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. Soil Data Access Hydric Soils List https://www.nrcs.usda.gov /Internet/FSE_DOCUME NTS/nrcseprd1316620.html Natural Resources Conservation Service. N.d. Soil Data Access Hydric Soils List (Soil Data Access Live). Field Indicators of Hydric Soils https://www.nrcs.usda.gov /Internet/FSE_DOCUME NTS/nrcs142p2_053171.pd f NRCS. 2018. Field Indictors of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasialas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Threatened and Endangered Species Washington Natural Heritage Program http://data- wadnr.opendata.arcgis.com/ datasets/wnhp-current- element-occurrences Washington Natural Heritage Program. Endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants of Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, WA Washington Priority Habitats and Species http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/p hspage.htm Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Program Map of priority habitats and species in project vicinity. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Species of Local Importance WDFW GIS Data http://wdfw.wa.gov/mappi ng/salmonscape/ Website Report Preparation Federal Way Revised Code https://www.codepublishin g.com/WA/FederalWay/#! /FederalWay19/FederalWa y19145.html FWRC 19.145 – Environmentally Critical Areas 1001.0032 - Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Appendix B –– Background Information This appendix includes a King County Contours Map (B1); NRCS Soil Survey Map (B2); Federal Way Critical Areas Map (B3); King County Sensitive Areas Map (B4); USFWS NWI Map (B5); WDFW PHS Map (B6); DNR Stream Typing (B7); WDFW SalmonScape (B8). 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Appendix B1 –– King County Contours Map Subject Property Location 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Appendix B2 –– NRCS Soil Survey Map Subject Property Location 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Appendix B3 –– Federal Way Critical Areas Map Subject Property Location (Approximate) 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Appendix B4 – King County Sensitive Areas Map 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Appendix B5 –– USFWS NWI Map Subject Property Location 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Appendix B6 – WDFW PHS Map Subject Property Location 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Appendix B7 –– DNR Stream Typing Map Subject Property Location 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Appendix B8 –– WDFW SalmonScape Map Subject Property Location 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Appendix C –– Existing Condition and Buffer Enhancement Plans ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØB-9B-10 / Z-33B-8B-7B-6B-5B-4Y-14Y-13Y-12Y-11Y-10Y-9Y-8Y-7Y-6Y-5Y-4Y-3Y-2Y-1B-3B-2B-1DP-5DP-6DP-7DP-18DP-17DP-10DP-9DP-11DP-12DP-13DP-15DP-16DP-14DP-19DP-4DP-3DP-2DP-1X-1W-1Z-20Z-21Z-22Z-23Z-24Z-25Z-26Z-27Z-27Z-27Z-27Z-27Z-27Z-34Z-35Z-36Z-37Z-38Z-39Z-40Z-41Z-42Z-43Z-44Z-45X-2X-3XA-4XB-6XB-5XB-4F-11F-7F-6F-5F-4F-3F-2F-1E-11E-1E-2E-3E-10E-3E-3E-3E-3E-3E-3F-10F-9F-8W-2W-3W-4W-5W-6WA-7WB-7D-1D-1D-3D-4D-5D-6D-7D-8D-9SHEET:Soundview Consultants LLC WWW.SOUNDVIEWCONSULTANTS.COM GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE F P Environmental Assessment . 253.514.8954 . 253.514.8952 Planning Land Use Solutions CREEKWOOD 31XXX 21ST AVE SW FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98023 SOURCE:JOB: 1001.0032BY: DSSCALE: AS SHOWNKING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER(S): 1221039037 EXISTING CONDITIONS10GRAPHIC SCALE1"=80 16032080'SHEET INDEXSHEETNUMBERSHEET TITLE1EXISTING CONDITIONS2PROPOSED SITE PLAN, IMPACTS &MITIGATION3PLANT SCHEDULE, NOTES, & DETAILSOFFSITEWETLAND GCATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFEROFFSITEWETLAND ACATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFERWETLAND DCATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFER644 SFWETLAND E/FCATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFER9,351 SFWETLAND BCATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFER8,251 SFSTREAM ZTYPE F100-FT BUFFERDRAINAGE XTYPE NP50-FT BUFFERDRAINAGE WTYPE NP50-FT BUFFERPLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINEEXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARYWETLAND BUFFERWETLAND FLAG LOCATIONSTREAM CENTERLINESTREAM CENTERLINE ESTIMATEDDRAINAGE CENTERLINESTREAM BUFFERSTREAM OHW (ORDINARY HIGH WATER)FLAG LOCATION5-FT BUILDING SETBACKEXISTING CONTOURW-#O-#ØVICINITY MAPSOURCE: ESRILOCATIONTHE NE 14 OF SECTION 12,TOWNSHIP 21N, RANGE 3E, WMAPPLICANT/OWNERNAME: AMALANI LLCADDRESS:415 1ST AVENUE N, UNIT 998SEATTLE, WA 98109CONTACT: BARRY MARGOLESEPHONE: 206-910-2728E-MAIL:BARRY@AMALANI.COMENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVEGIG HARBOR, WA 98355(253) 514-8952SITE21ST WAY SWDASH POINTSWRD509SW 304TH STDRAINAGE YTYPE NP(Y-1 TO Y-9)50-FT BUFFERDRAINAGE YTYPE F(Y-9 TO Y-14)100-FT BUFFERDATE: 12/15/2022 ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØ50'DATE: 12/15/2022SHEET:Soundview Consultants LLC WWW.SOUNDVIEWCONSULTANTS.COM GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE F P Environmental Assessment . 253.514.8954 . 253.514.8952 Planning Land Use Solutions CREEKWOOD 31XXX 21ST AVE SW FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98023 SOURCE:JOB: 1001.0032BY: DSSCALE: AS SHOWNKING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER(S): 1221039037 PROPOSED SITE PLAN, IMPACTS & MITIGATION2IMPACTS & MITIGATION LEGENDBUFFER IMPACTSSTREAM BUFFER INTRUSION6,115 SFBUFFER MITIGATIONBUFFER ENHANCEMENT59,167 SFRESTORATION OF BUFFER GRADING IMPACTS5,967 SFTOTAL BUFFER MITIGATION:65,133 SFCRITICAL AREA FENCE2,234 LFCRITICAL AREA SIGN25 SIGNS0GRAPHIC SCALE1"=80 16032080'OFFSITEWETLAND GCATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFEROFFSITEWETLAND ACATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFERWETLAND DCATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFER644 SFWETLAND E/FCATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFER9,351 SFWETLAND BCATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFER8,251 SFSTREAM ZTYPE F100-FT BUFFERDRAINAGE XTYPE NP50-FT BUFFERDRAINAGE WTYPE NP50-FT BUFFERPLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINEEXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARYWETLAND BUFFERSTREAM CENTERLINESTREAM CENTERLINE ESTIMATEDDRAINAGE CENTERLINESTREAM BUFFER5-FT BUILDING SETBACKPROPOSED CONTOURPROPOSED CLEARING LIMITØDRAINAGE YTYPE NP(Y-1 TO Y-9)50-FT BUFFERDRAINAGE YTYPE F(Y-9 TO Y-14)100-FT BUFFERCLEARINGLIMITS (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 SCALESPLIT RAIL FENCE DETAIL12" DIAM.8'-0"1'-6"3'-0"2'-0"MIN.6"COMPACTEDGRANULARSUB-BASE4-6"CONCRETE FOOTINGNATIVE SOIL BACKFILLFINISHED GRADEPITCH SURFACE TO DRAIN4 TO 6" SPLITCEDAR RAILS, TYP.6x6" SPLITCEDAR POSTSCRITICAL AREA BOUNDARY SIGN NOTES:1. THE WETLAND/STREAM SIGN SHALL BE POSTED AT THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE LOT ANDTHE CRITICAL AREA.2.ONE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED PER LOT OR ONE SIGN PER 150 FEET, WHICHEVER IS LESS. FORALL PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, TRAILS, PARKING AREAS, PLAYGROUNDS, AND ALL OTHER USESLOCATED ADJACENT TO WETLANDS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS.3. PRE-PRINTED METAL SIGN AVAILABLE THROUGH:ZUMAR INDUSTRIESPHONE: 1-800-426-7967,WEBSITE: WWW.ZUMAR.COMCritical Ar e a MIN. 6" DEPTHCRUSHED ROCK BASECOMPACTEDNATIVE MATERIALWetlandNOT TO SCALECRITICAL AREA SIGN DETAIL5 ft.2 ft.min.Help protect and care for thisarea. Dumping of litter, trashand debris is prohibited.PRE-PRINTED METAL SIGN12"X18" 0.080 ALUMINUM SIGN WITHWHITE LETTERING ON STANDARDINTERSTATE GREEN BACKGROUND.ATTACH SIGN TO POST ORSPLIT-RAIL CEDAR FENCEWITH TWO 5/16" GALVANIZEDLAG BOLTS WITH WASHERS.4" X 4" X 8' CEDAR POST,SET 2' INTO POST HOLECOMPACTED NATIVEBACKFILL IN POST HOLENOTE·TRASH AND DEBRIS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ENTIRETY OF TRACT F·SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL FENCE DETAILS SHEET:Soundview Consultants LLC WWW.SOUNDVIEWCONSULTANTS.COM GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE F P Environmental Assessment . 253.514.8954 . 253.514.8952 Planning Land Use Solutions CREEKWOOD 31XXX 21ST AVE SW FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98023 SOURCE:JOB: 1001.0032BY: DSSCALE: AS SHOWNKING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER(S): 1221039037 PLANT SCHEDULE, NOTES, & DETAILS3NOT TO SCALECONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL (TYPICAL)LOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED)3 to 4 INCH LAYER OF MULCH - KEEP MULCHMIN. 3" AWAY FROM TRUNK OF TREESET TOP OF ROOT MASS / ROOT BALL FLUSHWITH FINISH GRADE OR SLIGHTLY ABOVENOTES:1. PLANT TREES AS INDICATED ON PLAN. AVOIDINSTALLING PLANTS IN STRAIGHT LINES.2. EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTH OF ROOT MASSAND 2 X ROOT MASS DIAMETER. SPREADROOTS TO FULL WIDTH OF CANOPY. SCARIFYSIDES OF PIT.3. MIDWAY THROUGH PLANTING ADD AGROFORMTABLET AND WATER THOROUGHLY.4. BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTED USING WATERONLY.5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION.UNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SUBGRADELOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED)2 to 3 INCH LAYER OF MULCH - KEEP MULCHMIN. 3" AWAY FROM TRUNK OF SHRUB.EXTEND MULCH ABOVE CUT SLOPE ANDBELOW FILL SLOPE TO REDUCE EROSIONNOT TO SCALETREE AND SHRUB PLANTING ON STEEP SLOPESET TOP OF ROOT MASS / ROOT BALLSLIGHTLY BELOW ADJACENT GRADEUNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SUBGRADEEXISTING SLOPECUT SLOPE ONUPHILL SIDEMULCHMULCHNOTES:1. PLANT SHRUBS OF THE SAME SPECIES INGROUPS OF 3 to 9 AS APPROPRIATE, OR AS SHOWN ON PLAN.AVOID INSTALLING PLANTS IN STRAIGHT LINES TO ACHIEVE ANATURAL-LOOKING LAYOUT.2. EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTH OF ROOT MASSAND 2 X ROOT MASS DIAMETER. SPREAD ROOTS TO FULLWIDTH OF CANOPY. SCARIFY SIDES OF PIT.3. MIDWAY THROUGH PLANTING ADD AGROFORM TABLET ANDWATER THOROUGHLY.4. BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTED USING WATER ONLY.5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION.LOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED)3 to 4 INCH LAYER OFMULCH - KEEP MULCH MIN. 3"AWAY FROM TRUNK OF SHRUBNOT TO SCALETREE AND SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL (TYPICAL)SET TOP OF ROOT MASS / ROOTBALL FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADEOR SLIGHTLY ABOVEUNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SUBGRADEPLANT SCHEDULEDATE: 12/15/2022 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Appendix D –– Data Forms 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): <1 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'20.50" N Long: 122°21'57.71" W Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification: NA 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: All three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected by SVC in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during 2022 site visit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Glyceria elata 40 Yes FACW 2. Ranunculus repens 40 Yes FAC 3. Equisetum telmateia 10 N0 FACW 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 90 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation met through Dominance Test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR 2/2 100 -- -- -- -- silty sand 5 - 12 2.5Y 3/1 98 10YR 4/2 2 RM M sand 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: Hydric soil criteria met through Indicator S6. 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): 9 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 9 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A2 and A3. No saturation above 9 inches due to pourosity of the sand. Water level at elevation similar to stream. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'20.42"N Long: 122°21'56.56"W Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met; no hydric soil observed. Data originally collected by SVC in 2013, and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during 2022 site visit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 15 Yes FAC 2. Acer circinatum 15 Yes FAC 3. 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 70 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic criteria met through Dominance Test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 2.5Y 4/3 100 - - - - Sand 8-10.5 2.5Y 2.5/1 100 - - - - Sandy loam 10.5-16 2.5Y 2.5/1 100 - - - - Sand 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: No hydric soil criteria met. Does not meet S1, S4, S5, or S6 due to lack of muck presence and lack of redoximorphic features. 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): 8 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 8 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicator A2 and A3. No saturation present above water table due to porous sand. Water table at stream elevation. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-3 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 15 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'20.78"N Long: 122°21'54.00"W Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met; no hydric soil observed. Data originally collected by SVC in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during 2022 site visit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 100 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 100 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance Test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-3 10YR 3/3 100 - - - - Silty loam 3-18 2.5Y 4/2 100 - - - - Sand 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: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (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): 12 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 12 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A2 and A3. No saturation above water table. Water table at stream elevation. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-4 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 10 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'21.07"N Long: 122°21'51.73"W Datum: WSG 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met; no hydric soil or wetland hydrology observed. Data originally collected by SVC in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during 2022 site visit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Acer circinatum 100 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 100 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Carex obnupta 80 Yes OBL 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 80 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 2.5y 4/3 100 - - - - Sand 16-20 N/A - - - - Sandy gravel 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: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (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: No wetland hydrology criteria met. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-5 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 8 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'21.47"N Long: 122°21'49.18"W Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met. Data collected just west of Wetland B. Data originally collected by SVC in 2013, and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 50 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. 50 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 90 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 90 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 5 Yes FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 5 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance Test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-5 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Loamy sand 6-13 5Y 3/2 100 - - - - Sand 13-20 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Loamy sand 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: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (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: No wetland hydrology criteria met. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-6 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'21.86"N Long: 122°21'48.67"W Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013, within Wetland B, and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. Slight differences in the soil profile and wetland hydrology indicators were observed during the 2022 site visit and have been updated to reflect these changes. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 60 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 60 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Tolmiea menziesii 20 Yes FAC 2. Urtica dioica 5 No FAC 3. Epilobium ciliatum 5 No FACW 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 30 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-6 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0 - 6 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - SaMu Sandy muck 6 - 15 10YR 4/2 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Sand 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: Hydric soil criteria met through indicator S1. 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): 6 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A2 and A3.. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-7 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 20 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'22.40"N Long: 122°21'46.04"W Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met; no hydric soil criteria observed. Data originally collected in 2013, just east of Wetland B, and verified by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Acer circinatum 60 Yes FAC 2. Rubus spectabilis 40 Yes FAC 3. 4. 5. 100 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Equisetum arvense 10 Yes FAC 2. Tolmiea menziesii 20 Yes FAC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 30 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-7 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-3 10YR 3/3 100 - - - - Loamy sand 3-16 2.5YR 3/1 100 - - - - Sand 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: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (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): 6 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 6 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A2 and A3.. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-8 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 45 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'21.61"N Long: 122°21'53.17"W Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met; hydric soil and hydrology criteria was not observed. Data originally collected in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Gaultheria shallon 5 Yes FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 5 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Carex obnupta 85 Yes OBL 2. Rubus ursinus 2 No FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 87 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: No hydrophytic vegetation criteria met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-8 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-3 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Sandy loam 3-18 7.5YR 3/3 100 - - - - Sand 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: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (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: No wetland hydrology criteria met. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-9 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 25 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'24.31"N Long: 122°21'45.94"W Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substancial differences in conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Glyceria elata 30 Yes FACW 2. Equisetum telmateia 30 Yes FACW 3. Athyrium cyclosorum 5 No FAC 4. Geum macrophyllum 5 No FAC 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 70 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-9 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - Loam 2-16 10YR 3/1 100 - - - - Gravelly sand 16+ 2.5Y 4/1 100 - - - - Sand 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: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (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): 0-2 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicator A3. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-10 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Bill House, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen, Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 25 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'24.10"N Long: 122°21'45.90"W Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substancial differences in conditions observed during the 2022 site visit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Agrostis sp. 30 Yes FAC 2. Equisetum telmateia 20 Yes FACW 3. Athyrium angustum 20 Yes FAC 4. Glyceria elata 10 No FACW 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 80 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic soil criteria met through the Dominance Test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-10 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-3 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - Loam 3-17 2.5Y 4/1 100 - - - - Gravelly sand 17-20 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Loam 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: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (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): 0-3 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicator A3. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-11 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Bill House, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 10 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'23.95"N Long: 122°21'45.32"W Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. Slight differences in the soil profile and wetland hydrology indicators were observed during the 2022 site visit and have been updated to reflect these changes. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Glyceria elata 40 Yes FACW 2. Ranunculus repens 30 Yes FAC 3. Athrium filix femina 20 Yes FAC 4. Equisetum telmateia 10 No FACW 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-11 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0 - 4 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - SiSaLo Silty sandy loam 4 - 7 2.5Y 3/1 100 - - - - Sand 7 - 14 10Y 4/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Sand 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: Hydric soil criteria met through indicators A11 and F3. 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): 1 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A2 and A3. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-12 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Hannah Blackstock, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 15 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'24.00"N Long: 122°21'44.82"W Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: No wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013, and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 90 Yes FAC 2. Sambucus racemosa 10 No FACU 3. 4. 5. 100 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 10 Yes FACU 2. Equisetum telmateia 5 Yes FACW 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 15 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-12 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Loamy sand 8-16 10YR 3/1 100 - - - - Loamy sand 16+ 2.5Y 4/1 100 - - - - Sand 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: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (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): 12 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 12 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A2 and A3. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-27-13, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-13 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Hannah Blackstock, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 15 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'23.56"N Long: 122°21'43.92"W Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 20 Yes FAC 2. Acer circinatum 15 Yes FAC 3. 4. 5. 35 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Athyrium angustum 50 Yes FAC 2. Blechnum spicant 2 No FAC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 52 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 48 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-13 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-3 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - Silty loam 3-6 5YR 2.5/1 100 - - - - Gravelly loam 6-18 2.5Y 4/1 100 - - - - Gravelly sand 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: Hydric soil criteria met through indicator A4. 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): 9 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A2, A3, and C1. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-14 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Hannah Blackstock,Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 10 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'23.63"N Long: 122°21'44.10"W Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: No wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. Slight differences in the soil profile were observed during the 2022 site visit and have been updated to reflect these changes. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 60 Yes FAC 2. Alnus rubra 10 No FAC 3. 4. 5. 70 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 40 Yes FACU 2. Rubus ursinus 10 Yes FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 50 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 50 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: No hydrophytic vegetation criteria met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-14 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 0 - 5 7.5YR 2.5/2 100 - - - - Loam 5 - 15 10YR 4/3 100 - - - - Sandy loam 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: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (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: No wetland hydrology criteria met. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-27-13, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-15 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Hannah Blackstock, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 20 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'23.66"N Long: 122°21'42.59"W Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013, and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum 100 Yes FACU 2. Thuja plicata 10 No FAC 3. 4. 110 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Acer circinatum 25 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 25 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Athyrium angustum 30 Yes FAC 2. Urtica dioica 10 Yes FAC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 40 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-15 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 2.5Y 2.5/1 100 - - - - Loamy sand 4-16 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - Sandy loam 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: Hydric soil criteria met through indicators A4 and A12. 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): 5 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A2 and A3. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-16 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 15 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'23.92"N Long: 122°21'42.44"W Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: No wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum 90 Yes FACU 2. 3. 4. 90 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Oemleria cerasiformis 10 Yes FACU 2. Acer circinatum 5 Yes FAC 3. 4. 5. 15 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Hedera helix 70 Yes FACU 2. Polystichum munitum 20 Yes FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 90 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 20 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: No hydrophytic vegetation criteria met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-16 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 7.5YR 2.5/2 100 - - - - Loam 8-17 2.5Y 4/2 100 - - - - Sand 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: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (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: No wetland hydrology criteria met. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:8-13-14, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-17 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner,Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: S 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 25 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.32298 Long: -122.36262 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: None 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: Not all three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2014, and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 40 Yes FAC 2. Rubus laciniatus 20 Yes FACU 3. 4. 5. 60 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Equisetum arvense 60 Yes FAC 2. Glyceria elata 5 No OBL 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 65 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 35 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-17 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR 3/2 100 Gravelly sand 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: No hydric soil criteria met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (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: No wetland hydrology criteria met. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way/ King Sampling Date:8-13-14, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-18 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner,Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: S 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.32298 Long: -122.36262 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: None 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: All three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2014 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Equisetum arvense 80 Yes FAC 2. Ranunculus repens 20 No FAC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-18 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0 - 1 10YR 2/1 Mineral muck 1 - 3 7.5YR 3/1 75 7.5YR 3/3 25 Restrictive layer 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: Hydric soil criteria met through indicator A4. Data collected in man-made ditch, containing highly compacted soils below 3 inches, and excavated from uplands. The presence of highly compacted soil prevented further excavation due to shovel refusal at this depth. 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): 3 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A1, A2, and A3. Water table and saturation present to soil surface. 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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way/ King Sampling Date:8-13-14, 8-30-22 Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-19 Investigator(s): Jim Carsner,Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: S 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 40 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.32286 Long: -122.36183 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: None 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: Not all three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2014, and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during 2022 site visit. Data collected west of Drainage W and north of Stream Z, on an approximately 40 percent slope. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 10 Yes FAC 2. Acer macrophyllum 5 Yes FACU 3. 4. 15 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Acer circinatum 40 Yes FAC 2. Rubus spectabilis 30 Yes FAC 3. Oemleria cerasiformis 5 No FACU 4. 5. 75 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft) 1. Athyrium felix-femina 20 Yes FAC 2. Equisetum arvense 20 Yes FAC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 40 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 83 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance Test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: .DP-19 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy silt 6-18 10YR 3/1 100 Gravelly sandy silt 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: Hydric soil criteria met through indicator A4. 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: No wetland hydrology criteria met. Only one secondary hydrologic indicator observed. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Appendix E –– Wetland Rating Forms 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 - 1001.0032 A - 1001.0032 8/30/2022 J. Downs,E. Swain,R. Krapp, R. Quindlen 4 3/16&10/18 Slope 4 ESRI ArcGIS IV 4 L L L L L L L M H 3 4 5 12 N/A 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 - 1001.0032 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. For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. A - 1001.0032 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 - 1001.0032 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 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 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? S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page A - 1001.0032 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 - 1001.0032 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 - 1001.0032 0 0 1 1 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 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 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 points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2  It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)  It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)  It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species  It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources  It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page A - 1001.0032 1 3 11.71 2.65 13.035 1 1 18.09 13.89 25.035 -2 0 2 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 - 1001.0032 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 - 1001.0032 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 - 1001.0032 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 - 1001.0032 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 B - 1001.0032 B - 1001.0032 8/30/2022 J. Downs,E. Swain,R. Krapp, R. Quindlen 4 3/16&10/18 Slope 4 ESRI ArcGIS IV 4 L L L M L L L M H 4 4 5 13 N/A 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 B - 1001.0032 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. For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. B - 1001.0032 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. B - 1001.0032 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 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 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? S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page B - 1001.0032 1 0 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 utility road surface runoff and homeless encampment refuse 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 B - 1001.0032 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 B - 1001.0032 0 1 1 1 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 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 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 points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2  It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)  It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)  It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species  It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources  It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page B - 1001.0032 2 5 11.71 2.65 13.035 1 1 18.09 13.89 25.035 -2 0 2 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. B - 1001.0032 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 B - 1001.0032 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 B - 1001.0032 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 This page left blank intentionally B - 1001.0032 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 D - 1001.0032 D - 1001.0032 8/30/2022 J. Downs,E. Swain,R. Krapp, R. Quindlen 4 3/16&10/18 Slope 4 ESRI ArcGIS IV 4 L L L L L L L M H 3 4 5 12 N/A 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 D - 1001.0032 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. For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. D - 1001.0032 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. D - 1001.0032 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 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 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? S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D - 1001.0032 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 D - 1001.0032 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 D - 1001.0032 0 1 1 1 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 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 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 points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2  It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)  It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)  It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species  It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources  It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D - 1001.0032 2 5 11.71 2.65 13.035 1 1 18.09 13.89 25.035 -2 0 2 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. D - 1001.0032 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 D - 1001.0032 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 D - 1001.0032 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 This page left blank intentionally D - 1001.0032 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 EF - 1001.0032 EF - 1001.0032 8/30/2022 J. Downs,E. Swain,R. Krapp, R. Quindlen 4 3/16&10/18 Slope 4 ESRI ArcGIS IV 4 L M M L L L L M H 3 5 6 14 N/A 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 EF - 1001.0032 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. For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. EF - 1001.0032 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. EF - 1001.0032 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 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 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? S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page EF - 1001.0032 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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: 1 0 1 0 1 EF - 1001.0032 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 EF - 1001.0032 1 2 1 1 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 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 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 points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2  It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)  It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)  It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species  It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources  It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page EF - 1001.0032 2 7 11.71 2.65 13.035 1 1 18.09 13.89 25.035 -2 0 2 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. EF - 1001.0032 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 EF - 1001.0032 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 EF - 1001.0032 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 This page left blank intentionally EF - 1001.0032 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 G - 1001.0032 G - 1001.0032 8/30/2022 J. Downs,E. Swain,R. Krapp, R. Quindlen 4 3/16&10/18 Slope 4 ESRI ArcGIS IV 4 L M L M L L L M M 4 5 4 13 N/A 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 G - 1001.0032 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. For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. G - 1001.0032 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. G - 1001.0032 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 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 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? S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page G - 1001.0032 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 utility road surface runoff and homeless encampment refuse 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: 1 0 1 0 1 G - 1001.0032 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 G - 1001.0032 1 0 1 1 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 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 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 points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2  It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)  It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)  It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species  It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources  It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page G - 1001.0032 3 6 11.71 2.65 13.035 1 1 18.09 13.89 25.035 -2 0 1 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. G - 1001.0032 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 G - 1001.0032 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 G - 1001.0032 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 This page left blank intentionally G - 1001.0032 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Appendix F –– Wetland Rating Figures Wetland A Wetland B Wetland E/FWetland D Wetland G COWARDIN MAP ¢ 0 270 540135 Feet DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 4 10/17/2022 1001.0032 DS 11 " = 270 ' 330' Boundary Emergent Forested Scrub-Shrub ADJACENT TO 30859 21ST AVE SWFEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER:1221039037 CREEKWOOD 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 Wetland A Wetland B Wetland E/FWetland D Wetland G HYDROPERIOD MAP ¢ 0 220 440110 Feet DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 4 10/17/2022 1001.0032 DS 21 " = 220 ' 150' Boundary Saturated Only Occassionally Flooded Flowing Seasonally Flowing Stream D D Permanently Flowing Stream D D Seasonally Flowing Stream DNR Streams ADJACENT TO 30859 21ST AVE SWFEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER:1221039037 CREEKWOOD 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 ààààà à àààààààà àààààà àà àààààààààààà àà HABITAT MAP ¢ 0 1,400 2,800700 Feet DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 4 10/17/2022 1001.0032 DS 31 " = 1,440 ' àààààààààààààààà àààà àààà àààà Wetland 1 KM Polygon Accessible Habitat Moderate & Low Intensity Relatively Undisturbed High Intensity ADJACENT TO 30859 21ST AVE SWFEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER:1221039037 CREEKWOOD 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 Abutting Undisturbed Habitat 4.78% Abutting Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 1.70% Accessible Habitat 5.63% Undisturbed Habitat 17.66% Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 13.93% Undisturbed Habitat in 1 KM Polygon 24.62% High Intensity Land Use in 1 KM Polygon 68.41% H.2.2 H.2.3 H.2.0 Wetland A H.2.1 303(D) MAP ¢ DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 4 10/17/2022 1001.0032 DS 4 Sub Basin Category 5 Assessed Waters ADJACENT TO 30859 21ST AVE SWFEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER:1221039037 CREEKWOOD 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 " = 3 mi 0 3.5 71.75 Miles SITE NOTE: THERE ARE NO IDENTIFIED WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS LOCATED IN HUC NO. 171100190204 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Appendix G –– Site Photos View of upgradient, Type Np portion of Drainage Y View of downgradient, Type F portion of Drainage Y 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Appendix H –– Qualifications All field inspections, wetland delineations, habitat assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report prepared for the Creekwood Plat site, were prepared by, or under the direction of, Matt DeCaro and Alex Murphy of SVC. In addition, the site investigations were performed by Ryan Krapp and Rachel Quindlen and report preparation was completed by Morgan Kentch. Final quality assurance was completed by Rachael Hyland. Matt DeCaro Associate Principal Professional Experience: 14 years Matt DeCaro is an Associate Principal and Senior Scientist with a diverse background in environmental planning, wetland science, stream ecology, water quality, tree assessments, site remediation, NEPA compliance, and project management. He manages a wide range of industrial, commercial, and multi-family residential projects throughout Western Washington, providing environmental permitting and regulatory compliance assistance for land use projects from their planning stages through entitlement and construction. His local expertise, diverse professional background, and positive relationships with regulatory personnel are integral components of his successful project outcomes. Matt earned a Bachelor of Science degree with a focus in Environmental Science from the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, with additional graduate-level coursework and research in aquatic restoration and salmonid ecology. Matt has received 40-hour wetland delineation training (Western Mountains, Valleys, & Coast and Arid West Regional Supplements) and regularly performs wetland, stream, and shoreline delineations. Matt has been formally trained in the use of the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System and Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark by WSDOE, and he is a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Wildlife Biologist. He has attended USFWS survey workshops for multiple threatened and endangered species, and he is a Senior Author of WSDOT Biological Assessments. Matt holds 40-hour HAZWOPER training and has managed Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, subsurface investigations, and contaminant remediation projects throughout the Pacific Northwest. His diverse experience also includes NEPA compliance for federal permitting projects; noxious weed abatement; army ant research in the Costa Rican tropical rainforest; spotted owl surveys on federal and private lands; and salmonid spawning and migration surveys. Alex Murphy, AICP Planner & Project Manager Professional Experience: 7 years Alex Murphy is a Planner and Project Manager with a background in land use planning, site planning & design, permitting, and project management. He has over 7 years of experience working for local jurisdictions in the Intermountain West and Pacific Northwest with an emphasis on maximizing opportunities for culturally and environmentally sensitive projects. Alex earned a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture degree from Utah State University. He is a Certified Planner through the American Institute of Certified Planners and has received formal training in 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 climate adaptation planning for coastal communities from NOAA. Mr. Murphy currently assists in wetland, stream, and shoreline delineations and fish and wildlife habitat assessments; conducts environmental code analysis; and prepares environmental assessment and mitigation reports. He also manages development projects, supporting clients through the regulatory and planning process for various land use proposals. Ryan Krapp Environmental Scientist / Field Lead Professional Experience: 10+ years Ryan Krapp is an Environmental Scientist and Field Lead with a background in conducting wetland delineations, habitat assessments, botanical surveys, avian surveys, threatened & endangered species surveys, and fisheries studies. He has considerable experience in production of Environmental Assessments and Biological Assessments and Evaluations under NEPA guidelines for projects regulated by the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Bureau of Indian Affairs as well as leading Section 7 ESA consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Project planning, permitting, and compliance are all part of his professional experiences and practices at SVC. Ryan has managed environmental investigation projects including wetlands, streams, and critical habitats data collection on large pipeline corridors, overhead electrical transmission corridors, and oil/natural gas drilling development. He has extensive experience in utilizing GIS to collect, manage, and analyze large volumes of spatial and temporal field data to aide in project management, monitoring, analysis, and mapping. In addition, he is a FAA trained recreational pilot and a PADI certified SCUBA diver with fresh and saltwater diving experience. Ryan is a USFWS-approved Mazama pocket gopher survey biologist. Rachael Hyland, PWS, Certified Ecologist Senior Environmental Scientist Professional Experience: 9 years Rachael Hyland is a Senior Environmental Scientist with extensive wetland and stream delineation and regulatory coordination experience. Rachael has a background in wetland and ecological habitat assessments in various states, most notably Washington, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Ohio. She has experience in assessing wetland, stream, riparian, and tidal systems, as well as complicated agricultural and disturbed sites. She currently performs 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. She also has extensive knowledge of bats and their associated habitats and white nose syndrome (Pseudogymnoascus destructans), a fungal disease affecting bats which was recently documented in Washington. Rachael earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Connecticut, with additional ecology studies at the graduate level. Rachael is a Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS #3480) through the Society of Wetland Scientists as well as a Certified Ecologist through the Ecological Society of America. She has completed 40-hour wetland delineation training for Western Mountains, Valleys, & Coast and Arid West Regional Supplement, in addition to formal training for the Northcentral and Northeast supplement, and experience with the Midwest, Eastern 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Mountains and Piedmont, and Atlantic and Gulf Coast supplements. She has also received formal training from the Washington State Department of Ecology in the Using the Revised 2014 Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, How to Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark, Navigating SEPA, Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach, and Wetland Classification. Rachael has also received training from the Washington State Department of Transportation in Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects and is listed by WSDOT as a junior author for preparing Biological Assessments. Rachel Quindlen Staff Scientist Professional Experience: 4 Years Rachel Quindlen is a Staff Scientist with a background in marine and environmental science, with a focus in coastal geology. Rachel earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science with a minor in Marine Science from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. There she received extensive, hands-on experience working in lab and field settings, while studying biogeochemical processes, and participating in research used to study climate change within North Carolina’s coastal plain. Rachel also spent a semester participating in an extensive research project at University of North Carolina’s field site located in Morehead City, The Institute for Marine Sciences. There, she worked in a coastal geology research lab, studying growth rates of oyster reefs within local estuarine environments. During the regular semesters, Rachel worked in a biogeochemical lab within the marine science department, assisting faculty research focused on salt marsh accretion rates and utilize alpha radiation to date marsh sediments in deltaic systems. Rachel is also a scuba diver, holding many certifications, including Open Water, Advanced, Nitrox, Rescue, and Science Diver. Previously, Rachel worked as an environmental consultant in the piedmont and coastal regions of southeast North Carolina, performing stream and wetland delineations, Phase I assessments, technical report writing, as well as participating an extensive statewide stream survey project, Project Atlas. For this project, Rachel studied the origin, geomorphology, and macroinvertebrates of streams from all 17 ecoregions in North Carolina. This data was utilized by The Department of Water Quality and North Carolina Department of Transportation’s biologists to improve mitigation strategies across the state and improve water quality. Rachel currently 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 to support clients through the regulatory and planning process for various land use projects. Morgan Kentch Environmental Scientist Professional Experience: 4 years Morgan Kentch is an Environmental Scientist with a background in marine and freshwater ecology, wildlife and natural resource assessments, and monitoring wetland and riparian habitat restoration sites in the Pacific Northwest. Morgan has field experience conducting wetland, stream, and shoreline delineations and fish and wildlife habitat assessments in Washington State. 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. 1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022 Morgan earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Biology with Marine Emphasis from Western Washington University, Bellingham. There she received extensive, hands-on experience working in lab and field settings, conducting scientific background research, and performing statistical analyses. She has also received 40-hour wetland delineation training (Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast and Arid West Regional Supplements) and has received formal training through the Washington State Department of Ecology and Coastal Training Program in Using the 2014 Wetland Rating System and How to Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark. Tab 7.0 22154-TIR.docx 7.0 OTHER PERMITS The City of Federal Way will be the governing body for the storm drainage. A building permit and grading permit will be required for the development of the on-site drainage and roadway facilities. These permits and all other permit applications required will be provided during final engineering Tab 8.0 22154-TIR.docx 8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (CSWPP) ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan Analysis and Design This section will be completed during final engineering. B. Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill (SWPPS) Plan Design This section will be completed during final engineering. Tab 9.0 22154-TIR.docx 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT This section will be completed during final engineering. Tab 10.0 22154-TIR.docx 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL The drainage facilities on this project will be public facilities owned and maintained by the City of Federal Way. Therefore, no Operations and Maintenance manual is required.