The URL can be used to link to this page

09-101793CIT Federal Way March 17, 2017 Rick and Char Williams C/o PBC Inc. 19904 Des Moines Memorial Dr. Seatac, WA 98148 RE: File #09-101793-00-AD; WETLAND RATING AND BUFFER DETERMINATION Singh Wetland Consultant Review; 29002 Military Rd S, Federal Way Dear Mr. & Mrs. Williams: OF— 2n ri ;" H LE CI HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98403-6525 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor On January 22, 2016, the city sent a letter to you affirming the wetland rating and 105-foot buffer determined in an October 26, 2015 report prepared by Watershed Dynamics had been accepted. Per your request, please find the associated wetland report enclosed. If you have any questions, please contact me at david. vande ve!ahercit-•offederalway.com or 253.835.2638. Sincerely, Dave Van Efe Weghe Senior Planner enc: 09-10179;-00-AD Watershed Dynamics Wetland Classification/Rating Repoli Doc. LD 75552 CITY OF Federal Way November 28, 2016 Mr. Larry Burnstad Watershed Dynamics 39004 25811, Avenue SE Enumclaw, WA 98022 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003.6325 (253) 835-7000 wwww cltyoffederalway. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor FILE Re: File #09-101793-00-AD; EXTENSION REQUEST Singh Wetland Consultant Review, 29002 Military Road South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Burnstad: The city is in receipt of your request to extend the wetland boundary determination validity for the property at 29002 Military Road South. The request summarizes a history of critical area related matters on the property (copy enclosed). According to the submitted letter: "Mr. and Mrs. Gian Singh recently approached the City to garner information related to potential fatnily home on the subject property. At a meeting with Community development of a single Development staff, the Singh's were informed the wetland delineation that was approved on August 22, 2014 would expire August 21, 2019." further "•..I would contend the 5 year period, within which the wetland boundary determination is valid, did not technically start until the 2015 wetland rating form was approved by the City on January 22, 2016. Prior to that time, the Singh's were unable to proceed with any proposed site development. Since I can state unequivocally the location of the delineated wetland boundary did not change between August 22, 2014 and January 22, 2016 it does not seem unreasonable for the City to extend the wetland boundary determination validity to January 21, 2021." The city cannot grant the request based upon the following points listed below: 1. There is no mechanism within the Federal [rlay Revised Cade (FWRC) to grant such a request; per FWRC 19.145.410.1, wetland delineations are valid for five years, as follows: a. "(1) Generally. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries pursuant to this chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. All areas within the city meeting the wedand designation criteria are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this chapter. Wetland delineations are valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary." 2. As communicated to you in a January 22, 2016, memo from Senior Planner Matt Herrera, City of Federal Way (which you provided us a copy of with your request): Mr. Larry Burnstad Page 2 of 2 November 28, 2016 a. "As noted in previous correspondence, the delineation is valid for 5 years from the August 22, 2014, report." ve years not 3. The date of the wed delineation repo a wed -and delineation report it is the time from which the s dated June g 2014, a d was date when it was accepted by the city.d onJune 2014. The accepted by the city on August 22,Technically, as rs _ the report being valid through ce city will honor what has previously been communicated to you August 22, 2019. The Owners are encouraged to make use of the report while it remains valid. that a wetland ill be forng to On a related item, your letter also indicates buffer enhancement plan 22, 201G, letter does nomiotc confirm that reduce the required wetland buffer width. To be clear, the city's January the wetland buffer can be reduced to 78.5 Feet, as characterizede� approval � Use Pracessecent tletter. A lll land use e pplt atian� reduction with enhancement proposal requires revs PP city per FWRC 19.145.440.E (subrruttal requirements anceawith �� 9�� 0$0.3. As a reminders stated in the future submittal, at the applicant's cost in accord the January 22, 2016, letter From the city, any declopnt Proposal must include an accurate site survey of the delineated wetland boundary ancorresponding ed. The 15, letter from the city notes that� "Be To date, the stream buffer remains unresolvSeptember O whether streams T-2 and T-3 are Type Np a Ns waters. advised that this deter n-dnRtion does not disrsngutsh These determinations may be made during future development proposal. Type Np streams recluue a 50-foot buffer and Type Np streams require a 35-Foot b If you have further questions please contact Senior Planner Stacey Welsh, AICP, at 253-835-2634, or s ace .welsh U.-Corr. Sincerely, Brian Davis Community Development Director enc: November 18, 2016, Letter from Larry Burnstad, Watershed Dynamics, to Brian Davis, City of Federal Way Use Process III Submittal Requirements Stacey Welsh, Senior Planner 18 h Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003-4202 Inderjit & Gian Singh, 29830 Doc. I.D. 75016 File #09-101793-00-AD November 18, 2016 TO: Mr. Brian Davis, Director Community Development, City of Federal Way 33325 - 81h Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Re: File # 09-101793-00 AD WETLAND DEERMWATION ACCEPTANCE: Singh Wetland Review, 29002 Military Rd. S., FederaI Way (Memo dated August 22, 2014) File # I5-103991-00-AD RESPONSE TO INQUIRY: Bingaman Creek Reclassification (Memo dated September 3, 2015) File # 09-101793-00-AD WETLAND RATING AND 13UFFER DETERMINATION: Singh/Williams Wetland Review, 29002 Military Rd. S., Federal Way (Memo datedJanuary ? , 2016} Mr. Davis: I am directing this memo to your attention because I am unaware as to whom projects previously being reviewed by Mr. Matt Herrera have been assigned. The purpose of this memo is to request consideration for extending the shelf life of the Wetland Determination Acceptance to January 22, 202I instead of August 22, 2019. I have attached copies of the August 22, 20I4, September 3, 2015, and a January 22, 2016 memos prepared by Mr. Matt Herrera in support of this request. Wetland DeiRrmir,,Y;,, r Acce tar7ce The August 22, 2014 memo, which was directed to Inderjit and Gian Singh, indicates the wetland delineation was approved, but indicates a wetland category had not been determined as of the date of that memo. Additionally, the stream classification for the associated stream channel had not been completed. Bin Oman Creek Reclassi cation The September 3, 2015, which was directed to me, indicated the section of Bingaman Creek relevant to the Singh/Williams Wetland Review was reclassified by the City as a Type N Stream, but questioned whether the stream was a Type Np or Type Ns. Federal Way Revised Code (§ 19.145.270) indicates the buffer associated with and Type Np Stream is 50 feet and the buffer associated with a Type Ns Stream is 35 feet. Current revised code, § 19.145.260 Applicability, designation, and classification, defines a Type Np Stream as a perennial, non -fish bearing stream (see §19.145. 260(2)(c)) and a Type Ns Stream asa seasonal, non -fish bearing stream (see §19.145.260(2)(d)). The City's reluctance to classify the subject stream section as Np or Ns is confusing to me, since the information provided to the City during the review Of the Bingaman reek ZD reclassification clearly indicated this section of the stream is dry during July through September in yearswith"normal" precipitation. I should note that the "reclassification" process occurred over a span of nearly 6 years and included a stream habitat assessment that covered Bingaman Creek from Military Road downstream to 55'h Avenue South. There was a lot of information to review and it is possible the facts relating to the seasonal nature of the subject stream section were simply overlooked. Wetland RlYtina amcl $ er Determination The January 22, 2016 memo indicates the wetland rating submitted by Watershed Dynamics was accepted by the City and, in the second to last paragraph, indicated the delineation is valid for a period of 5 years from August 22, 2014. Because the wetland boundary determination was approved on August 22, 2014, my original W1 etland Rating was completed using the WDOE Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington that was in effect at that time. After several weeks of review and numerous phone/email conversations, the City indicated the wetland from I used was no longer valid and instructed me to resubmit the wetland rating on the WDOE Wetland Rating Form that was effective on January 1, 2015_ g Memo to Mr. Brian Davis — November 18, 2016 — Page I I resubmitted the rating in October 2015 and, per the January 22, 2016 memo, learned the City had classified the wetland as a Category III Wetland with a 105-foot buffer. Rationale or Wetland Delineation EEnd ,Date Extension 2016 because the City had No proposals for developing the Singh property were submitted prior to January 22, instructed my client to wait until after the buffer width determination and approval. a Mr.fore and tMrs. GianeSi Singh submitted any proposed development plans to the City far re recently approached the City to garner information related potential staff, the Singh's were informed;the wetland the subject property. At a meeting with Community Development delineation that was approved on August 22, 2014 would expire on August 21, 2019. nd classification and At the time, Gian and Inderjit questioned the end date based n the fact the wetla counseled the Singh's not to submit width determination was not final until January 22, 2016. Since City were any development proposals until after the wetland classification i ation andbuffer oulddnot ha eth had ebeenedependent upon the confused as to why the "shelf life" of the accepted dreporten date when the delineation was accepted, but rather should have That date was January sed on the ate wh d. a development proposal could be submitted to the City for review and approval. ased on: When asked by the Singh's about this apparent discrepancy, I indicated I would request an ewas breviewed/rejected by tle 1. The original wetland boundary ist in July 2009. completed 3 years of hydrologpril 2009 ic analysis and a review of the City's contract wetland biologist the City data and a field visit by WDOE staff, the original wetland boundary rs delineation of abnormal accepted b precipitation. City on August 22, 2014. The hydrologic analysis was delayed for - Y was originally classified by the City. 2. The section of Bingaman Creek associated with the Singh property as a "Major Stream" based on the assumption the ean►�� fish-bearing Stream list d species}tad to the Green River, which provides habitat for salmomd fishes a. In 2009, I questioned the classification based on prior"Aven and fish distribution studies I o e South. had completed on Bingaman Creek downstream b. Between mid-2009 and mid-2015 I conducted thewere several additional batmantat --made fish#passage barriers 1 submitted information to he City indicating h preventing upstream migration upstream of 47"' Avenue South. c. This information included a description of the siphon culvert I al o n ludedSt. information provided e of lby that could not be altered/engineered to allow fish passage.ineered to the WDFW Habitat Biologist Confirming the siphon culvert uaable iishnot be eusegor fish hob Hato in the fish passage upstream of S. 28$ St. and confirming lterewas nov section of the stream adjacent to the east side of the Singh property. d. Following the City's review of the information I had �aub nd �� twetland bt�ffersection of Brequi requirements man Creek in e question was reclassified (see September 3, 201 ) determined_ 3. After rejecting the original wetland rating form submitted o by Watershed Dynamics, the City required the wetland rating form to be resubmitted using the 20 a. When I contacted the City prior to completing the t first rwians ,, pedlapprov dg I was instructed tby theo use #City. tang Form in effect at the time the wetland boundary determ b. After my original submittal and the Gity's review, rCity and the City approved theeCategory Irs. of II ion WDOE form had to be used. That from was esubm resubmitted rating on January 22, 2016. regulated by 4. Bath the wetland and stream Buffer widths dictate the developable area within any property g the City of Federal Way. pproved stream buffer a. Prior to September 3, 2015 the Singh's did not have an a berr 3,2 015 he stream buffer Owidth became O 2, 2015 the stream buffer width was 125 feet. p Memo to Mr. Brian Davis —November 18, 2016 — Page 2 35 feet. The 90-foot reduction of the stream buffer width significantly increased the potential developable area within the Singh property. b. Prior to January 22, 2016, the Singh's did not have a confirmed wetland buffer width. On January 22, 2016 the City confirmed a buffer width of 105 feet that could be reduced to 78.5 feet with buffer enhancement. This confirmation resulted in another significant change in the developable area. Based on the points listed above, I would contend the 5 year period, within which the wetland boundary determination is valid, did not technically start until the 2015 wetland rating form was approved l the City on January 22, 2016. Prior to that time, the Singh's were unable to proceed with any proposed site development. Since I can state unequivocally the location of the delineated wetland boundary did not change between August 22, 2014 and January 22, 2016 it does not seem unreasonable for the City to extend the wetland boundary determination validity to January 21, 202I. That would provide the Singh's a Iegitimate 5 year period to prepare and submit any proposed development plans without having to expend additional funds on yet another wetland or stream identification/delineation study. The Singh's patiently waited for 7 years while the City made its regulatory determinations. Adding 18 months to the wetland boundary determination study's shelf life does not seem unreasonable. Please note that I will be submitting a proposed wetland buffer enhancement plan under a separate memo requesting wetland buffer width reduction to 78.5 feet from the currently required wetland buffer width of 105 feet. If you have any questions regarding this memo, please contact me. Sincerely, Larry Burnstad, Senior Environmental Scientist Watershed Dynamics, 360.825.9253 Email: ]burnstad ?comcast.net Mailing Address: 39004 — 258"l Avenue SE, Enumclaw, WA 98022 Cc: Ms. Stacey Welsh, Senior Planner, Community Development, City of Federal Way Indedit and Gian Singh Memo to Mr. Brian Davis — November 18, 2016 — Page 3 January 22, 2016 Jim Ferrell, Mayor Inderjit and Gian Singh 29830 18"' Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-4202 RE: FILE #09-101793-00-AD; WETLAND RATING AND BUFFER DETERMINATION Singh/Williams Wetland Review, 29002 Military Rd S, Federal Way Dear Mr. & Mrs. Singh: This letter is to notify you that the Community Development Department has accepted the wetland rating Form completed for your property as shown in the October 26, 2015, Wetland Classification/Wetland Rating, prepared by Larry Burnstad of Watershed Dynamics. This coincides with the department's Auai�st 22, 2014, delineation acceptance for the same wetland as detailed in the June 9, 2014, Summary Report — Critical Areas Review and Hydrology Study also prepared by Mr. Burnstad. The wetland was rated using the Washington State Wetland Rating for Western 2014 Update (publication no. 14-06-029) as required by Fecleral Way Rey System T t ode (FWRC)Washington — 19.145,420(1). The findings of the wetland rating forms identify the wetland an your property as a Category Ill wetland. The rating form also identifies the wetland score five habitat points. ruisuantmo'v KC: I9.145.42 five habitat ❑ints is 105 feet. The department will update the city 's Crilical Areas MIaP to reflect the wetland delineation and rating from the reports above. As noted in previous correspondence, the delineation is valid for 5 years from the August 22, 2014, report. Be advised that any future development proposal +must include an accurate site survey of the delineated wetland boundary and corresponding buffer. You may contact me at 253.835.2638 or matt.herrera c cirvoF�'ederaltvay.cam if regarding this letter. you have any questions Sincer Matthew Herrera, AICP Senior Planner c. Larry Burnstad, Watershed Dynamics. PO Box 215. Enumclaw. WA 98022 Doc I D 719;2 33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 • (253) 835-7000 , www.cityoffederalway.com October 26, 2015 Rick and Char Williams C/O PBC Inc. 19904 Des Moines Memorial Dr, Seatac, WA 98148 ��anary Jim Ferrell, Mayor RE: File #09-101793-00-AD; CONDITIONAL WETLAND DELINEATION ACCEPTANCE Singh/Williams Wetland Review, Parcel 042104-9062, Federal Way Dear Mr. & Mrs. Williams: ABLE This letter is to notify you that the Community Development Department has accepted the wetland delineation completed for the portion of your property as shown on the June 9, 2014, Summary Report — Critical Areas Review and Hydrology Study, prepared by Larry Burnstad of Watershed Dynamics. The delineation of the wetland within the study is valid 'For a period of five years from August 22, 2014. Please be advised this acceptance only includes the delineation of the wetland boundaries, but does not include the category or class of wetland as this was not a component of the study's analysis. Further, the delineation is shown only as an overlay to a Google-generated aerial photograph. This wetland delineation acceptance is conditioned as such: • Any future development proposal will require the delineation to be updated to reflect the currently adopted wetland rating system and the delineation shall be accurately depicted on a scaled drawing with the associated buffer. Please feel free to contact me at 253.835.2638 or matt. herrera .ci offederalway.coin if you have questions regarding this letter. Sincer , Matthew Herrera, AICP Senior Planner 1 This is the date of the original acceptance as memorialized in the letter to Inderjet and Gian Singh. 33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 • Doc. I.D. 71268 (253) 835-7000 Doc- CITY OF CITY HALL FILE Federai way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityobederalway.. com August 22, 2014 Inderjit and Gian Singh 29830 18`h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-4202 RE: File #09-101793-00-AD; WETLAND DELINEATION ACCEPTANCE Singh Wetland Review, 29002 Military Rd S, Federal Way Dear Mr. & Mrs. Singh: This letter is to notify you that the Community Development Department has accepted the wetland delineation completed for your property as shown on the June 9, 2014, Summary Report — Critical Areas Review and Hydrology Study, prepared by harry Burnstad of Watershed Dynamics. The delineation of the wetland within the study is valid for a period of five years. Please be advised this acceptance only includes the delineation of the wetland boundaries, but does not include the category or class of wetland as this was not a component Of the study's analysis. Further, this acceptance does not include a change in the rating of the stream that is adjacent to your property and therefore will remain major as no natural upstream blockage meeting Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife criteria has been documented. The city is in the process of updating its Critical Areas Ordinance which is the regulatory framework that controls development activities in and around natural resource areas such as wetlands and streams. Updates to the ordinance may include changes to how the city classifies and prescribes buffers to wetlands and streams. Washington State law requires the ordinance to be updated no later than June 30, 2015. Please feel free to contact meat 253.835.2638 or matt.herrera ci offederalwa .com if you have questions regarding this letter. Sincerely. Matthew Herrera, AICP Senior Planner C: Larry Burnstad, Watershed Dynamics, PO Box 215, Enumclaw, WA 98022 Doc. I D 66535 Wetland Name or Number: WETLAND RATING FORM _ WESTERN WASHINGTON* *Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 U date Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland Name Or ID#: Up er Bingaman Creek Wetland #2 Numerous dates Rated By: Larry D. Burnstad Site Visit Date: in 2009 - 2014 Trained By Ecology: No Contact Into: Watershed Dynamics, 39004 258th Ave SE, Enumclaw, WA 98022 Training Date: Phone: 36p.825.9253 HGM Class Used For Rating: ' g Riverine Wetland has multiple HGM Classes? No NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (17g=eres can be combined) Source of base aerial phatalrnap: Google Earth - 2014 images - Figures 1, 2, & 4; Figure 2 from "OE WQ web site Estimated Wetland Size: 1.9 acres 81,600 square feet Overall Wetland Category: III Wetland Cate or Overall Wetland Category Function —, Category I Total Scor;7--1 PotentiaiNalue I 23 - 27 1 Site Potentia H 20 - 22 Landscape Potentia 16 -19 Value 15-Sep Rating Score = Score for each function is based on 9 = H,H,H three ratings (order of rating not 8 = H H M important) 7 = H,H,L Based on Function: Yes Sl Characters used on Functions Improv=WaterQugic CHabitat M M M M H L L L M 5 6 5 7 = H,M,M 5 = H,L,L 3 = L,L,L 6 = H,M,L 5 = M,M,L 6 = M,M,M 4 = M,L,L 2: Wetland Type based on Special Characteristics WMatureForest itage;Wetlandest Fore oon X None oftheAbove Wetland Rating Systemfor Western Washington; 2014 Update Rating Form Category I Category I Cate Category I Cate Category �� Calegory I :ateg~ Page I II Category II Cate 'ategory IV 3: Wetland Class Riverine Lake -fringe S lope Flats Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple `HGM classes Present NA No Total Score 16 X Effective January I, 2015 Wetland Name or Number - Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: Cowardin plant classes Location of outlet (can be added to map ofhydroperrods ) Boundary area within 150 feet of wetland (can be added to another figure ) Contributing basin Ovaterehed) 1 km polygon: Area extending away from wetland boundary extending out I km (3,300 feet) including polygons of accessible and undisturbed habitat. 303(d) listed waters within the basin List A. - list of TMBLs for WRIA in which wetland unit being rated is located ttiverine Wetlands Map of: Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Ponded Depressions Boundary area within 150 feet of wetland (can be added to another Area covered by trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants figure ) Width of wetland unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure ) Contributing basin (watershed) I km polygon: Area extending away from wetland boundary extending out 1 km (3,300 feet) including polygons of accessible and undisturbed habitat. 303(d) listed waters within the basin List of list ofTMBLs for WRIA in which wetland unit being rated is located Lake Fringe Wetlands Map oft Cowardin plant classes Boundary area within 150 feet of wetland (can be added to anotherfigure Area covered by trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants fgrSkm 1 km polygon: Area extending away from wetland boundary extending Ifeet) including polygons of accessible and undisturbed habitat. 303(d] listed waters within the basin List of: list of TMBLs for WRIA in which wetland unit being rated is located Alap of: Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Area densely covered by trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Area densely covered by rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure) I km polygon: Area extending away from wetland boundary extending out I km (3,300 feet) including polygons of accessible and undisturbed habitat. 303(d) listed waters within the basin List of: list of TMBLs for WR1A in which wetland unit being rated is located Wetland Rating.5yslem for Western Washington: 2014 Update Rating Form Page 2 To Answer Question D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 D 1.4, 11.2 D 1.1, D 4.1 D 2.2, D 5.2 D 4.3, D 5.3 H11,H2.2,H2.3 D 3.1, D 3.2 To Answer Question D 3.3 To Answer Question 1 H .1, H 1.4 H 1.2 R T1 R 2.4 R 1.2, R 4.2 R 4.1 R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3 R 3.1 To Answer Question R 3.2, R 3.3 To Answer Question L 1, 1, L 4. 1, H I.1, H 1.4 L 2.2 L 1.2 H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 3.1, L 3.2 To Answer Question L 3.3 To Answer Question H 1.1, H 1.4 71.2 SU SU S 2.1, S 5.1 S 3.1, S 3.2 To Answer- 3.3 2 na naa 1 1&2 1&2 4 Effective January 1, 2015 4 3 are # ire # Wetland Name or Number: HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For Questions l - 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, the unit probably has multiple HGM Classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in Questions I - 7 apply and go to Qestion 8. Classification- P►nswer, HGM Class Are the water levels in the entire wetland unit usually controlled by tides? NO go to 2a below fs the salinity ofthe water duringperiods ofannual low flow below 0.5 t YES Tidal Fringe 1.1 pP NO Saltwater Tidal fringe (parts per thousand)? NOTE I.' If the wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe wetland use the Riveriinn'e Rating Formshwater Tidal Fringe NOTE Y2: -Ifthe wetland can be classified as a Saltwater Tidal Fringe wetland use the Estuarine Rating Forms. ---___ The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (590%) of — — — "' ' "` — — wetland hydrology? NOTE: Groundwater and surface water runoff are not NO go to 3 below 2. SUllrces of water to the unit. NOTE: If the wetland can be classified as a "Flats "wetland, use the form "Depressional" YES Flats for wetlands. Dnes the wetland unit meet both of the following ` ` ~ .. criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of . •— . ... . NO go to 4 below 3. permanent open water (without any vegetation on the water surfaceat any time of the year) that is at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size. YES Lake Fringe At least 30% of open water area is >6.6 feet (2 m) deep? Does the wetland unit meet all of the following — criteria? The wetland is on a slope. (slope can be very gradual) _ — NO go 5 below The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) YES Slope p pe and usually comes from seeps, It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a Swale without distinct banks. 4. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks. Depressions are usually <3.3 feet (1 m) in diameter and < I foot (0.3 m) deep. Does the entire wetland unit meet all ofthe following criteria? The unit is in a valley or a stream channel where it is inundated by NO go to 6 below overbank flooding from a stream or river. YES Riverine 5• The overbank flooding occurs a least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression i in which water ponds, or 6' is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? NO go to 7 NOTE: Ifthere is an outlet to the wetland the outlet control elevation is YES Depressional ` higher than the elevation of the wetland interior. is the entire wetland unit located in a ve " ~ ~ '� ressta,t rmore ' _ _ _ _ _ _ and no overbankflooding? The unit does of pond surface water than few inches dee . _ NO go to 8 below 7. NOTE 1: The wetland hydrology seems to be maintained by high YES Depressional groundwater in the area. NOTE 2: The wetland may be ditched, but there is no obvious natural outlet. Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Rating Form Page 3 Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland Name or Number. The 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 drain into a riverine floodplain or a small stream within a Depressional wetland that has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS I - 7 APPLY TO THE DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE UNIT (make a rough sketch of the unit S. showing the different hydrologic regimes). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if there are several HGM Classes present within the wetland unit being scored. =NOTE.this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the eing rated.If the HGM Class listed in the second column represents less than 10% of the unit, classes the wetland that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within Wetland Unit being rated HGM Class to Use for Slope + Riverinea«� Slope + Depressional Riverine Slope + Lake -fringe Depressional Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Lake -fringe Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Depressional Saltwater Tidal Fringe and any �otherss of freshwater Riverine wetland Treat as ESTUARINE NOTE: Ifstill unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to the wetland being rated, or if there are more than 2 HGM Classes within the wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Rating Form Page 4 EffeCtive January 1, 201 S Wetland Name or Number: Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS Indicators that the Wetland Unit Functions to Itlam rove Water uali POSSIBLE ACTUAL Does the wend have the otential to improve water quaiity? POINTS POINTS R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Provide Photos or Map (see Depressions cover > 3/4 of the wetland area. Rating Form Page 2 ) X Depressions cover _> 1/2 of the wetland area. 8 0 Depression are present, but cover < 1/2 of the wetland area. 4 4 No depressions present within the wetland area. 2 0 R 1.0 Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height; not R 1.2 Cowardin classes): 0 0 Provide Photos or Map (see Trees or shrubs >2/3 of the unit area. Rating Form Page 2 ) Trees or shrubs >1/3 of the unit area. 8 0 X Ungrazed herbaceous plants (> 6" tall) covering >2/3 of the unit area. 6 0 Ungrazed herbaceous plants (> 6" tall) covering >1/3 of the unit area. 6 6 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous vegetation covering < 1/3 of the unit. 3 0 0 0 Total Score for R.1.1 + R.1.2 (Add the points in the boxes above) 10 Rating far Site Potential: ifTotal R 1.0 Score is 12-16 ratio = H, 6-11 ratio = M, 0-5 ratio = L { (record on Form Pa e ] } Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? Provide Photos or Map (see R 2.1 Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Rating Form Pag.2) R 2.2 Does the basin tributary to the wetland include an incorporated city or its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0 2 R20 Does at least 10% of the tri)ut b Yes = 2 No = 0 2 R 2.3 ary asm contain tilled fields, pasture, or forests that have clearcut within the last 5 years? R 2.4s> 10% of the area within I 50 8 of the wetland he luses that Yes = 2 No = 0 0 Iccn generate pollutants? 2.5re there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that arenotIsted in2uestion yes=2 No=0R R 2.1 throught R 2.4? Yes = 2 No = 0 0 Total Score the tr i the boxes above y 6 Ratio for Landscape Potential: If Total R 2.0 Scare is 12-16 R 0 `M H6f l l ratinor ra0-5 ratindd Is the water quality improvement ( (record on Form Pa e 1 } provided by the site valuable to society? Provide 303(d) Map/ TMDL R 3.1 Is the wetland adjacent to a 303(d) listed river List (see Rutirzg Form Page 2 ) or stream that drains to Win 1 mile? Is the wetland adjacent to a river Yes = 1 No = 0 0 R 3.2 or stream w/TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or R 3.0 pathogens? Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for Yes =1 No = 0 0 maintaining R 3.3 water quality? (Answer "Yes" if there is a TMDL for the drainage located) in which the unit is Yes = 2 No = 0 0 Total Score for R 2.0 (Add the points in the boxes above) 0 Rating for Value: If Total R 3.0 Score is 2-4 rating = H, 1 rating = M, 0 rating = L ( (record on Form Page 1) Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Rating Form page 7 Effective January 1, 2015 1 Wetland Name or Number: Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands HYi]RULUGIC Fi]NCTIU_NS Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream de radation POSSIBLE ACTUAL Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? POINTS POINTS Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: (Estimate the average width of he wetland unit perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the R 4.1 stream or river channel (distance between the banks measured from top of bank to top of bank). Calculate the ratio of the Provide Photos or Map (see average wetland width (WW) to the average stream or river channel width between the banks (CW). (Show wetland unit widths and stream Rating Form Page 2 ) widths on aerial photo or map) WW/CW Ratio >2u WW/CW Ratio 10 to 20 9 0 X WW/CW Ratio 5 to <10 6 0 R 4.0 W W/C W Ratio 1 to <5 4 4 WW/CW Raion <1 2 0 Characteristics of vegetation that will slow down water velocities duirng flood events: Large Woody Debris is rated as "forest 1 p or shrub". Choose the points appropriate for the R 4.2 best description. (Draw polygons ofdierent vegetation types on aerial photo or map. Provide Photos or Map (see Vegetation polygons must have >90% cover at persn height and are not based on Cowardin types. ) Rating Form Page 2 ) Forest or shrub >1/3 or herbaceous plants >2/3 of unit area X Forest or shrub > 1 / 10 or herbaceous plants > 1 /3 of unit area � 0 Vegetation does not meet the criteria above 4 4 0 0 Total Score for R 4.0 for Site Potential: IFTotal R 4.0 Score is 12-16 rating = I.1, 6-1 I Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? R 5.0 R 5.1 Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? R 5.2 Does the up -gradient watershed incude an incorporated area or a UGA9 R 5.3 Is the up -gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Points in the boxes above)] g = K 0-5 ratin = L Provide Photos or Map (see Rating Form Page 2) Yes=O No=1 I Yes =1 No=O 1 Yes = 0 No = 1 1 Total Score for R 5.0 (Addpoints in the boxes above) 3 Ratill for Landscape Potential: If Total R 5.0 Score is 3 rating = H, 1-2 rating = M, 0 rating = L Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? R 6.1 Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems: (Choose the description that best fills the site) The sub -basin immediately down -gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to human and/or natural resources (i.e. structures or fish habitat). 2 0 R 6.0 Surface flooding problems are in sub -basin further down -gradient. No flooding problems anywhere downstream. 1 0 0 p R 6.2 Has site been identified as important for flood storage or conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0 0 Total Score for R 6.0 (,add poinis in the boxes above ) 0 Rating for Value: If Total R 6.0 Score is 2-4 rating = H, I rating = M, 0 rating = L Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Rating Form page g Effective January 1, 201 S Wetland Name or Number: The Following Information Applies To All HGM Wetland Classes HABITAT FUNCTIONS POSSIBLE I ACTUAL Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat POINTS POINTS oes the wetland have the potential to provide habitat' Structure of plant community (Indicators are Cowardin classes and strate within a Provide Map of Cowardin forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classess in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may Vegetation Classes (see Rating H 1.1 be combined for each class to meet the threshold of 314 acres or > 10% of the unit if it is Form page 2 ) smaller than 2.5 acres. Add the number of classes checked. ) Aquatic bed >_4 classes = 4 0 X Emergent 3 classes = 2 0 X Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs represent >30% of the vegetative cover) 2 classes = I 1 Forested (areas where trees represent >30% of the vegetative cover) 1 type = 0 0 If the unit has a forested class check this criteria if the forested areas have 3 of the 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/groundcover) that each cover>20% Total Score = 1 of the forested polygon. Hydroperiods: Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present in the wetland. H 1.2 The water regime must cover > 10% of the wetland or be > 114 acre to be counted. See manual for hydroperiod descriptions. Permanently flooded or inundated X Seasonally flooded or inundated Occasionally flooded or inundated >4 types = 3 0 X Saturated only 3 types = 2 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in or adjacent to the wetland 2 types = 1 1 Seasonally flowing stream or river in or adjacent to the wetland 1 type = 0 0 Lake -fringe wetland = 2 points 2 0 Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points 2 0 Total Score for H 1.2 (Add the points in the boxes above)above)l I Richness of Plant Species: Count the number ofplant species in the wetland that cover >_ 10 ft 2. Different patches of the same species should be combined to meet the size H 1.3 criteria. Do not name the plant species present. Do not include areas dominated by non- native, invasive species. Number of different plant species meeting minimum area coverage > 19 2 0 X Number of different plant species meeting minimum area coverage = 5 to 19 1 1 Number of different plant species meeting minimum area coverage < 5 0 0 Total Score for H 1.3 (Add up the points in the boxes above } 5 Interspersion of Habitats: Determine from the diagrams below whether inerspersion Provide Map of Cowardin H 1.4 among Cowardin plant classes (described in H 1.1 above) or the classes and unvegetated Vegetation Classes (see Rating areas (can include water and mud flats) is high, moderate, lo, or none. If there are > 4 Form page 2 ) plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is high. None = 0 Low = 1 Moderate = 2 All three of these diagrams are raated High = 3 Score = 1 Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Rating Form Page 13 Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland Name or Number: HABITAT FUNCTIONS Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. POSSIBLE POINTS ACTUAL POINTS H 1.5 Special Habitat Features: Various habitat features are listed below. Place an "X" in front of each habitat feature observed in the wetland unit. The number of "X" marks is equal to the Total Score for the Special Habitat Features. H 1.0 Large, downed, woody debris (pieces >4" diameter and 6' long) in wetland Standing snags (bottom diameter >4") in wetland Undercut banks are present for >6.6 feet (2 m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends >3.3 feet (I m) over a stream (or ditch), or contiguous to the wetland edge, for>33 feet (10 m) Stable, steep (>30%) banks composed of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning OR signs of recent beaver or muskrat activity are present (cut shrubs or trees nit yet weathered where wood is exposed). At least 1/4 acre of thin -stemmed, persistent plants or woody branches are present and are X permanently orseasonally inundated. structures ore L ►n b am hibions Invasive plants cover <25% of the wetland area in every vegetative (see H 1. ]for list of strata ). 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Total Score for H 1.5 1 Total Score for H 1.0 (H L I through H 1.5) 9 Rating for Site Potential: If Total Score for H 1.0 is 15-18 rating = H, 7-14 rating = M, 0-6 rating = L Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? Provide Photos or Maps of Accessible Habitat (See Rating Form page 2 ) H 2.1 Accessible habitat (include only habitat the directly abuts the wetland) Calculate % undisturbed habitat + (% moderate and low intensity land use12) = % of accessible habitat. Accessible habitat area x % = total accessible habitat area. If total accessable habitat area is: > 33.3% of 1 km polygon > 20% to < 33.3% of 1 km polygon X > 10% to < 20% of 1 km polygon < 10% of I km polygon 3 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 Total Score for H 2.1 1 H 2.0 H 2.2 Undisturbed habitat in a polygon that extends 1 km (3,333 feet or 0.63 miles) from wetland edge. Provide Photos or Maps of Undisturbed Habitat (See Rating Form page 2 ) Calculate % undisturbed habitat + (% moderate and low intensity land use12) = % of accessible habitat. Undisturbed habitat area x % = total undisturbed habitat area. If total undisturbed habitat area is: Undisturbed habitat >50% of 1 km polygon Undisturbed habitat 10% to 50% of 1 km polygon and in 1-3 patches Undisturbed habitat 10% to 50% of 1 km polygon and in >3 patches. X Undisturbed habitat <10% of 1 km polygon 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 Total Score for H 2.2 0 H 2.3 Land use intensity in 1 km polygon Provide Photos or Maps of Lamd Use (see Rating Form page 2) X > 50% of 1 km polygon is high intensity land use < 50% of 1 km polygon is high intensity land use -2 -2 0 0 Total Score for H 2.3 -2 Total Score for H 2.0 (li 2.1 through H 2.3) -1 Rating for Site Potential: If Total Score for H 2.0 is 4-6 rating = H, 1-3 rating = M. <1 ratin = L Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Rating Form Page 14 Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland Name or Number: HABITAT FUNCTIONS Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat POSSIBLE POINTS ACTUAL POINTS Is 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 unit being rated. (See priority habitat list below) Site meets any of the following criteria: H 3.0 Has 3 or more priority habitat with 100 in (333 feet) Provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any State or Federally listed plant or animal species) Is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species Is a wetland of High Conservation Value as determined byWDNR Has been categorized as an important site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a shoreline master plan, or in a watershed plan X Has 1 or 2 priority habitats (instream and riparian) Has none of the above criteria 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 Total Score for H 2.3 1 Rating for Site Potential: If Total Score for H 3.0 is 2 rating = H, 1 rating = M, 0 rating = L WDFW Priority Habitat List See complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which these habitats can be found in Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008, Priority Habitat and Species List Olympia, Washington, 177 pp. On line at http//:wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or at http//:wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phsAist/ Count how many of the following priority habitats are w/in 100 in (330 feet) of the wetland unit. NOTE: This question is indepedent of land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen > 1 acres (4 ha) in size Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife. (See full description in WDFW PHS Report page 158, which is available on WDFW internet web site) Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soil over bedrock. Old -growth Forest: For old growth forests west of the Cascade crest: Stands must be >_ 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trecs/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature Forests: For mature forests west of the Cascade crest: Stands with average diameters > 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be < 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 to 200 years of age. Oregon white oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations wherecanopy coverage of the oak component is important. (See full description in WDFW PHS Report page 158, which is available on WDFW internet web site) 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. (See full description in WDFW PHS Report page 161, which is available on WDFW internet web site) 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. (See full description of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed in WDFW PHS Report, which is available on WDFW internet web site) Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages. Cliffs: >25 ft (7.6 m) high and vccuring below 5,000 ft (1,515 M) elevation. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble, with rocks ranging in average size between 0.5 ft - 6.6 ft (0.15 in - 2 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including rip -rap slides (scrce) 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 DBH of> 20 in (51 cm) in western Wasington and are >6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30.5 cm) in diamet as the Iarec, end and > 20 ft (6 m) long. NOTE: All vegetated wetlands are, by definition, a priority habitat, but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Rating Form Page 15 Effective January 1, 2015 -A� 1Villiams Property r 11 _tiand J, f % ✓' Type \s Stream approximate Location of the Singh Property 3 Delineated lb.etland Edge . + _ % .• .... i 11 ttisnd / XppP I a (mate Location the I I'I , u f�+r L'Ttsf = uid r "r, ` N. rified 11 etWiui I [ire rlw oleo 4joo op s �i• 17`I7 tob e FIGURE 2: The approximate wetland boundary is shown with a light green dash -dot line. There are two Cowardin classes within the wetland. Areas of scrub -shrub wetland are surrounded by dashed line. Areas of emergent habitat are highlighted in yellow. Much of the wetland vegetation has been manipulated and the buffer is dominated by Himalayan and evergreen blackberry. Des hl0lnes m i Greer I N2r. - 1 sourc= & 1 z- 18f S-428th St q Ilk :-uyt,-Olin C Russell L 1 F;b -d t k4Qiunband Perk e+ �j .., 1 1� olf M.Aer-St — CD niex i 2 rr, pi Fenwic 71 r, I. 272nd Se f l.! amen Creek $ th S t VECT SITE Ali~� S 296th-'St= S 304th St— FIGURE 3: Section of current 303(d) listed water bodies map retrieved from WDOE Water Quality web site. Bingaman Creek is not shown as a 303(d) listed stream nor is it a TMDL listed stream. 00 rn'82nd�' OD 4 'n 7128 �. ��Eli � � tl Lwn 1 i � — � _--- . � _'--- ; ]k L "'�II1��HIA i! t'L'!y' �Fr-.l •-'+..1�� r � � � 7 �. 5-288thL'St ,�, '1]• , f` r1 1� 29�n _4 [!7 r.�. S291`st:� L9 :a) a ` i S '{3iil�slul:Ill [}r-:R•!c - �� ``�� ?�� ,�'—�� : � ' ■� it S-t CD lids w CD + . tii c 'r` gam. •. 4' Lp _is . 0 2615 Goo N a%% ` CITY OF �- Federal Way March 7, 2012 Gian Singh 29830 18`h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-4202 FOLD CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www c0offederalway. com RE: File #09-101793-00-AD; RESPONSE TO CONSULTANT INVOICE INQUIRY Singh Wetland Consultant Review, 29002 Military Road South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Singh: I have received your request for substantiation of services rendered by the Community and Economic Development's third party wetland consultant ESA Adolfson. Following four invoices, the pass -through fund has a credit of $55.19. I have enclosed the following items detailing expenses and deliverables: o Invoices for service from May 27, 2009 to July 2, 2009; .July 4, 2009 to August 21, 2009; August 22, 2009 to October 9, 2009, and November 9, 201 ,[ to December 16, 2011. o City Task Scope and Authorization forms May 22, 2009 and August 10, 2011. o Consultant Task Authorization forms June 9, 2009 and July 28, 2011. o Review memoranda July 9, 2009; September 8, 2009; and �lovember 15, 2011. Services also included two site visits and one meeting with the applicant at City Hall. Please contact me if You would like to close your review and the Permit Center will be provide a refund of the unused portion. If you have any questions regarding the enclosures please contact me at 253-835-26;8 or matt.herrera@cityoffederalway.com. Sincer W. Matthew Herrera Associate Planner enc: ESA Invoices Task Authorizations (city and consultant) Wetland Review Memoranda Doc CD 60610 Gian Singh 29830 18"' Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 February 22, 2012 Matthew Herrera Associate Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8`h Ave S Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 RE: File # 09-10 t 793-00-AD Property — 29002 Military Rd South Federal Wai Dear Mathew Herrera: On June 9, 2009 I deposited $3,245.00. I was informed that any funds that were not used would be returned to me. Ott October 31., 20111 deposited $2,040.00. Ag4in I was informed that any funds that were not used would he returned to me. The seem of these two deposits total $5,285.00. To this day, I have not received any returned funds nor any explanation of hmv this money was used. Please provide me the details of the work performed and the twills paid to ESA Adolfson. Thank vou. Sincerei . Gian Singh RECEIVED FEB 2 4 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS ' ~1 5309 Shilshole Ave. NW ESA Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 J (206) 789-9658 Mr. Greg Fewins Deputy Director of Community Development Services CITY OF FEDERAL WAY P.O. Box 9718 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063 Project D207004.00 Federal Way On -Call 2007 WORK SUMMARY: INVOICE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEC 23 2011 December 21, 2011 Invoice No: 96111 Project Manager: Elizabeth Zemke Reviewed applicant's July 2011 report; prepared review memo for City; met with applicant, applicant's consultant and City to discuss proposal; began memo following up on meeting with City and applicant. Professional Services -from November 09 2011 to December 16 2011 Task r r 000049 SINGH PROPERTY #09-101793-00-AD Professional Personnel Managing Associate II Muscari, Michael Muscari, Michael Senior Planner/Senior Scientist Zemke, Elizabeth Zemke, Elizabeth Zemke, Elizabeth Zemke, Elizabeth Zemke, Elizabeth Zemke, Elizabeth Zemke, Elizabeth Senior Administrative Bjork, Susan Totals Total Labor Remit to ESA P.O. Box 92170 Elk Grove, IL 60009 TIN #: 94-1698350 Hours Rate Amount 11 /16/2011 1.50 135.65 203.48 12/ 13/2011 .75 135.65 101.74 11 /9/2011 3.00 117.56 352.68 11 /10/2011 3.00 117.56 352.68 11 / 11 /2011 1.00 117.56 117.56 11 /17/2011 3.00 117.56 352.68 11 /28/2011 1.00 117.56 117.56 12/7/2011 .50 117.56 58.78 12/8/2011 3.00 117.56 352.68 11/16/2011 .25 94.38 23.60 17.00 2,033.44 2,033.44 Total this Task $2,033.44 TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT: $2,033.44 PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW www.esassoc.com ESA Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax memorandum date November 15, 2011 to Matthew Herrera, City of Federal Way Planner from Lizzie Zemke, ESA subject Review of April 2011 Singh Property Critical Areas Review Memo Dear Matt, The following document provides a review of the April 2011 Critical Areas Review Memo prepared by.. Watershed Dynamics for the Singh property. The Singh property (Tax Parcel 042104-9172) is located at 29002 Military Road South in Federal Way. The 1998 City of Federal Way critical areas maps identify a Category II wetland on the property and a major stream (Bingaman Creek) off -site and to the east of the property. Background In July 2009, after receiving from the City of Federal Way a critical areas review letter prepared by Watershed Dynamics, ESA visited the Singh property to verify wetland and stream conditions and to determine if the documentation provided by Watershed Dynamics satisfied the requirements of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). Specifically, ESA sought to determine if the on -site wetland and nearby stream had been accurately delineated and classified. During the July 8, 2009 site visit we examined soils, vegetation, and soil moisture conditions in the vicinity of the wetland boundary flags placed by Watershed Dynamics, as well as in other areas of the site west of the flagged boundary. ESA found one wetland located on the site and did not attempt to delineate the wetland edge, but rather we investigated the discrepancy between the boundary flagged by Watershed Dynamics, and the boundary as mapped by the City in 1998. During the July 2009 site visit, which followed a drier than average spring and early summer (see attached King County precipitation graph), ESA observed soil saturation to within 12 inches of the soil surface at several locations west of the wetland boundary delineated by Watershed Dynamics. Based on this observation we assumed that wetland hydrology would be present earlier in the growing season, and therefore the wetland boundary would be located west of the line delineated by Watershed Dynamics. Following the July 2009 site visit ESA prepared a memo (ESA 2009) to the City documenting our findings. Based upon our review of the information provided by Watershed Dynamics in 2009 and the observations made during our July 2009 site visit, ESA concluded that the wetland located on the Singh property and extending off site to both the north and south is likely larger than what had been delineated by Watershed Dynamics. We also concluded that based upon the larger size and potential connection to Bingaman Creek, the wetland may meet the criteria for a Category II wetland. Category II wetlands require a 100-foot buffer under the FWRC. ESA did not delineate a wetland boundary on the Singh property. It was not clear during the 2009 site visit if the nearby stream would be considered a minor or a major stream under FWRC, based upon our review of the stream survey information provided by Watershed Dynamics. We ESA f Matt Herrera November 15, 2011 Page 2 concluded that this classification could not be confirmed until it was determined whether the steep channel gradients observed downstream of the site are natural or human -caused. In the July 2009 memo ESA recommended that the applicant's consultant complete the following: ■ Re-examine the western wetland boundary and extend the flagged boundary to include spiraea-dominated areas with shallow soil saturation; ■ Investigate potential connection between off -site stream (Bingaman Creek) and on -site wetland; and ■ Provide additional information regarding the cause of the steep stream channel gradients identified south of the property. Current Review Watershed Dynamics, on behalf ofthe property owner, submitted a memo to the City of Federal Way on April 27, 2011. The April 2011 memo described that Watershed Dynamics did not conduct further investigations to determine a wetland boundary west of their original boundary because of exceptionally wet weather conditions and because the neighboring property -owners could not contribute funding to the re -delineation effort. In lieu of presenting a revised wetland boundary, Watershed Dynamics presented two different proposals for managing critical areas and moving forward with development on the Singh property. Proposal A suggested that the City and the applicant agree on a "compromise" wetland boundary and wetland buffer width for the on portion of the wetland as well as the off site portion Of the wetland. Additionally this Proposal requested that the City reduce the standard wetland buffer from 100 feet to 50 feet, with the stipulation that the remaining buffer area would be enhanced by the property -owner. According to Watershed Dynamics, the intent of Proposal A is to allow the proposed site development to move forward by "setting a compromise wetland boundary in a location between the wetland boundary delineated by Watershed Dynamics and the boundary location established by the City's Wetland Biologist" in order to provide more unencumbered developable land on the Singh property. Proposal B would fill all of the on -site portion of the wetland as well as some of the off -site portion, while preserving the channel and enhancing the buffer of the reach of Hingaman Creek located adjacent to and east of the Singh property. Proposal B would include establishment of off -site mitigation to compensate for the total loss of the on -site wetland. The April 2011 Watershed Dynamics memo includes a list of Special Notes that identify a number of required steps that Watershed Dynamics anticipates regarding expected permits and approvals that would be required in order to implement either Proposal A or B. In addition to the two proposals, and the list of Special Notes, Watershed Dynamics submitted Attachment A: Additional Pertinent Background Information. Appendix A includes a discussion of how Watershed Dynamics reached some of their conclusions regarding the wetland boundary and the classification of Bingaman Creek, Watershed Dynamics explained that they conducted their fieldwork in May 2008, established two east -west transects through the site along which they recorded data on vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Watershed Dynamics established their wetland boundary approximately midway between points that exhibited all three ESA -A Matt Herrera November 15, 2011 Page 3 wetland criteria and the points that exhibited only hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soil. In this Appendix Watershed Dynamics makes a statement that during the July 2009 site visit attended by the City, Watershed Dynamics, and ESA an agreement was made that Bingaman Creek should be reclassified as a Minor Stream. Review of Proposal A Proposal A suggests establishing a "compromise" wetland boundary on the Singh property. FWRC 19.05.230 formally defines wetlands as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. FWRC 19.175.101 requires wetland boundaries to be determined using the methodology outlined in the March 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Department of Ecology Publication No. 96-94). Determining the boundary of a wetland under the FWRC requires strict adherence to an established methodology developed based on the results scientific research, and using the definition of wetlands stated above. The FWRC does not include a provision for establishing "compromise" boundaries for wetlands. Based upon the FWRC it does not appear that Proposal A could be permitted by the City of Federal Way. Review of Proposal B Under FWRC 19.175.030 (Structures, improvements and land surface modifications within regulated wetlands) land surface modification can take place in regulated wetlands under limited conditions. FWRC requires that the specific location and extent of the intrusion into the wetland must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment, and must satisfy a series of decisional criteria including that water quality will not be adversely affected and that the proposal will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat. It would be necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that filling the on -site wetland would not adversely impact Bingaman Creek and that the impacts could be fully compensated through mitigation. Implementation of Proposal B would require an approved mitigation and monitoring plan that satisfies the requirements of FWRC 19.175. In addition to satisfying City of Federal Way requirements for filling wetlands and mitigating impacts, implementation of Proposal B would also require permits and approvals from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Finally, agreements with the owners of the adjoining properties would need to be obtained if impacts to the off - site portions of the wetland are anticipated. Review of Appendix A FWRC 19.175.020 defines Minor and Major Streams. As stated in our July 2009 review letter, in order to determine whether or not Bingaman Creek should be classified as a Minor Stream, information will need to be provided regarding the cause (human or natural) of the steep channel gradients located downstream of the Singh property. Currently there has been no agreement regarding the classification of Bingaman Creek in the vicinity of the Singh property. Conclusions/Recommendations Based on our review of the April 2011 Watershed Dynamics submittal and our knowledge of the critical areas associated with the Singh property, ESA has the following recommendations: 1� ESA Matt Herrera November 15, 2011 Page 4 1. Regardless of how the property owner chooses to proceed with development on the Singh property, the wetland will need to be delineated according to the requirements outlined in the FWRC, and the wetland boundary will need to be confirmed by the City; specific information documenting conclusions about wetland hydrology will need to be included; 2. More definitive information regarding the cause of the steep channel gradients will need to be provided in order to classify Bingaman Creek; 3. As currently described, Proposal A would not be allowed under the FWRC, for reasons listed above; 4. Proposal B could potentially be allowed under the FWRC, however a number of details would need to be investigated and resolved; these include: o agreements would need to be reached with the two adjacent property owners regarding impacts to wetland areas and buffer on their properties; o agreement would need to be reached with the owners of the property on which the stream channel is located, regarding stream channel and buffer enhancement; o in order to fill the on -site wetland, a federal permit would need to be obtained from the US Army Corps of Engineers; o Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife would need to approve any plans that would result in impacts to Bingaman Creek; o the property owner would need to demonstrate that filling the onsite wetland would not have a detrimental effect on nearby Bingaman Creek; o a suitable mitigation site would need to be identified and mitigation plans would need to be prepared and approved. We appreciate having the opportunity to review this material for the City of Federal Way. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 206.781.0088 or at lzemke(@,esassoc.com if you have questions about our review or would like to discuss it further. Sincerely, Lizzie Zemke, Senior Scientist ESA SeaTac Precipitation Graphs Page 1 of 1 imKING COUNTY HOME I NEWS I SERVICES I DIRECTORY I CONVACF Hydrologic Information Center King County Water and Land Resources Division am You're in: Hxdrokak Mrerrriatfon Carder » SeaTac Precipitation Hydrologic Information Center Data from this graph's retrieved and compiled from the NOAA National �1$@Qlgy,�-e�tt 1�r "zeaTr3� IAbout ' Data Search Below is the accumulated Sea-Tac Precipitation beginning October 1, for the current water year In addition to this are the historical daily mean, and the standard day iafic - calendar day for the ester year (October 1-September30)L Map Soa7a .Prealp Rernriond•Bear Creek Fat a Fall Equinox yY ter Sdslil Summary Statistics of Historical Local Precipitation and Grourl�valar W nRwr Wfi iSGrlmv - Spring Equinox Water Year 2011 (Oct 1, 2010 - Sep 30, 2011) Spmg=Spdng Equinox Summer Solstice rEootl Warning Cen�r $ornelef - sualIn" Setxlico - roll Eptww source NWS Sea -Tee Airport Streams Water Ghmirty Seasonal Totals' Not. ueatos warn rased rp kl paps MonthlyTotals 16 t Links 30 fi 25 For questions about 5 the King County a 20 Hydrologic Monitoring Program, please a 15 contact David Funke, Hydrologist Q 10 For questions about � 5 the HI Web site, please contact Henry Daehnke 8i 0 m CO) m 14 B% � . i� Historical 12 . • WY 2009 .� 10 F ♦ WY 2010 EL 8 e WY 2011 m -}^ `0 6 F T 2 2 1 • � , 0 Z Fall Winter Spring Summer Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug rn 60 g t 50 o H 40 C) •• • • - ■ ■ r• • • ■r • •- ■ • • • • • • •! ■• r 30 • !■ ! • ■■! • ■�� ■ ■• ■• ■ • • ! • • ■ • ■ ■• • • • • 20 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 p �..... ..... ... ......... CumnlabveAnrAal PredQitatlon•• ..... ..... .--. .. . ] 50 -.....--•......... ........- .. - ,.-. ..... ..... ..... -..:-- --•--.-....-1. _- .... .... Historical mean (1949.2011) = 38.23 m , IV Historical WY2011=44.`.tli' 18 Mean ' c ...........z +!-STD .............:.......... ........ WY2009 a 30 WY2010 WY 2011 ....... --ice ��r_�Y^�••r� IL 20 .......... ............... .... ... -. ....... - ..- ....-.. -.. .. - ..... --. m 1� i / ►1 .-........ .......-. 10 .............. .. .. ........ -.. .....-.......-.--. «.«..--.-..............--.................... .. • -: - r� • 0 Oct-1 Nov-1 Dec-1 Jan-1 Feb-1 Mar-1 Apr-1 May-1 Jun-1 Jul-1 Aug-1 Sell *Current Seasonal totals are based an most recent three full seasons Date plus current season with no value_ Note: Data and Analyse TQ T-QP Updated: 11/1012011 0:31:00 PM dy0cLoolq A-Jpritlafitirtl.efira I About I Data Search I Map I SeaTac Precip RSdhI�SSF Sit+ Cd[SkSY4Lt3fN7lS[ I m C p�p[d Wnmin�Ce 5beenn Nlnlar 0L A I Links King County I News I Services I Comments I Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. Terms of Use I Privacy Policy ® 2009 King County mhtml:file://\\esa sf 2k\esa\PROJECTS\SEA\NATURAL SCIENCES\2007\207004_Fed... 11/17/2011 ESA A d o l f s o i"� Suoe 200shole Avenue NW 1 Seattle, WA 98107 J 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax WETLAND CONSULTANT TASK AUTHORIZATION TASK AUTHORIZATION NO. 207004-49-B DATE 28-Jul-11 CITY City of Federal Way PO Box 9718 33326 Eighth Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98063-9718 a1 CONSULTANT ESA Adolfson 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98107 PROJECT Singh Property #09-101202-00-10;; PROJECT PROPONENT Hans Korve, DMP Engineering TASK AUTHORIZATION NO. 207004-49-B CITY PLANNER Matthew Herrera TASK SCOPE 1 Review of April 2011 memo 1 staff 3 hrs $ 500.00 2 Prepare written resopnse to 2011 memo 1 staff 5 hrs $ 700.00 3 Prep for and attend meeting with City and applicant 1 staff 6 hrs $ 740.00 www.adolfson.com RECENED.By COMMUNITYDEVELOPMEN-1 DEPARTMENT Reimbursables $ 100,00 TOTAL COST Not to exceed $ 2,040.00 without a prior written amendment to this Task TASK SCHEDULE Tasks 1, 2, And 3 to be completed within 14 business days of receiving notice to proceed from the City. DELIVERABLES Wetland and stream verification review letter AUTH TION Lityi,rPcderal Way ESA Adolfson rincipal) Date 11-ld -// Date NOV 14 2611 CITY OF A- Federal November 4, 2011 CITY HALLFi L Way 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Lizzie Zemke ESA Adolfson 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 RE: FILE #09-101793-00-AD; AUTUORIZATION TO PROCEED Singh Wetland Consultant Review, 29002 Military Road South, Federal Way Dear Ms. Zemke: The applicant has funded the pass -through account in the amount of $2,040.00 as estimated by ESA Adolfson to perform wetland review services as detailed in the enclosed wetland consultant task authorization form. I have also enclosed the critical areas review memorandum from Watershed 2638 or matt.herrera@cityoffederalway.com. , enc: Signed Task Authorization Watershed Dynamics Memorandum c- Larry Burnstad, Watershed Dynamics, PO Box 215, Enumclaw, WA 98022 Doc. i D 59420 CITY OF CITY HALL lftl*k� Federal Wa 33325 8th Avenue South y Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 w w w, ci tyo ffe decal wa y. c om August 10, 2011 Inderjit and Gran Singh 29830 18`h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-4202 FILE Re: File #09-101793-00-AD; CONSULTANT REVIEW ESTIMATE Singh Wetland Review, 29002 Military Road South, Federal Way Dear Mr. & Mrs. Singh: Please find the enclosed a Wetland Consultant Authorization Form provided by the Community and Economic Development Department for review of the Watershed Dynami upcoming meeting with staff, appcs wetland memorandum and licant, and consultant. An applicant funded draw -down account has been established for services provided by the department's wetland consultant, ESA AdoIfson. The estimate for services includes: (1) review of the Watershed Dynamics April 2011 memorandum; (2) written response to the memorandum; and (3) preparation and attendance to a meeting with the city and applicant. Funds deposited in the account that are not used will be returned to you. Formal review of your request will begin following receipt of your signature on the enclosed task authorization form and funding of the draw -dawn account in the amount of $2,040.00. Please submit these items to the Permit Center on the second floor of City Hall (33125 8`b Avenue South, Federal WA 98003). ESA Adoifson has indicated they are able to execute Way, the taslt scope within 14 days of receiving notice to proceed. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your project, please contact me at 253-835-2638, or matt.herrera@cityoffederalway.com. SincereIy� or Matthew Herrera Associate Planner enc: Wetland Consultant Authorization Form c: Larry Burnstad, Watershed Dynamics, PO Box 215, Enumclaw, WA 98022 (w/ authorization form) Doc ID 58589 CITY OF Federal Way WETLAND CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: August 10, 2011 Department: Community and Economic Development 33325 8`h Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: Lizzie Zemke, ESA Adolfson 5309 Shilshoie Avenue I�1W, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98107 Project: Singh Property Wetland & Stream Status Verification 29002 Military Road South, Federal Way, WA / APN 042104-9172 File No.: 09-101793-00-AD Proponent: Inderjit and Gian Singh 29830 18t Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003-4202 City Staff. Associate Planner Matthew Herrera, 253-835-2638 Documents Provided: April 27, 2011, Wetland Boundary Resolution Proposal memorandum prepared by Watershed Dynamics Overview & Task Scope: Prior to developing a wetland buffer enhancement plan or wetland mitigation plan, the applicant's agent, Larry Burnstad of Watershed Dynamics, is requesting the city to determine the location of the wetland boundary on the Singh property, The applicant requests the following items to be completed: • Review of April 27, 201 I, memorandum • Written ESA Adolfson response to rnemoralidum • Meeting at Federal Way City Hall with ESA Adolfson, Watershed Dynamics, and city staff Task Cost: Not to exceed $ 2,040,00 without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. City e- XIA"-t Applicant /O -3/-ll Date Doc I D 58588 4CITY OF s-. Federal Way August 1, 2011 Inderjit and Gian Singh 29828 18" Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-4202 RE: FILE #09-101793-00-AD; CONSULTANT REVIEW ESTIMATE Singh Wetland Review, 29002 Military Road South, Federal Way Dear Mr. & Mrs. Singh: CITY HALL FILE 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Please find the enclosed Wetland Consultant Authorization Form provided by the Community and Economic Development Department for review of the Watershed Dynamics wetland memorandum and upcoming meeting with staff, applicant, and consultant. An applicant funded draw -down account has been established for services provided by the department's wetland consultant ESA Adolfson. The estimate for services includes: (1) review of the Watershed Dynamics April 2011 memorandum; (2) written response to the memorandum; and (3) preparation and attendance to a meeting with the city and applicant. Funds deposited in the account that are not used will be returned to you. Formal review of your request will begin following receipt of your signature on the enclosed task authorization form and funding of the draw -down account in the amount of $2,040.00. Please submit these items to the Permit Center on the second floor of City Hall. ESA Adolfson has indicated they are able to execute the task scope within 14 days of receiving notice to proceed. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your project, please contact me at 253-835-2638 or maft-herTera@cityoffederalway.com. erely Matthew Herrera Associate Planner enc: Wetland Consultant Authorization Form c: Larry Burnstad, Watershed Dynamics, PO Box 215, Enumclaw, WA 98022 (w/ authorization form) Doc. I.D 59466 Applicant Name: DMP ENGINEERING *HANS KORVE * FEE DESCRIPTION City of Federal Way Ph: (253) 835-7000 INVOICE cirr of � Federal Way Project Name: SINGH WETLAND CONSULTANT RE' Site Address: 29002 MILITARY RD S Invoice Date: August 1, 2011 Bill #: 159517 Pennit #: 09-101793-00 CD -WETLAND REVIEW (8045)....................... 001-0000-000-239-10-004............. AMOUNT $2,040.00 TOTAL DUE: $2,040.00 `CITY OF Federal Wa CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: AO Box 9718 Federal Way. WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 wwwc0offederalway. com July 21, 2011 Ms. Lizzie Zemke ESA Adolfson FILE 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 Re: File #09-101202-00-SU; REQUEST FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES Singh Property, 29002 Military Road South, Federal Way Dear Ms. Zemke: City of Federal Way Planning staff requests ESA Adolfson services for review of the enclosed Wetland Boundary Resolution proposal offered by the applicant's agent, Watershed Dynamics_ The applicant's objective is to determine a wetland boundary on the subject property that is acceptable to the city and then begin the development of a wetland buffer enhancement plan, or a wetland mitigation plan. Enclosed is a task scope that includes review of the proposal, a written response, and a meeting conducted at Federal Dynamics, ESA Adolfson, anWay City Hail whit staff from Watershed d the city, Please provide a task cost at your earliest convenience and feel free to contact me at matt.herrera@60Yoffederalway. com, or 253-835-2638, if You have any questions. Sincerely, Matthewherrera Associate Planner enc: April 27, 2011, Wetland Boundary Resolution Proposal Wetland Consultant Authorization Form Doc CD 58387 CITY OF CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue So FILE Federal Way Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 98 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com July 13, 2011 Larry Burnstad Watershed Dynamics PO Box 215 Enumclaw, WA 98022 RE: FILE #09-101793-00-AD; CITY CONSULTANT TELECONFERENCE REQUEST Singh Wetland Consultant Review, 29002 Military Road South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Burnstad: I have contacted Lizzie Zemke of ESA to request a teleconference to discuss a new scope of work for a wetland boundary determination of the Singh property wetland. Ms. Zemke is generally available during the July 12-22 time window that we spoke about at the Permit Center counter on July 5. I have not received a response to a July 8 email to you and several phone calls to your office have not been answered. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to schedule the teleconference. Sincere Matthew Herrera Associate Planner Doc. I.D. 59286 Gian Singh 29830 18th Ave South Federal Way, WA 98003`~ 'L Senator Tracey Eide 253-250 2059 ianlsin 1zFcx7 rnail.coirt 305 Legislative Building E-mail: Olympia,WA 98504-0430 Re: File # 09-101793-00-AD Property: 29002 .Military Road South, Federal Way, WA Dear Senator, I would like to express my discontent with the City of Federal Way regarding a property I have attempted to develop in Federal Way. This property, located at 29002 Military Road South in Federal Way is zoned RM 3600. It has very good developable land with a minor creek located or the east side of the property. If development were to proceed, it could bring many new construction jobs as we]I as generate more tax revenue for the city. For nearly four years I have worked with the city to develop this property and have had little success in moving this project along. Initially, the city requested that I submit to them a wetland study verifying that the property was indeed developable. Complying, I hired an experienced wetland biologist to conduct the study and send the results to the city. Oddly, the city required that in addition to the study, i submit building plans before property delineation. This was -- — completely unnecessary since technically the city needed no building plans to complete property delineation. This extra task served as nothing but a costly burden to me. Nevertheless, I created the building plans and provided everything the city asked of me. The city then requested a third party review on the property site th f is each in attendance. This cost amounted to $39245.00.1 sent two biolog stt to the field to v- cost Of which I had to cover discuss the condition of the property: rshed Dynamics and Mr. I Sewall of Sewall Wetland Consultants, Inc. e city coMr- Larry ntracted Of ESA Adolfson for the review Mr, Ed Sewall had conducted a critical area review on the property on the immediate north and immediate south of the lot, Also present was Mr. Hans Korve of DMP, INC who had prepay the building plans and had conducted the survey of the property. Thus, anyone I had hired to study this property was present at the review to provide all information. Upon completion of the field review I received completely contradictory statements from ESA Adolfson. Ms Lixzie Zemke of ESA Adolfson who was present at the review wrote in her memo that they investigated soil conditions in several locations and found hydrology. My two biologists, on the Other hand, wrote that they investigated soil conditions only in three locations and found no hydrology. Ms Lizzie Zemke based her claim on a "Squeeze" test, a test which is no longer considered valid for assessing soil moisture content or soil saturation. The city was informed about this. Thus her results were based on a completely invalid testing method_ This is displeasing considering that the city accepted her results, despite the thoroughness of the tests conducted by my biologists to show that the property had no hydrology. Ms. Zemke then went on to say that the hydrology she indicated would be present earlier in the season in this area extends from February 15 to october glowing season. However, the glowing July, Well W i 31 st each year this review took placel cted through tile tnionths in the growl g semy season that biologists had evidence from tests co,i shoved yet again szo hydrology was present. Ms. Zemke also reported that she did not observe any dead spiraca on the (Seproe However, if my biologists indicated in Mr, Burnstad, Mr. Sewall, and myslfobserved t confusesok pictures 0 a wity,f therm (see attache documentation for photos of the dead pher while there reports accounts of dead spiraca, she did up ask them eE uncertainty in the reports plants before moving was on tile property during the review to clear P Y forward. its ` she had C I 0 Her final claim was that the B this ca n Creek n luny Personal O Orflowobservat a sfof the property in the Yn�! llo scientific evidence to b r, ears, never once have 1 seen this creek overflow during the B ng ian Creek wa last many Y p y In addition, � t snajority of the time, thus creek remais3s cam letel dry. ago when a sewer line was installed in the creek by /,, classified as a minor creek many Years g 1,akehaven Sewer pistrict (See attached for photos of the creek). Aplan was discussed with the City .1 ]nod to pay again for third party review which has cost owners me $2,040.00. Ms. Zemke was again going to participate in tine review. Both property ner and . Burnstad myself and Inderjit K. Singh - alongside with the Federal Zemke to air Way City pla 1�What I was greeted with were present for the meeting. All of us waited for was a complete lack of professionalism from Ms. Zernke. She rushed in saying "T11ere is wetland nd where is good land." out there. There is good land out there. I don't know unwwhoilling tois llsa alai t° what thers had to say. Throughout the meeting, she remained obstinate Instead, she kept saying that wetland Shot/ dedothee opbui i rty was deemed a wetland. But tht and that wetland should be left e paint appropriate assessment, pro p Which is all approp ' was wetland at all and not regurgitate facts �W of the meeting was evaluating whether the property p p ,ty already known to those present at tite meeting about wetland pro el Site then went on Property was say C� that when, neighbors want wetland t a $card lot be 1She wentlo nated. She,witli saying stated>ss�bad t at the ae wetland U very bad and that it was nothing b p e She then lead the audacity to C\ on the property. Nobody should have wetland r the d by he c 0 blame Sheldon and Associates, a consulting firm hired by the city for the third pasty review who assessed the north and south sides of my property, that they didn't do a good job and that they left good usable property out. Filially, she said the proper ty sho delineation and pay fl much farther east and that ,nothing is done without money.Neighbors Yet again, my money was wasted on this second third party review. Ms. Zemke disrespecte us, ove this project undermined our efforts, and did nothing to help mSurprisingly, urp singly despite Mr. Ed Sewall She did not docurnelrt a °these reemo- v ew to provide alirdocumentation and�information about his being at tine original thirdparty Ms - studies, she did not mention his n amerce me atect and a enema that fly detailed the pe ific verbal Zemke and all I got in return was p statements she made at those meetings. I feel she intends for me to forfeit the goad usable property to the city, which is a waste of a viable opportunity for priv ate deveiopntent that I can provide. So far this project has exceeded a �. working crass American, this is an incredibly difficult thing cost of $40,000.00. As an average for me to finance in the current economy. Had Ms. Zemke cooperated with everyone, this project could have been completed in 2009 and I could have started developing the property which could have brought new economic opportunities to the city. I have worked with the City of Federal Way for more than ten years. Although some individuals have been honest and professional, some have shown nothing but disrespect and made claims without any strong supporting evidence. Disproving these claims to them has cost me a substantial sum of money and time. Even my wetland consultant Larry Burnstad has gotten fed up trying to work with the city, who feels his complete and thorough study of the property was completely ignored by the city. The city planner who attended the meeting said "I do not have time to do this project. I do not like this job. This job is very hard. I would rather do something else." I have not heard anything back from the planner nor has he done anything since the last meeting almost a year ago. I am aggravated that the city sided with the weak claims and assessment of ESA Adolfson without considering the thorough studies I have done on this property. Please take action to help me move this project forward. Sincerely, Gian Singh R I:r EIVEELEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8`h Avenue South CITY OF �`- �,a.. ' O C T 26 2015 Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Federal Way FEDERAL WAY 253-835- w'C11 Fax deratw5-2609 CITY OF FEDE rv�vw.rit�offederafwa .rn�t� CDS RFSUBMiTTAL INFORMATION This completed form MUS T accompany a// resubmitta/s. "Please note: Additional or re vised plans or documents foran active project will not be accepted unless accompanied by this completed form. Mailed resubmittals that do not include this farm or that do not contain the correct number of copies will be returned or discarded. You are encouraged to submit al/ items in person and to contact the Permit Counter prior to submitting ifyou are not sure about the number of copies required. ** AN- Y CHANGES TO DRAWINGS MUST BE CLOUDED. Project Number: d 9 _ 1 J_ �t— 9 --�3 _ Project Name: f /F4_<4,k 04 Q Project Address P Project Contact: L r?��, Phone: RESUBMITTED ITEMS: # of Copies ** Detailed Description of item "* Always submit the same number of copies as required foryour initial application.** Resubmittal Requested by: Letter Dated: OFF/CE USE Oft Y RESUB #.• — Dish bUNOR Date: 10 Z 1 ❑eptlDiv Name #�j — — — — r, Planr PW Fire Other Bulletin #129 —January 1, 2011 Page 1 of I k: �Elando uts\Resubmittal Information ESA ,►, A 5309 Shilshole Ave. NW Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 (206) 789-9658 Mr. Greg Fewins Deputy Director of Community Development Services CITY OF FEDERAL WAY P.O- Box 9718 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063 PNVOICE RECE'VEDCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OCT 2 0 2009 October 16, 2009 ` Invoice No: 86995 Project Manager: Elizabeth Zemke Project D207004-00 Federal Way On -Call 2007 WORK SUMMARY: Singh Property_ Preparation of memo documenting site visit conducted with applicant's consultants and City planner Professional Services from A- -# 22 2009 to October 9 2009 Task 000049 SINGH PROPERTY #09-101793-00-AD Professional Personnel Senior Planner/Senior Scientist Hours Rate Amount Zemke, Elizabeth 8/27/09 Clerical 1-50 120-01 180.02 Jones, Maureen 912109 Totals .25 59.47 14.87 Total Labor 1- 75 194-89 Total this Task TOTAL INVOICE AMOUN-f: emit to. SA O. Box 92170 I hereby arlk(wi-vv,-�voz --hat the merchandise c Grove, IL 60009 and/or services have been received as stated on this invoice. As the authorized approver 4 #: 94-1698350 on purchase order # & dg(a`/ , I approve this invoice for payment. 9 Signature: wf Date: , 194.89 $194.89 $194.89 /LENT DUE UPON RECEIPT RESUBMITTED RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C SEP 2 3 2009 SEP 2 3 2009 ll_oiNG DEPT. WATERSHED DYNAMICS Post Office Box 215, Enumclaw, WA 98022 TEL 360.825.9253 FAX 360.825.9248 DATE: I tna ber 14, 2009 HARD COPY SENT: X YES NO FAX: FAX COPY SENT YES X NO E-MAIL: E-MAIL SENT: X YES NO TRANSMITTAL: PAGES SENT INCLUDING COVER PAGE: 3 SUBJECT: July 29, 2009 Field Review— Summary Memo TO: Mr. Matthew Herrera, Senior Planner City of Federal Way Post Office Box 9718 Federal Way, Washington 98063-9718 FROM. Larry D. Burnstad, Senior Biologist , PROJECT I Critical Areas Review — Gian Singh NAME: PROJECT I City of Federal Way File No. 09-101793-00-AD NUMBERJ Watershed Dynamics Project No. 2007026 Matt -- Thank you for including me in the correspondence related to the Gian Singh Property. I understand that we will have to complete some additional work at the Singh property, as well as the five neighboring properties, one to the north and four to the south, in an effort to better define the wetland boundary and determine the wetland category. I believe the additional work will help us attain a common goal, which is to use the best available scientific information as a means of correctly defining the wetland so the City,s regulations are properly applied. It is apparent that the City has no desire to unnecessarily exclude Property from future development and tax revenues for the City. Proposed Additional Study I am currently working with Ed Sewall to prepare a proposal that we will present to the land owners for their concurrence. This proposal involves the installation of piezometers (piezo tubes) to measure near - surface ground water levels in the lower portions of the subject properties. In addition, we would install one recording rain gauge to monitor precipitation at the site for comparison with precipitation data collected by the National Weather Service Monitoring Station at SeaTac International Airport. Near -surface Groundwater Monitoring: Once installed the piezo tubes will be monitored to determine the frequency and duration of near groundwater within the property. The exact number of piezo tubes to be installed is yet to be determined. The key, however, is to install enough piezo tubes to accurately define the wetland boundary based on empirical data. The empirical data (record of observations) will be used to determine where the soil is saturated in the upper 12 inches of the soil column for a period of 14 consecutive days or more during the growing season and under normal precipitation conditions and where :it is not. Memo to Mr. Matthew Herrera — September 15, 2009 —page I Watershed Dynpmi[s PN 2 00 702 6 Gian Singh Property -- Critical Areas Review The data collection effort requires site visits and observation of the near -surface groundwater elevation, relative to the ground surface, in each piezo tube at 3-day to 5-day intervals. The observations will begin on January 15, 20I0 and continue through May 3I, 2010. The growing season in our area extends from February 15'h through October 31" each year. The period when 14 consecutive days of saturation is most likely to occur is between February 15"' and May 3I u each Year. We start the observations approximately 30 days in advance of the growing season to assure that everything is working properly. Soil Moisture Monitoring. In addition to recording groundwater elevations, we will be using a soil moisture probe (or tensiometers) to determine the upper elevation of the zone of saturation. The zone of saturation is the area in the soil above the elevation of the near -surface groundwater that is wet enough to release water (weep or seep) when exposed. The reason we will be using a moisture probe is to be able to sample soil moisture without disturbing the characteristics of the soil profile. Precipitation Monitoring: We will also be monitoring precipitation at the site using a recording (tipping bucket) rain gauge that will measure and record rainfall continuously from October 1, 2009 through May 31, 2009. The information collected will be compared with the precipitation data being collected at SeaTac. Once a relationship between the onsite data and the SeaTac data is established we will be able to compare the onsite conditions to the 20-year average of the SeaTac data. This comparison will allow us to determine if the precipitation measured during the study period is "normal" or not. Study Goal. It is the goal of our study effort to be able to set the wetland boundary on all six of the properties based on wetland hydrology. Once the boundary has been established and the City'S. consultant has reviewed and accepted the study results, we will be able to determine the size of the wetland and its category. Comments Regarding the Adolfson Summary Memo On another note, I appreciate receiving a copy of Ms. Zemke's August 31, 2009 memo summarizing the findings of our ,Tune 29, 2009 field review. I have reviewed the memo and find that there are some points that I believe should be added for the record. This is a minor point, but the memo should have included the names of the individuals in attendance at the field review, since there were three wetland biologists in the group. Purpose of the Field Review: The reason why I requested the on site review was two -fold. One objective was to discuss the location of the wetland boundary and the differences between Ms. Zemke's findings and mine. The other objective was to discuss the classification of the stream located along the eastern edge of the Singh property. Classification of Bingaman Creek. It is my recall that we did discuss the stream and that there was apparent agreement that the portion of the stream adjacent to the Singh property is not a Major Stream, as it is currently classified. I was under the impression that the extensive study effort I made, the results of which were presented as part of the Critical Areas Study dated April 10, 2009, was conclusive and presented acceptable rationale for why the section of Bingaman Creek upstream of SE 288"' Street (if not upstream of Interstate 5) is a Minor Stream. Unfortunately, there was no mention of our conversation related to the stream in Ms. Zemke"s August 3 I, 2009 memo. I did note, however, that your September 8, 2009 memo to Mr. Hans Korve made reference to Bingaman Creek as a Major Stream and to the Critical Areas Report conclusions that the Bingaman Creek (in the area adjacent to the subject property) had the characteristics of a Minor Stream. Your memo did not, however, provide any mention of the conversation in the field nor was there any definitive response regarding the classification of the stream. I would appreciate knowing what the City's decision is related to the reclassification of the section of Bingaman Creek upstream of SE 288"' Street. Memo to Mr. Matthew Herrera - September 15, 2009 - Page 2 a Watershed Dynamic's PN 2 00 7026 Gian Shigh Property — Critical Arens Reuiefu Soil Moisture Conditions. In her memo Ms. Zemke indicated that we had looked at the soil conditions in "several locations outside and west of the boundary determined by Watershed Dynamics." In fact we looked at the soils in only three locations. At the first location, which was near the north property line approximately 150 feet west of the deliny 16 inches. The soil was determined eated wetland boundary, Ed Sewall excavated the soil pit to approximately to be moist, but not saturated starting at approximately 13 inches below the ground surface. I asked Ed to excavate the soil to a depth of approximately 24 inches below the ground surface, which he did. We found the moist soil existed to about minus 17 inches and that below the elevation the soil was dry. According to my notes, we observed that the soil between minus 13 inches and minus 17 inches was denser than the soil above and below that layer. All of the soil was highly organic (peat), but the soil layer that was moist was less permeable than the soil layers above and below. At the time I suggested that since it had recently rained, perhaps the denser soil layer was holding more moisture than the more permeable layer above, which would account for why the soil above and below the moist layer were essentially dry. I also mentioned that the soil did not glisten when exposed and that a saturated soil should glisten. I noted, too, that the "squeeze" test, which Ms. Zemke used to estimate soil moisture content, is no longer a valid test for soil moisture content or soil saturation. Ms. Zemke responded by indicating that the observed soil moisture conditions in July were sufficient to cause her to question the delineation completed by Watershed Dynamics. Despite the fact that I had monitored the same sample point from February through early April and was unable to prove 14 consecutive days of saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil column, Ms. Zemke was not willing to accept the delineated boundary without additional study. The second sample location was located approximately midway between the north and south property boundaries and approximately 120 feet west of the delineated wetland boundary. The conditions at that location were essentially the same as those observed at the first location. The third location was located approximately midway between the north and south property boundaries and approximately 35 feet west of the delineated wetland boundary. The soil at this location was dry from the ground surface to approximately 18 inches below the ground surface. Summary: We are, as I indicated in the first portion of this memo, intending to undertake additional study of the soil moisture conditions at this site. I understand and accept Ms. Zemke's reluctance to aree g with the location of the current delineated boundary without the results of the proposed additional study. The reason for my comments about the summary memo was to provide more detail related to the findings of our June 29, 2009 field review. When I read Ms. Zemke's memo, I am left with the impression that the soil moisture was more indicative of wetland conditions than it actually was and that casts additional doubt on the validity of the current location of the delineated boundary. Again, thank you for including me in the correspondence loop. I will send you another memo once we have reached an agreement with the land owners and are ready to initiate the study. If you have any questions regarding this memo please contact me at my office (360.825.9253), on my cell phone (206.953.5385), or by e-mail at lburnstad�7u comcast.net . Sincerely, Larry D. $urnstad cc: Mr. Hans Korve, Senior Planner, DMP Engineers, 726 Auburn Way North, Auburn, WA 98002 Mr. Ed Sewall, Senior Welland Ecologist, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 27641 Covington Way SE, Ste 2, Covington, WA 98042 Memo to Mr. Matthew Herrera — September 15, 2009 —Page 3 ary OF ti- Federal Way September 8, 2009 Hans Korve DMP Engineering 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 FILF CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com RE: FILE #09-101793-00-AD; AwusoN SUMMARY Singh Wetland Consultant Review, 29002 Military Road South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Korve: The Department of Community Development Services and ESA Adolfson, the city's wetland consultant, present the following summary of the July 29, 2009, site visit at the above -referenced property- As shown on the city's critical areas map, the subject property is encumbered by an on -site Category If wetland and a I00-foot buffer associated with an off -site rmjor stream (Bingamen Creek). The Watershed Dynamics (applicant's wetland consultant) reconnaissance and subsequent report determined that Bingamen Creek contained characteristics of a minor stream and should be reclassified as such. The applicant's consultant also determined the on -site wetland was significantly smaller than shown on the critical limited to the far eastern portion of the subject property and shouical areas map, ld be reclassified it a Category III wetland WETLAND & STREAM REVIEw The project applicant's agent specifically requested the services of ESA Adolfson for third party, independent review of the Watershed Dynamics critical areas report. Following their review of the critical areas report and field visit, ESA Adolfson concluded the wetland boundaries should extend west of the Watershed Dynamics delineation and conclusive evidence was not provided to reclassify the wetland toer explanation regarding the steep channel Category III status. ESA Adolfson also concluded that further gradient (human caused or natural) in portions of stream is necessary to confirm the reclassification. —fio]Iovvin Me July 9; Zp09; site �srt y1z cil~y and'appp ca2ifiepreserifatives, an agieemeiit ofthe boundary could not be made due to differing opinions of hydrological conditions. Please find the enclosed memorandum drafted by ESA Adolfson Scientist Lizzie Zemke sununarizing her findings of the July 29 site visit. Ms. Zemke recommends a new delineation be performed that includes the areas of moist to saturated soil. CONCLUSION The Department of Community Development Services concurs with analysis provided by ESA Adolfson. As shown on the critical areas map, the on -site wetland covers several adjacent properties and is larger than one acre in size. The Watershed Dynamics report is limited to investigation of the subject property. Pursuant to Federal Way Revised Conde i 9.175.020, wetlands larger than one acre do not meet the definition of Category III and at a minimum must be classified as Category Il. Further investigation that determines the wetiand is less than one acre in size, onsite and offsite, must be conducted if reclassification is the ultimate goal_ 'T Vl.r. fCa3'� e September 8, 2009 Page 2 CLOSING lease contact me at 253-835- If you have any questions regarding thisletter or your development project, p 2638 or matt•herrera[,7a eityoffederalway.com Sincerely, y Matthew Herrera Associate Planner enc: ESA Adolfson August 31, 2009, Memorandum O: Larry D. Bumsta Watershed Dynamics, PO Box 215, Enu=iaw, WA 98022 (Memo & Letter) Lizzie Zemke, ESA Adolfson, 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Seattle, WA 98107 DOC- LD 51403 09-101793 _� I ESA Adolfson memorandum date August 31, 2009 to Matthew Herrera, Senior Planner City of Federal Way from Lizzie Zemke (ESA Adolfson) subject Singh Property Site Visit (09-1017893-00-AD) Dear Matthew: 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax www.adolfson.com R15CEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SEP 0 3 2009 The purpose of this memo is to provide a summary of the July 29, 2009 site visit we conducted on the Singh property with Larry Burnstad of Watershed Dynamics. Mr. Bumstad had requested that we meet on the site to discuss the wetland boundaries. The site visit was conducted following an extended period of time without rain. ESA Adolfson had visited the site in early July 2009 and had determined at that time that the wetland extended further to the west than what was shown on the wetland map provided by Watershed Dynamics. Our recommendations were included in a letter to the City dated July 9, 2009. During the July 29, 2009 site visit we examined determined by Watershed Dynamics, Soils weresails at severs] locations outside and to the west of the boundary at least three of these Ivery moist to saturated to within 12 inches of the sail surface in typically found in wetlands, anaand Vegetation in these areas was dominated by hardhack (Spiriaea dotrglasii), a plant the soils met the criteria for hydric soils. These observations were similar to the observations I made in early July 2009. Based on our on -site observations made in both early and late July 2009 it is our recommendation that the wetland boundary be re -delineated and enlarged to include the areas of moist to saturated soil. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any comments or questions at (206) 789-9658. ESA.:FE.:t 5309 Shilshole Ave. NW Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 (206) 789-9658 Mr. Greg Fewins Deputy Director of Community Development Services CITY OF FEDERAL WAY P.O. Box 9718 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063 INVOICE August 31, 2009 Invoice No: 86479 Project Manager: Elizabeth Zemke Project 0207004.00 Federal Way On -Call 2007 WORK SUMMARY: Singh Property Review of wetland and stream report; site visit; preparation of review letter documenting results of site visit and report review; site visit with City and applicant's consultants. Professional Services from Jul 4 2009 to Au ust 21 2009 Task 000049 SINGH PROPERTY #09-101793-00-AD Professional Personnel Sr. Project Manager Hours Rate Amount Conolly, Catherine 7/9/09 1.00 138.42 138.42 Senior Planner/Senior Scientist Zemke, Elizabeth 7/6/09 3.00 120.01 360.03 Zemke, Elizabeth 7/8/09 4.00 120.01 480.04 Zemke, Elizabeth 7/9/09 3.00 120.01 360.03 Zemke, Elizabeth 7/13/09 1.00 120.01 120.01 Zemke, Elizabeth 7/17/09 Zemke, Elizabeth 7/29/09 .25 120.01 30.00 Scientist/Project Admin 4.00 120.01 480.04 Booy, Aaron 7/8/09 3.50 68.82 240.87 Clerical Jones, Maureen 7/14/09 .25 59.47 14.87 Totals 20.00 2,224.31 Total Labor 2,224.31 In -House Reimbursable Billing Vehicle per mile Seattle Silver Mileage 76.0 Miles @ 0.55 41.80 Total In -House Reimbursables 1.0 times 41.80 41.80 Total this Task $2,266.11 PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT -- - - -- - Project D207004.00 Federal Way On -Call 2007 Invoice 86479 TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT: $2,266.11 Remit to: ESA P.O. Box 92170 Elk Grove, IL 60009 TIN #: 94-1698350 Page 2 PAYMFNT DUE UPON RECEIPT �){w RECEIVED A U C 2 0 2009 t_ WAY WATERSHED DYNAMICS CDS Post Office Box 215, Enumclaw, WA 98022 TEL 360.825.9253 FAX 360.825.9248 DATE: August 17, 2009 HARD COPY SENT: I X YES Fes' E-MAIL: na FAX COPY SENT YES EX see cc list below E-MAIL SENT: tN TRANSMITTAL: YES PAGES SENT INCLUDING COVER PAGE: SUBJECT: 4 Summary of Field Review by City of Federal Way TO: Mr. Gian Singh 29830 — 181h Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003-4202 FROM: Larry D. Burnstad, Senior Biologist PROJECT Critical Areas Review — Singh Property NAME: PROJECT City of Federal Way File No. 09-101793-00-AD NUMBER: Watershed Dynamics File No. 2007026 Gian -- The following is a summary of: (1) the recent events related to the Critical Areas Review and (2) the future tasks that may need to be completed before further land use decision can be made for Tax Parcel No. 042104922. The subject property is located at 292XX Military Road South, Federal Way, Washington. Watershed Dynamics (WD) completed its critical areas review and prepared a Critical Areas Report (Report) dated April 10, 2009. Recent Events On May 15, 2009 Mr. Hans Korve, Senior Planner, DMP Engineering (DMP), submitted the Report to the City of Federal Way (City), along with a request for third party review of the that report. The City contracted ESA Adolphson (ESA), a Seattle based environmental consulting firm, to conduct both a document review and a field review of the site conditions. The field review included evaluation of the wetland boundary delineated by WD and of the stream classification for Bingaman Creek. During their initial review ESA found some inconsistencies in the report and relayed their findings through the City to DMP. DMP, in turn, notified WD and the corrected pages (page 14 and pages 23 through 25) were forwarded to DMP on June 10, 2009. DMP, in turn, forwarded the revised pages to the City. The City provided copies of the revised pages to ESA. On July 8, 2009, Ms. Lizzie Zemke, Senior Scientist, ESA, conducted a site review and submitted a memo relating her findings to the City. The City received the memo on July 15, 2009. A copy of the memo was forwarded to DMP and to WD. After reviewing the memo WD discovered that ESA did not concur with the WD wetland delineation and had questions regarding WD's suggested change in the stream classification. In the memo ESA requested a field review to discuss its findings with the City, DMP, and WD. A field review was conducted on July 29, 2009. The attendees were Ms. Lizzie Zemke, ESA; Mr. Matt Herrera, Associate Planner, City; Mr. Hans Korve, DMP; Mr. Ed Sewall, Senior Wetland Scientist, Sewall Wetland Consultants, Inc. (SWC); and Mr. Larry Burnstad, Senior Environmental Scientist, WD. Memo to Mr. Gian Singh, August 17, 2009 — Page 1 ►, atershed Dynamics PN2007026 Mr. Sewall was asked to attend because SWC had conducted critical area hrev r winousconversations on the property immediately north and the property immediately south of the subject property. p with WD, Mr. Sewall had expressed concerns about the review of his projects that had been completed for the City by Sheldon and Associates, a consulting firm hired by the City. Field Review During the field review the group discussed the classification of the stream channel located adjacent to the east boundary of the subject property. ESA was confused regarding the nature of the fish passage barriers described in the Report. WD clarified the stream channel conditions and explained that all of the fish passage harriers downstream of 46`h Avenue South were natural. After some discussion there was consensus that the stream should be reclassified as a Minor Stream. WD will prepare a separate memo to the City and ESA regarding the fish passage barriers in Bingaman Creek, both natural and human made. The remainder of the field review was spent evaluating two soil pits located approximately 30 feet to 50 feet west of the wetland boundary WD delineated. One of the pits was located in the same place that WD had evaluated from January through fienod had � pt been onsecut be dayle to s during the growing season.nd soil saturation in the per 12 inches of the soil profile for the requiredp ESA and SWC evaluated the two soil pits and found the soil from 13 inches to 15 inches below the ground surface was moist, but not saturated. The soil from the ground surface to minus 13 inches as well as the soil deeper than minus 15 inches was essentially dry. The soil layer between minus 13 inches and minus 15 inches was more compacted and had more clay content than the soil above and below that layer, a difference that could account for the presence of increased soil moisture content in that layer. Following the evaluation, ESA concluded that the field conditions observed at the two soil pits indicated that wetland hydrology would have been met during a growing season with "normal" precipitation. ESA insisted that the wetland boundary was further west than that delineated by WD and was not willing to accept the WD delineation without further evaluation. Although SWC and WD disagreed with ESA's conclusion, the City determined that additional study was needed to settle the disagreement between the consultants. Additional Field Wark Piexometers: After some discussion, it was agreed that the study would be conducted to determine the near -surface groundwater conditions in the area between the toe of the slope and the west ss would subject property and the stream channel. To accurately assess the near -surface groundwater, WD have to install shallow monitoring wells (referred to as piezometers or piezo tubes) within the subject property. The piezo tubes would be installed in three parallel rows of 4 to 5 tubes each starting approximately 75 feet to 100 feet west and extending to a point approximately 25 feet to 50 feet east of the boundary delineated by WD in 2009. A 3-foot to 4-foot wide access path to each row of piezo tubes would have to be created by cutting the existing vegetation down to ground level. The paths would have to be maintained to allow access throughout the monitoring period. Groundwater surface elevations would have to be observed in the tunes every 3 days to 6 days from January 15, 2010 through May 15, 2010. This frequency of monitoring is required to assure an accurate assessment of any 14 consecutive day period during the growing season. In addition to installing piezo tubes within the subject property, the City suggested the that actual pi w tland size tubes be installed on the properties to the north and south of the subject property determination. The cost of installing the piezo tubes on these properties may be paid by the individual landowners since they could benefit from the results of the study. SWC will contact the landowners to obtain both their permission to install the piezo tubes and their agreement to pay for the piezo tube installation and near -surface groundwater monitoring costs. Memo to Mr. Gian Singh, August 17, 2009 —Page 2 l} atershed Dynamics PN2007026 NOTE: Determining the size of the entire wetland, not just the portion of the wetland within the subject property, is required because the size of the wetland determines the wetland category. The minimum width of the wetland buffer is based on the wetland category. Precipitation Gage: Finally, the precipitation that falls within the subject property needs to be monitored to determine if the amount of precipitation is within a "normal" range. Data collected at the subject property will have to be compared to the precipitation data gathered at the SeaTac International Airport weather station during the same monitoring period. The data from the two sites will be normalized so the onsite data can be evaluated vis-a-vis the historic data (20-year average) collected at SeaTac. Please note that if the precipitation data collected at the site indicates that precipitation during the stud period is below normal the piezo tube data would not be acce ted for the pWose of determinin if wetland hydrology requirements had been met in 2010. Both the U.S Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington State Department of Ecology wetland identification and delineation manuals clearly state that conclusions regarding wetland hydrology must be based on data collected during periods of "normal" precipitation. Decision Considerations If the precipitation during the study period is not found to be normal, or above normal, the 2010 piezo tube monitoring data may be of little or no value. If the precipitation is determined to be less than normal, there are two options available for moving forward with site development plans for the subject property. Option 1: The shallow (near -surface) groundwater study could be conducted again during the growing season in 2011. The monitoring would begin on January 15, 2011 and continuing that effort through May 15, 2001. This means another year of costs incurred by the property owners and a delay in any land use decisions until after the data collected had been analyzed and a study report had been submitted to the City for review and approval. Study (Option 1) Costs: There are costs associated with this monitoring effort. Those costs include: Creation and maintenance of the access pathways, Acquisition and installation of the piezo tubes, Labor costs associated with 20 days to 40 days of monitoring, Preparation of a Study Report to provide the City with the monitoring results and conclusions, Study Report review by the City and ESA, and Meetings attended by the City, ESA, WD and SWC. These costs have not yet been calculated. I would like to meet and discuss your options prior to preparing a cost estimate for completion of the near -surface groundwater study. Option 2: With the City's concurrence, WD, SWC, and ESA would meet on site and established a compromise on the location of the wetland boundary. The results of that effort would probably mean that there would be less property available to develop that the area shown in the critical areas report prepared by WD. Option 2 Costs: There are costs associated with this option. Those costs include: Labor and expenses associated with the field effort by the City, ESA, WD and SWC to reach an agreement (compromise) regarding the location of the wetland boundary within the subject property, Memo to Mr. Gian Singh, August 17, 2009 — Page 3 ►, rtershed Dynamics PN2007026 Labor and expenses associated with the field effort by the City, ESA, WD and SWC to reach an agreement (compromise) regarding the location of the wetland boundary within the adjacent properties, and Cost of property lost for development as a result of a potentially larger wetland and a larger associated wetland buffer. If the adjacent property owners did not want to participate in this option, the wetland size would have to be estimated by extending the "compromise" wetland boundary within the subject property into and through the properties north and south of the subject property. The wetland category and the minimum buffer width would be determined based on the estimated size of the wetland. The downside of accepting a compromise boundary is the process used to estimate the overall wetland size. The wetland would be larger based on the estimated wetland boundary than it would be based on the WD boundary set in 2009 or the potential wetland boundary established as a result of the 2010 near -surface groundwater study. Although the usable area would be less than that currently shown on the WD wetland delineation map, by accepting the compromise boundary you would avoid the costs associated with completing the more definitive near -surface groundwater study. The upside of accepting the compromise boundary is two -fold. First, the decision regarding the wetland boundary location could be made relatively soon and second, the City has indicated a willingness to consider buffer reduction with buffer enhancement as a means of increasing the available developable land as compared to requiring the standard minimum buffer, Since there are at least two options, and potentially others, that you should consider prior making any decision about continuing the project, I believe that it would be inappropriate for me to develop a proposed scope -of -work and estimate -of -fees for either Option 1 or Option 2 at this time. I will prepare a cost proposal for you to review after you have read this memo and made your decision as to which option is the most appropriate for your future involvement with this project. If you have any questions regarding this memo please contact me at my office (360.825.9253), on my cell phone (206.953.5385), or by e-mail at lbumstad cr,comcast.n.et . Sincerely, Larry D. Burnstad cc: Mr. Hans Korve, DMP Engineers; W. Matt Herrera, City of Federal Way; Mr. Ed Sewall, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Memo to Mr. Gian Singh, August 17, 2009 —Page 4 ESA Ado' son 5309 Shilshole Ave. NW Suite 200 INVOICE Seattle, WA 98107 (206) 789-9658 Mr. Greg Fewins Deputy Director of Community Development Services CITY OF FEDERAL WAY P.O. Box 9718 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063 RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JUL 13 2009 July 9, 2009 Invoice No: 85807 Project Manager: Elizabeth Zemke Project D207004.00 Federal Way On -Call 2007 WORK SUMMARY: Task 49A: Singh Property: Review of documents sent by City; preparation of task authorization, detailed review of applicant's submittal in preparation for site visit. Professional Services from May 27 2009 to Jul 2 2009 Task 000049 SINGH PROPERTY#09-101793-00-AD Professional Personnel Senior Planner/Senior Scientist Hours Rate Amount Zemke, Elizabeth 5/27/09 Zemke, Elizabeth 5/29/09 .75 120.01 90.01 Zemke, Elizabeth 6/26/09 1.00 120.01 120.01 Zemke, Elizabeth 7/1/09 1.00 120.01 120.01 Zemke, Elizabeth 7/2/09 2.00 120.01 240.02 Senior Administrative 1.00 120.01 120.01 Bjork, Susan 6/29/09 Totals .50 90.62 45.31 6.25 735.37 Total Labor 735.37 Total this Task $735.37 TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT: $735.37 Remit to: ESA P.O. Box 92170 Elk Grove, IL 60009 TIN #: 94-1698350 PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT - - - - - CITY OF � Federal Way July 17, 2009 CITY HALL 33.325 8th Avenu Soot Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Hans Korve DMP Engineering 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 RE: FILE #09-101793-00-AD; ESA ADOLFSON RESPONSE Singh Wetland Consultant Review, 29002 Military Road South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Korve: On May 15, 2009, the City of ,Federal Way received your request for third party review of a Critical Areas Report conducted by Watershed Dynamics for the above -referenced property. The City's wetland inventory has designated a signiftcant portion of the Sin roe as a Category 11 wetland In addition to the onsite wetland, a major stream identified as Bin � n Creek flows property rtY Parcel. Watershed Dynamic's report asserts the onsite wetl d should be reclassified a Category III wetland and the adjacent stream should be reclassified a minor stream. At the time of submittal, you requested the services of ESA Adolfson; one of the city's two wetland and stream consultants. Lizzie Zemke, Senior Scientist, has provided the enclosed technical memorandum responding to Watershed Dynamics' report. FINDINGS Subsequent to reviewing the report and a site visit to the Singhproperty, (1) the onsite wetland extends further west of the boun g Ms. Zemke fords the following: distinct break between spiraea/willow and spiraea/black� y plant flagged o Watershed Dynamics; (2) no was observed. Therefore, iraea conclusive evidence was not provided by Water hed Dynaties; andmics to reclassify the onsite wetland from Category H to Category III. Ms. Zemke also states that the report lacks specific evidence of a natural permanent blockage upstream of Bingame�z Creek to reclassify it to a minor stream CLOSING Per our ernail exchange on July 15, 2009,1 am working with ESA Adolfson to schedule a meeting with You, Mr. Larry Burnstad of Watershed Dynamics, myself, and Ms. Zemke to discuss her findings. I will contact you with possible dates and times in the coming days If you have any questions, meat 253-835-2638 or matt.herrera@cityoffederalway.cozn please contact Sincerely, Matthew errera Associate Planner enc: ESA Adolfson Wetland & Stream Study Review dated July 9, 2009. c: Larry Burnstad, Watershed Dynamics, PO Box 215, Enumclaw, WA 98022 (w/ ESA Adolfson Review) Doc LD 50798 ESA Adolfsorl t July 9, 2009 Matthew Herrera Associate Planner, City of Federal Way PO Box 9718 Federal Way, Washington 98063 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW www.adolfson.com Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 RECEIVED By 206.769.9658 phone COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 206.789.9684fax JUL 15 2009 Subject: Singh Property Wetland and Stream Study Review (#09-101202-00-Si), Federal Way, Washington Dear Matthew: ESA Adolfson is pleased to present our review of the wetland and stream study prepared for the Sin gh (Tax Parcel 042I04-9172) located at 29002 Military Road South in Federal Way. The 1998 City of Federal Way critical areas maps identify a Category 11 wetland on the property and a major stream (Bingaman Creek) off -site and to the east of the property. The purpose of this letter's to verify the conclusions of the applicant's critical areas report regarding the classification of the on -site wetland and the classification of the off -site stream under Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title I9 Division V Critical Areas. . Document Review ESA Adolfson has reviewed the following materials, which we received from the City of Federal Way on May 22, 2009: • Critical Areas Report for the proposed Single Family Residential Development of Tax Parcel No. 04210491 72 (Watershed Dynamics, April 10, 2009) Our comments are based on a review of the project materials provided by the applicant and sent to us by the City, and a review of the FWRC Title 19. Critical Areas Report The April 2009 Critical Areas Report prepared by Watershed Dynamics describes the location of the Singh Property and the methods used to delineate the onsite wetland and to classify the off -site stream. Wetland According to the Critical Areas Report, Watershed Dynamics delineated the on -site wetland boundary based Primarily upon a distinct break between two plant communities --one characterized by spiraea and Himalayan blackberry (non -wetland) and the other characterized by spiraea and willow (wetland. Watershed Dynamics reported that much of the spiraea present within the wetland was dead, and that Himalayan blackberry appeared to be invading the area. Watershed Dynamics excavated a total of five soil test pits as part of the delineation effort. Pits 1, 4, and 5 were located within the delineated wetland boundary and Pits 2 and 3 were located outside of the wetland boundary. Watershed Dynamics described soil in each of five soil pits as being hydric in the top 12 inches and non-hydric r ESAAdolfsoil J Singh Wetland and Stream Review July 9, 2009 Page 2 n Pits 2 and 3; at I inches at 12 inches and below. Sail saturation was rep es below the surface i Pit 5. A orted at 13 inclies below the surface i note on the delineation data below the surface in Pits 1 and 4; and at 11 inch sheets included with the report state that the hydrology was generally confusing because a dry layer occupied the soil profile between 8 and 16 inches below the soil surface, while the soil above and below this dry layer was saturated. to meet wetland ology criteria Typically soil that is saturated to within 18 inches of tton State Wetdandshe surface is dIdentification and Delineation Manual. according to guidance contained in the 1997 Washing Watershed Dynamics determined that he wetland felCategory acre), andland based on their estimate that the on - that that area, when added with the off- srtewetland covered approximately 10,159 q (0.23 site portions located north and south of the property, does not total more than 1 acre. According to FWRC 19,175.020, Category II wetlands are defined as wetlands greater than 2,500 square feet nces and meet one of the following criteria:streams withguous with water bodies that under normal internaittent flows are greater than ne acre in size;orare less support fish populations, including than or equal to one acre in size and have two or more wetland vegetation classes. Stream Watershed Dynamics conducted a streran�osurvey RC gdetermine� 30, a major stream off-site as any stream, and the eam is a minor or a major stream as defined by FWCC. According resident nt o to any stream which re eyists arna natural permanent blockage an he stream couts, or under normal circumstances rse which precludes the resident or migratory fish. If there e p upstream movement of anadromous salmonid fish, thenmajt at onion of the stream which is downstream of the natural permanent blockage shall be regulated as Creek by The Watershed Dynamics report describes a stream r reported that the headwatte slof he streamaissance survey conducted g a a located on Watershed Dynamics in April 2009. Watershed Dynamicsre p empties into somewhat west of Military Road, upstream of the Siproperty, nnel elevations tand channel the Green at over i100 m the City of Kent. The stream survey documented stream station points from upstream of the Singh property at 4e" Avenue South, downstream to where the stream crosses beneath 556Avenue South. The report includes profile drawings representing the entire length of stream surveyed by Watershed Dynamics. ere that The results of the Watershed Dynamics stream survey and �n addition, make fish passage impossible downstream of the Singh property, that the strewn gradient at culverts located on the stream everal locations downstream of the Singh property exceeded do natural or humanacausedlear conditans. Watershed Dynamics the report whether or t these steep -gradient reaches of the stream areue reported seeing small apparently salmonid fish in the stream during the survey. ESA Ad®ifs®r", i Singh Wetland and Stream Review July 9, 2009 Page 3 Site Visit On July 8, 2009 Adolfson scientists Lizzie Zemke and Aaron Booy conducted a site investigation on the Singh property to verify the on -site wetland boundary and classification and to verify the classification of the off -site stream. Wetland During the site visit we examined soils, vegetation, and soil moisture conditions in the vicinity of the wetland boundary flags place by Watershed Dynamics, as well as in other areas of the site west of the flagged boundary. We found that there was one wetland located on the site. We did not attempt to delineate the wetland edge but rather, we attempted to determine if the wetland extended west of the boundary flagged by Watershed Dynamics, as was mapped by the City in I998. At the time of our site visit we did not observe a distinct break between spiraealwillow and spiraealblackbeny plant communities, and we did not observe dead spiraea. We observed hydric soils( 10YR 211; 7.5YR 2.511) at each sample plot and we also observed soil saturation at between 6 and 8 inches below the surface at each plot, Based upon our observations, we believe the wetland extends further west of the currently -flagged wetland boundary. In order to classify the on -site wetland according to FWRC 1.9.175.020, we looked for connections between the wetland and any water bodies that might contain or support fish populations, and we estimated the size of the entire wetland, including off -site portions located to the north and south of the Singh property. Although Bingaman Creek in the vicinity (off site and immediately to the east) of the Singh roe was not flowing during our July 2009 site visit. The channel was wet and it appeared, based on he relative y shallow channel, e that at times the stream may overflow its banks, resulting in a hydrologic connection with the on -site wetland. We did not examine soils between the edge of the Singh property and dge of the stream because we did not have permission to investigate this property, however confirming the presence or absence of hydric soils in this area could potentially clarify whether or not the wetland and Bingaman Creek are connected. Based upon our on -site observations we believe that the on -site wetland is likely larger than what has been delineated by Watershed Dynamics and that the wetland may be contiguous with a fish -bearing water body (Bingaman Creek), thus affecting its classification under the FWRC. Stream The stream Iocated east of the site, identified as Bingaman Creek, flows south to north along the Singh property. Downstream of the site the stream flows generally east towards its eventual outlet at the Green River. We investigated the reach of the stream located east of the Singh property. We observed that the stream goes dry during at least some years, the location of the channel has apparently been altered in the past, and the stream has been impacted by adjacent land -uses as evidenced by trash in the channel and along the banks, and non-native vegetation and residential development within close proximity to the channel. We relied on the information provided by Watershed Dynamics and stamped by a Professional Land Surveyor to understand the stream gradient and channel conditions downstream of the Singh property. The steep gradients recorded by Watershed Dynamics downstream of the property would support reclassification of Bingaman Creek, from a point downstream of the site, as a Minor Stream under FWRC if these steep gradients are natural and not r ESA Adolfsoi l J Singh Wetland and Stream Review July 9, 2009 Page 4 human caused. Additional explanation regarding the steep channel gradient will need to be provided in order to confirm the reclassification. Findings Based upon our review of the information provided and the observations ESA Adolfson scientists made during the July 2009 site visit, we believe the wetland is likely larger than has been delineated by Watershed Dynamics, and that based upon the larger size and potential connection to Bingaman Creek, the wetland may meet the criteria for a Category 11 wetland. Category II wetlands require a 100-foot buffer under FWRC. Based upon our review of the stream survey information provided by Watershed Dynamics the stream may be a Minor Stream under FWRC. However this cannot be confirmed until it is known whether the steep gradients observed downstream of the site are natural or human -caused. Recommendations Based on the above findings, ESA Adolfson recommends the following: • Re-examine the western wetland boundary and extend it to include spiraea-dominated areas with shallow soil saturation; Investigate potential connection between off -site stream and on • -site wetland; and • Provide additional information regarding the cause of the steep stream channel gradients identified south of the property. Limitations Within the limitations of schedule, budget, and scope -of -work, we warrant that this study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices, including the technical guidelines and criteria in effect at the time this study was performed. The results and conclusions of this report represent the authors' best professional judgment, based upon information provided by the project proponent in addition to that obtained during the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this material for you. If you have any questions, please call me at 206- 789-9658. Sincerely, ESA Adolfson Lizzie Zemke Senior Scientist r� 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW Ad l T ESA n L' s co' L Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax WETLAND CONSULTANT TASK AUTHORIZATION TASK AUTHORIZATION NO. 207004-49-A DATE 9-Jun-09 CITY City of Federal Way PO Boa 9718 33326 Eighth Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98063-9718 CONSULTANT ESA Adolfson 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98107 PROJECT Singh Property #09-101793-00-AD PROJECT PROPONENT Hans Korve, DMP Engineering TASK AUTHORIZATION NO. 207004-49-A CITY PLANNER Matthew Herrera www.adolfson corn RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JUL 0 2 2009 TASK SCOPE 1 Review submitted wetland and stream study 1 staff 3 hrs $ 445.00 2 Conduct site visit to verify wetland boundaries and classification 2 staff 5 hrs $ 1,175.00 3 Prepare memo documenting findings 1 staff 5 hrs $ 925.00 4 Possible meetings with applicant, etc. 1 staff 4 hrs $ 600.00 Reimbursables 100.00 TOTAL COST Not to exceed $ 3,245.00 without a prior written amendment to this Task TASK SCHEDULE Tasks 1, 2, And 3 to be completed within 10 business days of receiving notice to proceed from the City. DELIVERABLES Wetland and stream verification review letter AUTH T City of ederal y ESA Adolfson ( incipal) Z 2 At00 Date Date CITY OF t Federal Way June 22, 2009 Lizzie Zemke ESA Adolfson 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 1 fM JLE CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway. com RE: FILE #09-101202-00-SU; AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED Singh Property Wetland Verification, 29002 Military Road South, Federal Way Dear Ms. Zemke: In a May 22, 2009, Wetland Consultant Authorization Form, the city requested an estimate from ESA Adolfson for verification of wetland status at the above -referenced property. Your June 19, 2009, task authorization of wetland/stream study review, site visit, and response memorandum indicated a budget of $3,245.00. At this time, funds in the amount of $3,245.00 have been received by the city. I have enclosed the signed authorization form and amendments/clarification I requested from Watershed Dynamics to the wetland/stream study on pages 14 and 23. Please consider this letter as an authorization to proceed with your review as detailed in the city's authorization form If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at 253-835-2638, or matt.herrera@cityoffederalway.com Sincerely, Matthew Herrera Associate Planner enc: Signed Task Authorization Report amendments to pages 14 & 23 Doc. LD. 50490 DMP, INC. Engineering - Surveying - Land finning LE OF TRANSMITTAL 726 Auburn Way North AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98002 DATE JOB NO. (253) 333-2200 . 9�Gr O FAX (253) 333.2206 ATTTON TO /MVED WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter JUN 19 2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Attached ❑ Under separate cover via tl,le following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Change order ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ ❑ For your use ❑ ❑ As requested ❑ ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FORBIDS DUE Approved as submitted Approved as noted Returned for corrections ❑ ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS f tr 1 e Cl`J~ S COPY TO SIGNED: If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify j t once. INVOICE City of Federal Way P.O. Box 9718 CITY or- Invoice Date: June 9, 2009 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718, Fd�raI�Y Bill #: 141205 Ph: (253) 835-7000 Permit#: 09-101793-00 Project Name: SINGH WETLAND CONSULTANT RE' Site Address: 29002 MILITARY RD S Applicant Name: DMP ENGINEERING *HANS KORVE * FEE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CD -WETLAND REVIEW(8045)................................................ $3,245.00 001-0000-000-239-10-004 RECEIVED JUN 19 2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS TOTAL DUE: prom CITY OF �. Federal June 10, 2009 Hans Korve DMP Engineering 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 Lt CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South y Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com RE: FILE #09-101793-00-AD; CONSULTANT REVIEW ESTIMATE Singh Stream & Wetland Determination, 29002 Military Road South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Korve: Please find the enclosed Wetland Consultant Task Authorization forms provided by the City and ESA Adolfson for wetland analysis. The normal course of action for the City is to set up an account to be funded by the applicant and drawn down by the work performed by ESA Adolfson. Please note - any funds that are not used will be returned to you. At this point, please review the proposed work description_ If you agree with the cost estimate, a check in the amount of $3,245.00, payable to the City of Federal Way, and your signature on the City's "Wetlands Consultant Authorization Form' must be submitted before the review will commence. Following receipt, I will authorize ESA Adolfson to begin their formal review. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your project, please contact me at 253-835-2638 or matt_herrera a`cityoffederalway.com Since , f r dr' Matthew Herrera Associate Planner enc: City of Federal Way Wetlands Consultant Authorization ESA Adolfson Wetland Consultant Task Authorization Invoice Doc. I D. 50255 CITY OF CITY HALL Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718- Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com .Tune 10, 2009 F-ECEIVEID JUN 1 2 2009 Hans Korve BY: DMP Engineering 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 RE: KELE #09-101793-00-AD; CONSULTANT REVIEW ESTIMATE Singh Stream & Wet'and Determination, 29002 Military Roars South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Korve: Please fmd the enclosed Wetland Consultant Task Authorization forms provided by the City and ESA Adolfson for wetland analysis. The normal course of action for the City is to set up an account to be funded by the applicant and drawn down by the work performed by ESA Adolfson. Please note - any funds that are not used will be returned to you. .;t this point please the proposed work lescrit -or the amoui,-L of $3,1`;,45.0u, payable io the City of Federal Way, and your signature on the City's -Wetlands Consultant Authorization Form' must be submitted before the review will commence. Following receipt, I will authorize ESA Adolfson to begin their formal review. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your project, please contact me at 253-835-2638 or matt.herrera@cityoffederalway.com Sincer t Mathew Herrera Associate Planner ene: City of Federal Way Wetlands Consultant Authorization ESA Adolfson Wetland Consultant Task Authorization Invoice RECEIVED JUN 19 2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Doc. I-D. 50255 CITY OF Federal Way WETLANDS CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: May 22, 2009 Department. Community Development Services 33325 8`h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Consultant: Lizzie Zemke, ESA Adolfson 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 Project: Singh Property Wetland & Stream Status Verification / 29002 Military Road South / APN 042104-9172 File No.: 09-101793-00-AD Project Proponent: Hans Korve, DMP Engineering 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera, Associate Planner, 253-835-2638 Documents Provided: Critical ,4reas Report prepared by Watershed Dynamics w/ survey that includes delineated wetland Task Scope: Applicant has stated the onsite wetland is a Category III and significantly reduced in size as compared to the city's critical areas map. Applicant also has stated the stream on the adjacent boundary is minor. • Wetland -and Stream Study Review • Site visit w/ flag verification ■ Memorandum of findings • Possible meeting with project applicant Task Schedule: Please provide task cost estimate by June 9, 2009. Task Cost: Not to exceed $� ZJ 4" 0"without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. �07 City oaf Federal ay (Planner) Applicant L0.LV C� O Date Doc I D. 50100 CITY OF ti. Federal Way May 22, 2009 Lizzie Zemke ESA Adolfson 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 RE: FILE #09=101202-00-SU; REQUEST FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES Singh Property, 29002 Military Road South, Federal Way Dear Ms. Zemke: FILE CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com The Department of Community Development Services requests ESA Adolfson services for review of the enclosed Critical Areas Report performed by Watershed Dynamics. As provided in the enclosed city authorization form, the scope of services requested is: (1) review of the applicant's wetland/stream report; (2) site visit; (3) memorandum of findings; and (4) potential meeting with applicant to discuss findings. Please provide a task cost at your earliest convenience and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerel Matthew Herrera Associate Planner enc: Critical Areas Assessment Study Wetland Consultant Authorization Form Doc I.D. 50102 dmp, inc. A DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. 726 AUBURN WAY N. MAY AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98002 TELEPHONE: (253) 333-2200 CITY C)e r E )'-;SAL. WAY FAX: (253) 333-2206 May 15, 2009 CDS Matt Herrera, Planner Department of Community Development 33325 8th Ave. S Federal Way, WA 98063 RE: Singh Town Home Pre -Application — Project Description. Dear Mr. Herrera: The applicant proposes to develop 24 townhouse units in the RM-3600 zone. The units are proposed to be clustered on five parcels/lots to facilitate financing and phasing of the project. The property will be developed as a single site and will be governed as such under the recorded condominium documents. Access to the units is proposed through a central private access easement extending east from Military road and terminating at the proposed recreation area. As described above, the Applicant proposes to divide the project into 5 phases utilizing the Binding Site Plan (BSP) Processes as described in FWMC 18.30.030. The code appears to be well suited to facilitate the division of a condominium project into separate phases. All required infrastructure improvements would be completed with the first phase of development to service the entire project. The code language is sufficiently vague however on the application of the short plat review procedures and how they would impact the development regulations normally associated with a condominium / town home development. We are also unclear if it would be possible, or preferable, to apply for a zero lot line application. In this situation we need to know if it is possible to apply that zero lot line standard to the 5 lot / 24 unit proposal. Does the code allow the grouping of multi unit buildings on individual lots? We would appreciate Staffs input and clarification of these issues. We are also submitting 3 sets of the wetland assessment reports for you review. We request a determination on the appropriateness of the report prior to or at the pre - application meeting. Because of the possible impacts of the wetland size and location, it is imperative that we come to the table with an agreed upon wetland boundary and buffer. Please contact Larry Burnstad with any specific questions. Nofe; li cam re e sus AA I Pks, " c-o� fr - RESUBMITTED JUL 05 2011 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY WATERSHED DYNAMICS Post Office Bog 215, Enumclaw, Washington TEL 360.825.9253 FAX 360.825.9248 HARD COPY SENT: X YES NO DATE: April 27, 2011 FAX: na FAX COPY SENT: YES X NO E-MAIL: na E-MAIL COPY SENT: YES X NO TRANSMITTAL PAGES SENT INCLUDING COVER PAGE: 10 SUBJECT: Wetland Boundary Resolution Proposal TO: Mr. Matt Herrera, Associate Planner City of Federal Way, Community Development Services 33325 — 8th Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98063 FROM: Larry D. Burnstad, Senior Environmental Consultant PROJECT NAME: Critical Areas Review, Inderjet and Gian Singh Property PROJECT NUMBER: City of Federal Way File Nak 09-101793-00-AD I Watershed Dynamics Project No. 2007026 Executive Summary At our last meeting on March 3, 2011 we discussed options for resolving issues regarding the critical area management issues within the Singh property (Tax Parcel No. 0421049172) as well as the adjoining properties to the north and south. At that meeting I indicated that I would prepare a memo outlining: 1. PROPOSAL A: This proposal involves agreement between the City's Wetland Biologist and the Owner's consultant regarding the most appropriate location of the wetland boundary and the width of an enhanced buffer adjacent to that "compromise" boundary. The agreement should extend onto adjoining properties to the north and south to avoid having buffers from those properties impact the amount of developable area within the subject property; and, 2. PROPOSAL B: This proposal would allow filling existing wetland areas within the subject property and those properties to the north and south, while leaving an enhanced stream channel and buffer within that portion of the stream corridor located adjacent to the subject property. Enhancement of the stream corridor and stream buffer within properties to the north and south of the subject property would be the responsibility of those property owners. The rationale for PROPOSAL A is the need to move forward with a decision regarding the net developable area within the subject property. As explained in the current conditions section below, less than 1 % of the total property area is developable if the existing wetland boundary (as shown on the City's Critical Areas Inventory Map) prevails and the stream remains classified as a Major Stream. The rationale for PROPOSAL B involves the efficacy of having an essentially fragmented, low function and value wetland remain within an area of high density residential development. The proposal asks the City to consider the opportunity for full economic development of the affected properties by allowing wetland fill with off -site mitigation. This alternative would provide an opportunity to create viable fish and wildlife habitat (via wetland creation and stream habitat improvement) in the lower reaches of Bingaman Creek, while improving aquatic insect production and water quality upstream. Memo to Mr. Matt Herrera — April 27, 2011 — Page 1 ,—� inderjet and Gian Singh Property — Critical Areas Review Watershed Dynamics — Project No. 2007026 Introduction The following is a synopsis of the current site condition, a description of each option, and background information offered to support the rationale for each of the two critical area management options. Current Site Condition The subject property is a 2.32-acre (101,059 SF) undeveloped parcel located at 29XXX Military Road South, which is within the limits of the City of Federal Way (City). The property is zoned RM-3600, which, barring any other restrictions, would allow for multi -family residential development. The west property line abuts approximately 185 feet of the Military Road South right-of-way. The western —25% of the property extends from that right-of-way eastward at a 20% to 30% slope and is forested. The underlying soil is Alderwood (AgB) gravelly, sandy loam (typical upland soil). The eastern 75% of the property slopes eastward at a <2% grade, which is relatively flat. The vegetation in the western three-quarters of this "flat" area is dominated by Himalayan and evergreen blackberry (upland indicators). The eastern quarter adjacent to the stream channel is dominated by spirea and willow, suggesting the presence of wetland habitat in that portion of the site. The underlying soil in the "flat" area is organic (peat), a hydric or wetland soil. The surrounding topography suggests the affected properties may have historically been used as a peat mine followed by sawdust/wood chip disposal. Existing Critical Area Inventory Maps prepared and maintained by the City indicate the presence of a Major Stream along the eastern property boundary and a Category II Wetland occupying approximately 74% (74,784 SF) of the subject property (see Figure 1). The minimum wetland buffer width for a wetland greater than 1-acre in size is 100 feet. The wetland and its associated buffer occupy approximately 97.2% (98,188 SF) of the subject property. If the subject property is developed, the City will require frontage improvements to the eastern portion of the Military Road South right-of-way. These frontage improvements include a right-of-way dedication of approximately 2,280 SF, which amounts to another 2.2% of the subject property. The total area within the subject property occupied by wetlands, wetland buffers, and dedicated right-of- way is approximately 100,468 SF. The remaining developable property is less than 1,000 SF, based on the current conditions and development standards. PROPOSAL A This proposal would involve setting a "compromise" wetland boundary (see Figure 2 and Figure 3) in a location between the wetland boundary delineated by Watershed Dynamics (WD) and the boundary location established by the City's Wetland Biologist. All of these boundaries are east of the inventory map boundary shown in Figure 1. For an area to be classified as a wetland and a wetland boundary to be established, three characteristics must be present during the growing season. Those characteristics are: The presence of hydric (wetland soils), 2. The presence/dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3. The presence of wetland hydrology during the growing season. The growing season in the Puget Sound Lowlands, within which the subject property is located, extends from February 15t' to October 315t each year. Memo to Mr. Matt Herrera — April 27, 2011 Page 2 lnderjet and Gian Singh Property — Critical Areas Review Watershed Dynamics — Project No. 2007026 Determination of wetland hydrology can be problematic, because the soil must be either inundated or saturated in the upper 12 inches of the soil column for a minimum of 14 consecutive days during the growing season when there has been normal precipitation. During the drier portions of the growing season, which typically includes the months of July, August, and September, the presence of wetland hydrology can be assumed based on the presence of hydric soils and a dominance of hydrophytic plants. Typically, however, hydrology is not assumed if the field investigation is being, or has been, conducted during the wet portion of the growing season. During the wet portion of the growing season the presence of wetland hydrology should be observed directly unless the site has been disturbed. Background Information Relevant to Proposal A The wetland boundary WD delineated in May 2008 was based on the presence all three characteristics during the growing season. Although the precipitation normal, there was no evidence of wetland hydrology at the sample points west of the delineated boundary (see Figure 2). WD completed additional field work in late February 2009 and found the same conditions. The City's Wetland Biologist reviewed WD's April 2009 wetland report and conducted an on -site evaluation. The reviewer found very moist (not saturated) soil at depths 18 inches or greater below the ground surface in July 2009. Because the soil was organic and there were hydrophytic plants present (but not dominant), the City's reviewer concluded the wetland boundary was located west of the location set by WD (see Figure 2). WD noted that the soil was neither inundated nor saturated in the upper 12 inches of the soil column and the hydrophytic vegetation present was not dominant. Additionally, WD noted the vegetation within the study area appeared to be transitioning from a moderately wet site to a drier site based on the dominance and progressive migration of Himalayan and evergreen blackberry from the west to the east. It was agreed, as a means of resolving the impasse, WD would conduct a near -surface groundwater study within the subject property as well as affected properties to the north and south. WD was not able to completed that study because: a) the adjoining neighbors were unable to participate and share costs and b) precipitation during the early part of the growing season in 2010 and 2011 was well above normal. As a result WD offers PROPOSAL A to achieve resolution and allow the Owners to move forward with development of the subject property. In addition to agreeing to the "compromise" wetland boundary, WD is asking the City to reduce the buffer width from 100 feet to 50 feet with buffer enhancement. If this proposal is accepted, the Owners will provide detailed buffer enhancement plans as part of the future submittal of site development plans for review and approval by the City. PROPOSAL B This proposal is offered as a potential alternative that would maximize site development. The proposal would involve: (a) filling all of the wetland area west of the 50-foot stream buffer (see Figure 4), (b) enhancing the stream buffer (which would include some specified fill placement), (c) enhancing the stream channel (creating meanders and adding large woody debris), and (d) mitigating wetland impacts at a viable off -site location (i.e. downstream of 55"' Avenue S to SE 272nd Street). This proposal would be implemented within the subject property as well as the adjoining properties to the north and south. The benefits associated with PROPOSAL A would be: • no wetland buffer imposition on any of the affected properties if any portion of the wetland complex was not filled on any of the adjacent properties; Memo to Mr. Matt Herrera — April 27, 2011 —Page 3 Inderjet and Gian Singh Property — Critical Areas Review Watershed Dynamics — Project No. 2007026 • the stream channel and stream buffer on both sides of the stream (adjacent to the subject property as well as the affected properties to the north and south) would be enhanced to increase the production of aquatic invertebrates, which are organisms critical to the survival of juvenile salmonids found downstream of approximately 50th Avenue South; the stormwater management constructed as the properties developed could be designed to management stormwater runoff from both the newly developed properties and those properties developed upstream without adequate retention/detention, which would decrease impacts associated with local and downstream flooding; • the offsite wetland mitigation could include enhancement of the portion of Bingaman Creek adjacent to 55th Avenue South, which is also used by salmonids; ■ the offsite mitigation could include flood control measures in the downstream area that would provide relieve to the farms and residences located on the east side of Bingaman Creek adjacent to 55th Avenue South; and • removal of the wetland adjacent to the existing residential development east of the subject property would reduce the chironomid (mosquito and midge) populations. Chironomids are a group of insects that can be both a nuisance and a potential health hazard. The background information relevant to PROPOSAL A is relevant to PROPOSAL B. Additional pertinent information related to both proposals is included in Attachment 1. Special Notes NOTE 1: The Owners are aware that both of the proposed methods for dealing with critical areas within the subject property, as well as the adjacent properties to the north and south, would need additional designs and plans to be submitted to the City of Federal Way for review and approval before construction permits could be issued and construction activities could commence. NOTE 2: Due to the size of the wetland fill suggested in PROPOSAL A and PROPOSAL B implementation of either of the projects could require: a) acquisition of an Individual Section 404 Permit issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch and b) acquisition of a Section 401 Permit issued by the Washington Department of Ecology. NOTE 3: The suggested stream channel enhancement portion of PROPOSAL B may require acquisition of a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in addition to the other two agency permits and any permits required by the City of Federal Way. NOTE 4: The Owners are aware mitigation projects require a period of post -construction monitoring and maintenance as well as final acceptance by the City, WDFW, and/or the Corps. The monitoring and maintenance period can be as long as 10 years, depending upon permit conditions. Memo to Mr. Matt Herrera — April 27, 2011 —Page 4 Inderjet and Gian Singh Property — Critical Areas Review Watershed Dynamics — Project No. 2007026 ATTACHMENT A: Additional Pertinent Backpround Information On March 3, 2008 Indedet and Gian Singh (Owners) requested an Administrative Decision regarding a proposal to add sufficient fill to the west side of the subject property to allow vehicle access. In their March 12, 2008 memo, the City indicated the placement of fill would not be permitted unless it was part of an approved development plan. In addition, the Owners inquired regarding the removal of blackberries and other nuisance vegetation from the site. The March 12� memo indicated that only minor vegetation removal would be allowed because there was a Category II Wetland within the subject property. On April 5, 2008 the Owners contacted WD requesting assistance with a Critical Areas Study and preparation of development plans for their property. WD met with the Owners in early May 2008 to discuss their project and provided a proposed scope -of -work focused on two issues: • Identification of critical habitat within, and in close proximity to, the subject property as well as delineation of critical areas within the subject property, and • Preparation of a site development plan for the portion of the site deemed "developable" following completion and City approval of a critical areas study report. The Owners selected WD to provide environmental services. On May 9, 2008 WD provided the Owners a list of engineering and surveying consultants that could assist them with their project. The Owners selected Daley-Morrow-Poblete, Inc. (DMP) to provide engineering. Bacicaround Data Collection In early June 2008, WD met with the City and gathered background information regarding the designation of the Category II Wetland located within the subject property and the Major Stream (Bingaman Creek) adjacent to the eastern property boundary. After reviewing the available information, WD determined the wetland had been placed on the City's Critical Areas Inventory Map based on aerial photo interpretation rather than by virtue of a regulatory delineation. There was an effort to ground truth the aerial photo information. However, only two sample points were inventoried within the subject wetland complex and they were both located along the east edge of the properties in the area adjacent to Bingaman Creek. No sample points were evaluated in the western portion of the subject property or the adjacent properties to the north and south. In addition, WD determined that the portion of Bingaman Creek was classified as a Major Stream based on the presumption of upstream fish passage from the Green River. WD had, in 1997, completed stream habitat inventories on Bingaman Creek downstream of the Interstate 5 (1-5) corridor. During their previous inventory work, WD found numerous natural and human -made fish passage barriers that would prevent anadromous fish use upstream of 46`h Avenue South. WD was also aware of the siphon culvert under S. 288 b Street (upstream of 1-5). That structure prevents fish passage into the area adjacent to the subject property. Finally, there are no lakes, impoundments, or hatchery planting sites upstream of 1-5 that could be a source for downstream migrating resident or anadromous salmonids. Stream Type: After discussing these findings with the Owners and with City staff, WD was directed by the Owners to complete another stream inventory of Bingaman Creek from Military Road South downstream to 55t' Avenue South. This inventory was completed in November 2008 and a report of the findings was included in the April 10, 2009 Critical Areas Report (on file at the City). Memo to Mr. Matt Herrera —April 27, 2011 Page 5 Inderjet and Gian Singh Property — Critical Areas Review Watershed Dynamics — Project No. 2007026 WD confirmed the portion of Bingaman Creek upstream of the east side of the I-5 corridor was not a fish bearing stream. According to the City's code definitions, the section of Bingaman Creek upstream of the 1-5 corridor should be classified as a Minor Stream rather than as a Major Stream. Reclassification would reduce the minimum buffer width from 100 feet to 50 feet. Prior Wetland Study: WD collected available background information, including a copy of the wetland delineation report that was completed on the property immediately north of the subject property. After review, WD contacted the consulting firm that collected the field data, delineated the wetland boundary, and prepared that report. The consultants involved indicated their original findings placed the wetland boundary further east than the City's reviewing wetland biologist at the time would allow. WD was also told the City's reviewing biologist insisted the wetland boundary was at the base of the slope on the west side of the site, as shown on the City's inventory map. This conclusion was based solely on the presence of organic soils. Neither the City's reviewing biologist nor the consultant conducting the study were able to find evidence of wetland hydrology in the sample locations used to set the wetland boundary per the reviewing biologist's mandate. WD Wetland Study: Following review of the available background data, WD completed field work for the wetland delineation within the subject property in early May 2008. Sample points were excavated along two transects oriented on an east -west axis. Each transect, one in the northern half and one in the southern half of the site, extended from the base of the western slope to the stream channel adjacent to the east property line. WD found organic soils at all of the sample points starting approximately 200 feet east of the west property line and continuing to the east property line. WD found sample points with organic soils and a dominance of hydrophytic plants starting approximately 125 feet west of the east property line. WD was able to find sample points with all three wetland characteristics (hydric soil, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic plants) starting approximately 25 feet to 70 feet from the east property line. WD established the wetland boundary approximately midway between the sample points exhibiting all three wetland characteristics and those that did not have evidence of wetland hydrology. The delineated wetland boundary was surveyed by DMP in August 2008. WD revisited the site in February 2009 and confirmed the wetland hydrology findings from the previous growing season. The results of the wetland delineation effort and a site map showing the delineated wetland boundary within the subject property was included in the April 10, 2009 Critical Areas Report. Wetland Category: WD concluded, based on the results of its wetland delineation, the wetland located within the subject property was a Category III Wetland rather than a Category H Wetland. This conclusion was based, in part, on the belief that field data collected on the subject property was representative of the entire wetland complex and strongly suggested the entire wetland area shown on the City's inventory was actually smaller than was depicted and likely less than 1 acre in size. The overall wetland area within the property was approximately 10,298 SF rather than the approximately 74,784 SF shown on the City's map, which constitutes an 86% reduction in the size of the onsite wetland area. WD believes appropriate delineation within the adjacent properties would result in a reduction the overall wetland area to less than I acre within all the affected properties. If the wetland area were to be reduced to less than one acre, the category would change from Category H to Category III. In addition, the wetland buffer width would be decreased from 100 feet to 50 feet. Memo to Mr. Matt Herrera — April 27, 2011 Page 6 i -,r j\ Indedet and Gian Singh Property — Critical Areas Review Watershed Dynamics — Project No. 2007026 City's Review In June 2009 the City completed a review of the WD Critical Areas Report and conducted a field review within the project site on July 8, 2009. The reviewing wetland biologist concluded the wetland boundary delineated by WD was too far to the east and additional information was needed to reclassify the adjacent stream. On July 29, 2009 WD met on site with the City to review the results of both the WD study and the reviewing biologist's findings. In addition to you and I, Mr. Hans Korve, Senior Planner with DMP, Mr. Ed Sewall, Sewall Wetland Consulting (SWC), and Ms. Lizzie Zemke, Senior Scientist with ESA Adolfson (ESA), the firm under contract to the City to complete the critical area review. Stream Classification The first point of discussion was the classification of the portion of Bingaman Creek upstream of the east side of the I-5 corridor. After some discussion, it was resolved that the stream channel should be re- classified as a Minor Stream. Wetland Boundary Location The next discussion point was the location of the wetland boundary. The City's biologist did agree the wetland boundary was not at the base of the slope as shown on the City's Critical Areas Inventory Map, but would not agree with the location of the wetland boundary delineated by WD. The City's biologist insisted wetland hydrology was present during the growing season due to the presence of hydrophytic plants, even though the wetland vegetation was not dominant west of the boundary delineated by WD. Proposed Hydrology Study To resolve the conflicting professional conclusions, WD suggested conducting a study of the hydrology within the all of the properties affected by the presence of wetland habitat. On September 14, 2009 WD prepared a memo to the City outlining the proposed hydrology study. The purpose of the study was to determine where, within the wetland complex, the near -surface groundwater met the Corps and WDOE criteria for being defined as wetland hydrology during growing seasons with normal precipitation. The City reviewed the proposed study and agreed that the approach was the best mechanism for resolving the issues surrounding the location of the wetland boundary. The study was schedule to begin in January 2010 assuming that all of the affected property owners were willing to pay their share of the study costs. The absence of agreement by the other property owners and the presence of greater than normal precipitation during the early months of the growing season prevented initiation of the study. Similarly, WD was unable to get agreement from the adjacent land owners to participate in the study and the cumulative precipitation from October 1, 2010 to the present (April 27, 2011) has been significantly greater than normal. Additionally, air temperatures have been significantly below normal over that same period, which impacts plant respiration rates and surface evaporation. Again, the hydrology study was not initiated during the early part of the 2011 growing season. As a result of not being able to implement and complete the hydrology study, the Owners have not been able to move forward with any designs or plans for developing the subject property. As part of their effort to initiate development, the Owners have directed WD to prepare and submit the memo to which this additional pertinent information is attached. Memo to Mr. Matt Herrera — April 27, 2011 —Page 7 I � z pprAE- or- too -Barr WVVE47-- -410 op r / r �` r/ r' � L1 �Pi°17�0{"1rl 1i4�•-.gyp' _ �� r [ [r fr f / r I ■ I r I, r'c a v' r s►� � � � .. � 1 I I r! ..y:. 1, ti L � r► � F r I .I .• i � �� I � r�� "" / r / f / y J f + E I� r y � i ► If ,r � r f ; � ; !r rr _ 4 Ir to : _: r � j ` y If +'r ►`t �►` .,,. WETI.AND*`n� '�+ r,/ / ! Co t Nk �~ z l j t f t i ( b W t'T'01' W 4(.Z.30' WETLAM D 13ottNDP K%( A0 %\PNN ON C.tTY OF PEDI<RAL WAY CQTIC^l CaTED eA 5ivAT -OF WA.Y A ,g IPLVE N'Sv �Y NAP 11 FoTr_RTV .LA_Ir bEY�tAPABLE �� 1 I ` I ` Alp J f t&Usckc Map W/ WetavX 4k Vq;:T- Ati1� WC:IJoa '( &AgaD ON CAT"( OF FED�R�i- VVA�( bATp. veVtCA.TED WC,%AT-PF-Wh"( 1J $$�1-f113I° W GITY'�j ola�ti54'y � I � PvuHv►�Y � �fTIutAZE.D P�.11+La�3ti". Wc.�tvN PR.aPOSF-D ENk�P�NC.�D CotdPtxo pi5�� N�7' D'GVELOt'A4�it-� Q.R�-� ■ P-oJ►NDI�"i� �•. � eon � / � I y,�� •� SP-OS O • SAMPt_E. POINT W/I=II✓Lt;l WA. SµS=.BT CXMVLE?S=D • a SAMPLE P01t1T Wdo WETLAND H`f"1_0&-(. mo FrcLb r-gwp. C O LLX �T-r" 0 tic OYM.oLOWr �ett�+n.d 16�u�r►dsrrl £s�.ST �zO p�TY UNE �j�l�{t-ICE EDGtE OF r.5,Vt�MEMT- EAST t5MAKVAZz y KtLIT?-PLY QDkD 6OUTl-A voQT%VAKY OF QRpPoSED "COMPR "Iss, £ OF plrblC�i�D WGt-4r-M-N EFJl1Pl�ED 'EC1-ANC ppui.�v ,lP P" Pv--JF+- 440 - FMNT! A%LL.Y MW!�oPABLF- AREA. _ r3 {ss ,}�,� I ! t:xtSttN[� G�lzouND �11RFAGE I---- FII,L� %i M $O M 1(60 1-40 250 320 %0 A $O J510 G Sbo I boo pl�easa A �D•5f �tolt�T-ot=-w[PcY S��N�Y MIUTC•RY R.GA� �UTN EASE PR�PE�X'Y UN� �- / £p�E of t7ED�Cl�"�� R.IC�4�+' a�-a(f�Y stfz�AM t3cAFFE'�- E1xaE ---� P�tiIC-.AMAN Gt2• i ENF��tGto C-OR.RdUDt� Y4T'£1�1Tt,4l.C-Y D�1F_t-OPABl�ti AR�h -- Si`tr.�n.►,it io ! --I ---------------------------------------- --------------------_--_----------- --_ EL426� ----- ---------- -'-- ----- VITM �tRKCE. M�'t I t 4o0 G 40 BO l2O 1ho 200 ?.A� 280 3Za 'moo h60 440 ;{$O yz.O 0560 b00 rtc,Ault.v,4 : NraA►(& Uwm5k Proms' e4m,Wtkg fi(�aw1 ��F L Ir (Eh1AbAG�E� "� eUgv' f6t FIU- AIDED TO GMEA—M UPLD.ND CbMV%TIONS IN ENNAtJGT=b VtlPf7lE-V--- 4at- WLIA Ir veto cGr1 IN trr-1a �1,►.1.a `f 1N sl't"� Fi-hNT1l�+iG�I��f�►�fAl� �F�+� RECEIVED OCT 26 2015 WATERSHED DYNAMfUS CITY OF FEDERAL W CDS 39004 — 25811 Avenue SE, Enumclaw, Washington TEL 360.825.9253 YES NO DATE: October 26, 2015 HARD COPY SENT: X E-MAIL: na E-MAIL COPY SENT: YES X NO TRANSMITTAL PAGES SENT INCLUDING COVER PAGE: 10 SUBJECT: Wetland Classification/Wetland Rating TO: Mr. Matt Herrera, Associate Planner City of Federal Way, Community Development Services 33325 — 8' Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98063 FROM: Larry D. Burnstad, Senior Environmental Consultant PROJECT NAME: Critical Areas Review, Singh and Williams properties PROJECT NUMBER• ' City of Federal Way File No. 09-101793-00-AD Watershed Dynamics Project No. 2007026 Per our most recent phone conversation, I have completed the wetland rating for the wetland associated with Gian and Inder et Singh's property and the adjacent property belonging to Rick Williams (PBC, Inc.). I rated the entire wetland associated with the subject properties, not just the portion of the wetland for which I completed a formal boundary delineation. The wetland rated as a Category III Wetland using the most recent Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. This version of the rating system was effective on January 1, 2015 and is the most up to date version available. Attached you will find two copies of the completed rating form as well as 4 figures that were used in the rating process. Based on field observations I determined the wetland, which is bisected by a Type N Stream, best matches the HGM Classification of a Riverine Wetland. The hydrology of the wetland being rated for this project was dominated by stream flow regimes rather than surface water or precipitation captured in a depression. That condition led to my classification of the subject wetland as HGM Classification of Riverine. You will note that I attached only page 1-4, 7-8, and 13-15 because these were the only pages of the form that were pertinent to this wetland rating. The pages that I did not include are used to rate depressional, lake fringe, and slope wetlands. None of these wetland types were present, so those pages were intentionally left out of the submittal packet. If you have any questions regarding the wetland rating, please contact me at your earliest convenience. If the wetland rating is reviewed by an outside consultant, please ask them to contact me prior to completing their review. I would hope such communication, and subsequent discussion related to my rating methodology, would shorten the time required for a final determination of the wetland class. Wetland Name or Number: WETLAND RATING FORM - WESTERN WASHINGTON* *Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 20I4 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland Name Numerous dates Or ID#: Upper Bingaman Creek Wetland #2 Site Visit Date: in 2009 - 2014 Rated By: Larry D. Burnstad Trained By Ecology: No Training Date: NA Contact Info: Watershed Dynamics, 39004 258th Ave SE, Enumclaw, WA 98022 Phone: 360.825.9253 HGM Class Used for Rating: Riverine Wetland has multiple HGM Classes? No NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined) Source of base aerial photo/map: Google Earth - 2014 images - Figures 1, 2, & 4; Figure 2 from WDOE WQ web site Estimated Wetland Size: 1.9 acres 81,600 square feet Overall Wetland Category: III Based on Function: Yes Special Characteristics: No 1: Wetland Category Based on Functions Overall Wetland Category=F Function --> Potential/Value 1 Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Category Total Score = I H HI IV 23 - 27 20 - 22 16 -19 15-Sep Site Potential M M M Landscape Potential M H L Value L L M I Total Score Rating Score = 5 6 5 16 Score for each function is based on 9 = 11,11,11 7 = H,M,M 5 = H,L,L 3 = L,L,L three ratings (order of rating not 8 = H,H,M 6 = H,M,L 5 = M,M,L important) 7 = H,H,L 6 = M,M,M 4 = M,L,L 2: Wetland Type based on Special Characteristics 3: Wetland Class Estuarine Category I Category H Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Category I Riverine X Bog Category I Lake -fringe Mature Forest Category I Slope Old Growth Forest Category I Flats Coastal Lagoon Category I Category H Freshwater Tidal Interdunal Category I Category II le Check if unit has multiple FHGM classes Present None of the Above Category III Category IV Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Rating Form Page I Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland Name or Number: Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To Answer Question 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 L I, D 4.1 Boundary area within 150 feet of wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Contributing basin (watershed) D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km polygon: Area extending away from wetland boundary extending out 1 km (3,300 feet) including polygons of accessible and undisturbed habitat. H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3 303(d) listed waters within the basin D 3.1, D 3.2 List of: To Answer Question Figure # list of TMBLs for WRIA in which wetland unit being rated is located D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To Answer Question Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 2 Hydroperiods H 1.2 na Ponded Depressions R 1.1 na Boundary area within 150 feet of wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 1 Area covered by trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 1 & 2 Width of wetland unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 1 & 2 Contributing basin (watershed) R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 4 1 km polygon: Area extending away from wetland boundary extending out 1 km (3,300 feet) including polygons of accessible and undisturbed habitat. H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3 4 303(d) listed waters within the basin R 3.1 3 List of: To Answer Question Figure # list of TMBLs for WRIA in which wetland unit being rated is located R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To Answer Question Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Boundary area within 150 feet of wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 Area covered by trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 1 km polygon: Area extending away from wetland boundary extending out 1 km (3,300 feet) including polygons of accessible and undisturbed habitat. H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3 303(d) listed waters within the basin L 3.1, L 3.2 List of: To Answer Question Figure # list of TMBLs for WRIA in which wetland unit being rated is located L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To Answer Question Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Area densely covered by trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Area densely covered by rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure) S 4.1 1 kin polygon: Area extending away from wetland boundary extending out i km (3,300 feet) including polygons of accessible and undisturbed habitat. S 2.1, S 5.1 303(d) listed waters within the basin S 3.1, S 32 List of: To Answer Question Figure # list of TMBLs for WRIA in which wetland unit being rated is located S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Rating Form Page 2 Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland Name or Number: HGM Classification of W7etlands in Western Washington For Questions 1 - 7, the criteria described m t us apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, the unit probably has multiple HGM Classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in Questions 1 - 7 apply and go to Qestion 8. Classificatlon OueRtinnc Answer HGM Class /Ire the water levels in the entire wetland unit usually controlled by tides? NO go to 2a below Is the salinity of the water durin YES Tidal Fringe 1.1 gperiods ofannuallowflowbelow0.Sppt NO (parts per thousand)? Saltwater Tidal Fringe NOTE 1: If the wetland can be classfed as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe wetland use the Rivet a Raring Forrmshwater Tidal Fringe `NOTE 2: Ifthe wetland can be classified as a Saltwater Tidal Fringe }vetland use the Estuarine Rating Forms. [Yee entire wetland unit isjlat and precipitationis the onlysourceof�� _ tlatrd hydrology? NpTE: Groundwater and surfacewater runoff are natiY0ow 2. urces of water to the unit. NOTE. If the wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for 'Depressional" wetlands. YES Flats Does the wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? ~ ` — — — — — — The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of — NO go to 4 below ` 3. permanent open water (without any vegetation on the water surfaceat any time of the year) that is least at 20 acres (8 ha) in size. At least 30% of open water area is >6.6 feet (2 deep? YES Lake Fringe m) Does the wetland unit meet all of the following ` ` ~ ` criteria? The wetland is on a slope. (slope can be very gradual) .. ` . ` NO go to 5 below The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) YES Slope and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, 4. or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks. Depressions are usually <3.3 feet (1 m) in diameter and < 1 foot (0.3 m) deep. Does the entire wetland unit ►�reetalr of he following criteria? The unit is in a valley or a stream channel where it is inundated b NO below YES y overbank flooding from a stream or river. Re ivrine 5. The overbank flooding occurs a least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. 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? 6. NO ` ` �"` go to 7 ` NOTE: If there is an outlet to the wetland the outlet control elevation YES Depressional is higher than the elevation of the wetland interior. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat arena wlth no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface "` " NO go to 8 below water more than a few inches dee . NOTE 1: The wetland hydrology 7• Y g1'seems to be maintained by high YES Depressional groundwater in the area. NOTE 2: The wetland may be ditched, but there is no obvious natural outlet. Welland Rating System for Western Washi►tgton: 2014 Update Rating Form Page 3 g Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland Name or Number: The wetland unit seems to be dijf1cult to classify and probably contains several different HGM Classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may drain into a riverine floodplain or a small stream within a Depressional wetland that has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1 - 7 APPLY TO THE DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE UNIT (make a rough sketch of the unit g, showing the different hydrologic regimes). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if there are 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 HGM Class listed in the second column represents less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within Wetland Unit being rated HGM Class to Use for 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 Saltwater Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE NOTE: Ifstill unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to the wetland being rated, or if there are more than 2 HGM Classes within the wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Rating Form Page 4 Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland Name or Number: Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS Indicators that the Wetland Unit Functions to fm rove Water Ouali foes the wetland have the 2QLenti2i to improve water quality? R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the River wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover> 3/4 of the wetland area. X Depressions cover >_ 1/2 of the wetland area. Depression are present, but cover < 1/2 of the wetland area. No depressions present within the wetland area. R 1.0A1.2Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height; not R Cowardin classes): Trees or shrubs >2/3 of the unit area. Trees or shrubs >1/3 of the unit area. X Ungrazed herbaceous plants (> 6" tall) covering >2/3 of the unit area. Ungrazed herbaceous plants (> 6" tall) covering>1/3 of the unit area. Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous vegetation covering < 1/3 of the unit. Total Score for R.1.1 + R.1.2 (Add the points Rating for Site Potential: If Total R 1.0 Score is 12-16 rating H, 6-11 rating = M, 0-5 rating = L Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? Pa e wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? the basin tributary to the wetland include an incorporated city or its UGA? R 2.0 at least 10% of the tributary basin contain tilled fields, pasture, or forests that have clearcut within the last 5 years?0% ofthe area within 150 ft of the wetland have land uses that generate pollutants, here other sources of pollutants coming into thewetland that are not lsted in ion R 2.1 through( R 2.4? (Add the for Landscape Potential: If Total R 2.0 Score is 12-16 ratinScore Hr6f 11 Rt ng = M O-5 Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? R 3.1 Is the wetland adjacent to a 303(d) listed river or stream that drains to Win l mile? R 3.2 Is the wetland adjacent to a river or stream w/TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or R 3.0 pathogens? Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining R 3.3 water quality? (Answer "Yes" if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is located ) Total Score for R 2.0 Rating for Value: If Total R 3.0 Score is 2-4 rating = H, I rating = M, 0 r< Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Rating Form page 7 POSSIBLE f ACTUAL Provide Photos or Map (see Rating Form Page 2 ) 8 0 4 4 2 0 0 0 Provide Photos or Map (see Rating Form Page 2 ) 8 0 6 0 6 6 3 0 0 0 in the boxes above) 10 { (record on Form Page 1) k vide Photos or Map (seeRating Form Page 2 )=2 No=O 2 =2 No=O 2 Yes=2 No=O 0 Yes=2 No=O 2 Yes=2 No=O 0 in the boxes above) 6 = L {record on Form Pa e 1 } Provide 303(d) Map/'I'MDL List (see Raring Form Page 2 ) Yes =1 No = 0 0 Yes=1 No=O 0 Yes=2 No=O 1 0 f the points in the boxes above ) 0 = L ( (record on Form Page 1) Effective .January 1, 2015 Wetland Name or Number: Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation POSSIBLE I POINTS ACTUAL POINTS Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? Provide Photos or Map (see Rating Form Page 1) R 4.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: (Estimate the average width of he wetland unit perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between the banks measured from top of bank to top of bank). Calculate the ratio of the average wetland width (WW) to the average stream or river channel width between the banks (CW). (Show wetland unit widths and stream widths on aerial photo or map) R 4.0 WW/CW Ratio>20 WW/CW Ratio 10 to 20 X WW/CW Ratio 5 to <10 WW/CW Ratio 1 to <5 WW/CW Raion <1 9 0 6 0 4 4 2 0 1 0 R 4.2 Characteristics of vegetation that will slow down water velocities duirng flood events: Large Woody Debris is rated as "forest or shrub". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (Draw polygons of different vegetation types on aerial photo or map. Vegetation polygons must have >90% cover at persn height and are not based on Cowardin types. ) Provide Photos or Map (see Rating Form Page 2 ) Forest or shrub >1/3 or herbaceous plants >2/3 of unit area X Forest or shrub >1/10 or herbaceous plants >1/3 of unit area Vegetation does not meet the criteria above 7 0 4 4 0 0 Total Score for R 4.0 (Add paints in the boxes above) 8 Rating for Site Potential: If Total R 4.0 Score is 12-16 rating = H. 6-11 rating = M, 0-5 rating = L Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? Provide Photos or Map (see Rating Form Page 2) R 5.1 Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1 1 R 5.0 R 5.2 Does the up -gradient watershed incude an incorporated area or a UGA? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 R 5.3 Is the up -gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1 1 Total Score for R 5.0 (Add points in the boxes above) 3 Rating for Landscape Potential: If Total R 5.0 Score is 3 rating = H, 1-2 rahn = M. 0 rati» = L Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems: (Choose the R 6.1 description that best fits the site) R 6.0 The sub -basin immediately down -gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to human and/or natural resources (i.e. structures or fish habitat). Surface flooding problems are in sub -basin further down -gradient. No flooding problems anywhere downstream. 2 0 1 0 0 0 Has site been identified as important for flood storage or conveyance in a regional flood R 6.2 control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0 0 Total Score for R 6.0 (Add points in the boxes above) 0 Rating for Value: IPTotal R 0.0 Score is 2-4 rating = H, 1 rating = M, 0 rating = L Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Rating Form Page 8 Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland Name or Number: The Following Information Applies To All HGM Wetland Classes HABITAT FUNCTIONS Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat POSSIBLE ACTUAL Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat? POINTS POINTS Structure of plant community (Indicators are Cowardin classes and strate within a Provide Map of Cowardin H 1.1 orested class. Check the Cowardin plant classess in the wetland. Up to lO patches may Vegetation Classes (see Rating be combined for each class to meet the threshold of 314 acres or > 10% of the unit if it is Form a e 2 smaller than 2.5 acres. Add the number of classes checked.) p g ) Aquatic bed X Emergent >4 classes = 4 0 X Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs represent >30% of the vegetative cover) 3 classes = 2 0 Forested (areas where trees represent >30% of the vegetative cover) 2 classes = 1 1 If the unit has a forested class check this criteria if the forested areas have 3 of the 5 1 pe = 0 0 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/groundcover) that each cover>20% of the forested polygon. — Total Score = 1 Hydroperiods: Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present in the wetland. H 1.2 The water regime must cover > 10% of the wetland or be > 114 acre to be counted. See manual for hydroperiod descriptions. Permanently flooded or inundated X Seasonally flooded or inundated Occasionally flooded or inundated X Saturated only _>4 es = 3 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in or adjacent to the wetland 3 es = 2 0 Seasonally flowing stream or river in or adjacent to the wetland 2 es = 1 1 Lake -fringe wetland = 2 points I e= 0 0 Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points 2 0 H 1.0 2 0 Total Score for H 1.2 (Add the paints in the boxes above) I Richness of Plant Species: Count the number ofplant species in the wetland that cover H 1.3 2! ]Oft 2. Different patches of the same species should be combined to meet the size criteria. Do not name the plant species present. Do not include areas dominated by non- native, invasive species. Number of different plant species meeting minimum area coverage a 19 X Number of different plant species meeting minimum area coverage = 5 to 19 2 0 Number of different plant species meeting minimum area coverage < 5 1 1 0 0 InterTotal Score for H 1.3 (odd +rp the paints in the boxes above J 5 spersion of Habitats: Determine from the diagrams below whether inerspersion Provide Map of Cowardin H 1.4 among Cowardin plant classes (described in H 1.1 above) or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include water and mud flats) is high, moderate, lo, or none. If there are > 4 Vegetation Classes (see Rating Plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is high. Form page 2 ) None = 0 Low = 1 Moderate = 2 All three of these diagrams are raated Hi = 3 Score = 1 Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. 2014 Update Rating Form a Pa l3 g Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland Name or Number: HABITAT FUNCTIONS Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. POSSIBLE ACTUAL POINTS POINTS H 1.5 Special Habitat Features: Various habitat features are listed below. Place an "X" in front of each habitat feature observed in the wetland unit. The number of "X" marks is equal to the Total Score for the Special Habitat Features. H 1.0 Large, downed, woody debris (pieces >4" diameter and 6' long) in wetland Standing snags (bottom diameter>4") in wetland Undercut banks are present for >6.6 feet (2 m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends >3.3 feet (1 m) over a stream (or ditch), or contiguous to the wetland edge, for >33 feet (10 m) Stable, steep (230%) banks composed of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning OR signs of recent beaver or muskrat activity are present (cut shrubs or trees nit yet weathered where wood is exposed). At least 1/4 acre of thin -stemmed, persistent plants or woody branches are present and are X permanently or seasonally inundated. (structuresforegg-laying by amphibians). Invasive plants cover <25% of the wetland area in every vegetative (see H 1.Ifor list of strata ). 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Total Score for H 1.5 1 Total Score for H 1.0 (H 1.1 through H 1.5) .A Rating for Site Potential: If Total Score for H 1.0 is 15-18 rating = H, 7-14 rating = M, 0-6 rating = L Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? Provide Photos or Maps of Accessible Habitat (See Rating Form page 2 ) H 2.1 .Accessible habitat (include only habitat the directly abuts the wetland) Calculate % undisturbed habitat + (% moderate and low intensity land use12) = % of accessible habitat. Accessible habitat area x % = total accessible habitat area. If total accessable habitat area is: > 33.3% of 1 km polygon > 20% to < 33.3% of 1 km polygon X > 10% to < 20% of 1 km polygon < 10% of 1 km polygon 3 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 Total Score for H 2.1 1 H 2.0 H 2.2 Undisturbed habitat in a polygon that extends 1 km (3,333 feet or 0.63 miles) from wetland edge. Provide Photos or Maps of Undisturbed Habitat (See Rating Form page 2 ) Calculate % undisturbed habitat + (% moderate and low intensity land use12) = % of accessible habitat. Undisturbed habitat area x % = total undisturbed habitat area. If total undisturbed habitat area is: Undisturbed habitat >50% of 1 km polygon Undisturbed habitat 10% to 50% of 1 km polygon and in 1-3 patches Undisturbed habitat 10% to 50% of 1 km polygon and in >3 patches. X Undisturbed habitat <10% of 1 km polygon 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 Total Score for H 2.2 0 H 2.3 Land use intensity in 1 km polygon Provide Photos or Maps of Lamd Use (see Rating Form page 2) X > 50% of 1 km polygon is high intensity land use < 50% of 1 km polygon is high intensity land use -2 -2 0 0 Total Score for H 2.3 -2 Total Score for H 2.0 (H 2.1 through H 2.3) -1 Rating for Site Potential: If Total Score for 11 2.0 is 4-6 rating = H, 1-3 rating = M, <1 rating = L Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Rating Form Page 14 Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland Name or Number: HABITAT FUNCTIONS Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat POSSIBLE ACTUAL POINTS POINTS Is 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 unit being rated. (See priority habitat list below) Site meets any of the following criteria: H 3.0 Has 3 or more priority habitat with 100 in (333 feet) Provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any State or Federally listed plant or animal species) Is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species Is a wetland of High Conservation Value as determined byWDNR Has been categorized as an important site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a shoreline master plan, or in a watershed plan X Has 1 or 2 priority habitats (instream and riparian) Has none of the above criteria 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 Total Score for H 2.3 1 Rtfing for SW Potential: If Total Score for H 3.0 is 2 ratio = H, 1 rating = M, 0 rating = L VMFW Priority Habitat List See complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which these habitats can be found in Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008, Priority Habitat and Species List Olympia, Washington, 177 pp. On line at httpH:wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfwOO165.pdfor at httpH:wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/listl Count how many of the following priority habitats are w/in 100 in (330 feet) of the wetland unit. NOTE: This question is indepedent of land use between the wetland unit and the priord r habitat. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen > 1 acres (4 ha) in sine Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife. (See full description in WDFW PHS Report page 158, which is available on WDFW internet web site) Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soil over bcdtock. Old -growth Forest: For old growth forests west of the Cascade crest: Stands must be > 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature Forests: For mature forests west of the Cascade crest: Stands with average diameters > 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be < 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantiry of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 to 200 years of age. Oregon white oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations wherecanopy coverage of the oak component is important. (See full description in WDFW PHS Report page 158, which is available on WDFW internet web site) 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. (See full description in WDFW PHS Report page 161, which is available on WDFW internet web site) 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. (See full description of habitats and the definition ofrelathwly undisturbed in WDFW PHS Report, which is available on WDFW internet web site) Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages. Cliffs: >25 ft (7.6 m) high and ocouriing below 5,000 ft (1,515 M) elevation. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble, with rocks ranging in average size between 0.5 ft - 6.6 ft (0.15 in - 2 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rack, including rip -rap slides (scree) 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 DBH of> 20 in (51 cm) in western Wasington and are >6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30.5 cm) in diamete as the large 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 adaressea eisewnere. Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Rating Form Page 15 Effective January 1, 2015 NN illiams Property r NN :tland aa� iL •• kpproOnate Location of the ` Delineated Wetland Edge . l rt t� • f � r r .r _ t �t .X. • Appr %imate Loealion the Pl iiu lip Jr - Or r � �• °ritied �� 4Ty� t� vs� =�. ngli Property ✓ UW rt • -f :goo 11clland � ; f p � .. St: � 2�15 GaagEe • ` 7S f A _163011 SL FIGURE 2: The approximate wetland boundary is shown with a light green dash -dot line. There are two Cowardin classes within the wetland. Areas of scrub -shrub wetland are surrounded by dashed line. Areas of emergent habitat are highlighted in yellow. Much of the wetland vegetation has been manipulated and the buffer is dominated by Himalayan and evergreen blackberry. a Moines -9;)//;e crop, S-228*1, S:t31s Rd, C. 1rA ad iv Wbend Park oil Wartker-St Co 51C. . ig pi MOO Lak S 2�jjj' pA S- 2 th. S Funwic Park ,40 772zW Sr j ing&M cFftk. > BI " 9 �' P_aWZCTSITE V. S 2 go ttl 5t- 5M > FIGURE 3: Section Of current 303(d) listed water bodies map retrieved from WDOE Creek is not shown as a 303(d) listed stream nor is it a TA41DL listed stream Water Quality web site. Bingaman 71 5282ndr5t- -� ••, . ��` • -� ,.f � � ter, t � . .�� Fig �S'�n . �` � � � , � � ' gin• � `� Sz284fh-S! µv•'_� . t , r• i cn' 1' ►.. S 28`61h" .=287th-� JS-288th=St 48 9 1'�� i . ■ ' f 1 i' a' S2. fir- � � ris ''� �.. ,�. - • � ' '=-` � � r I ' '� . e g2nd'StS' 291 5 { � _ � fh �g'� � " � • .. ;' � - �41 • I � `may '" � ��c[�• „ �� r�w +mot. y .Q' ��. t OL If lip jI • '#- y liin �;iirti;in l�s �D �F � � • N I - �` .. -�` - cam, •.•. i.� = cv a� - izc co y' 'rfl U7 / Uj `~J ,. _• , . 2015 Gvag � � , I I I WATERSHED DYNAMICS Post Office Box 215, Enumclaw, Washington TEL 360.825.9253 FAX 360.825.9248 September 9, 2013 HARD COPY SENT: X YES NO DATE: FAX: na FAX COPY SENT: YES X NO E-MAIL: pamc461@ecy.wa.gov E-MAIL COPY SENT: YES X NO TRANSMITTAL PAGES SENT INCLUDING COVER PAGE: 12 w/attachment SUBJECT: Hydrology Study Results TO: Mr. Patrick R. McGraner, Wetlands Specialist Washington Department of Ecology, Northwest Regional Office 3190 — 160t' Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 FROM: Larry D. Burnstad, Senior Environmental Consultant PROJECT NAME: Singh/Williams Hydrology Study PROJECT NUMBER: Watershed Dynamics Project No. 2013002 PURPOSE The purpose of this memo is to provide WDOE with the results of the hydrology study completed on the Singh, Williams (Professional Building Contractors, Inc.), Hart, and Midway Samoan Assembly properties located on the east side of Military Road South between S. 288ffi Street and S. 296`h Street in Federal Way, Washington (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). NOTE: Figures follow Page 7 of this report. BACKGROUND Although pertinent to understanding the current status of the proposed development of the Singh and Williams properties, the events that led to Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) involvement in determining the wetland boundary location on these properties is too voluminous to include in this part of the memo. A review of Attachment 1 provides a detailed chronology of the project related events that occurred between August 2007 and December 2012. After several failed attempts to reach agreement regarding the wetland boundary associated with the aforementioned properties, the City of Federal Way (Matt Herrera, Associate City Planner) contacted WDOE to request assistance with the unresolved wetland delineation reported in a Critical Areas Report prepared by Watershed Dynamics. This report, dated April 10, 2009, was submitted to the City and subsequently reviewed by ESA Adolfson, a Seattle -based environmental consulting firm under contract to provide critical areas review services to the City. In July 2009, the City's consultant completed its review and determined the wetland boundary was located somewhere to the west of the boundary reported by Watershed Dynamics (see Figure 3), but not as far west as the boundary shown on the City's wetland inventory. A field review was convened on July 29, 2009 to discuss the consultant's finding and their determination as to wetland boundary location. Mr. Larry Burnstad, representing Gian and Indedet Singh, and Mr. Ed Sewall, representing Mr. Rick Williams, accompanied Matt Herrera and Ms. Lizzie Zemke, representing ESA Adolfson, during the site review. Hydrology Study Report — September 9, 2013 — Page 1 I During the site review, Ms. Zemke excavated a soil pit approximately 80 feet west of the wetland boundary delineated by Watershed Dynamics and observed soil moisture in a dense organic layer between 13 inches and 15 inches beneath the ground surface. Mr. Burnstad and Mr. Sewall inspected the pit and confirmed the soil to be slightly moist at the depth Ms. Zemke noted. Mr. Bumstad suggested the slightly moist condition could be the result of residual moisture left from the above average precipitation event that had occurred only days before this field review. Mr. Sewall excavated the pit to a depth of 20 inches and noted the soil between 15 inches and 20 inches below the ground surface was dry. Ignoring input from the two wetland biologists, Ms. Zemke refused to accept the wetland boundary delineated by Watershed Dynamics and recommended the City require an additional wetland study to provide adequate data for rendering a decision. Having no recourse, the City concurred with Ms. Zemke's recommendation and advised Mr. Singh that additional field data needed to be gathered and presented to the City before a final wetland boundary location could be designated. One point of agreement by all parties present was the fact that the wetland boundary was further east than the boundary shown on the City's wetland inventory map, although Ms. Zemke would not indicate where. Following the field review, Mr. Burnstad and Mr. Sewall drafted a proposed hydrology study with a study area that included all of the properties affected by the wetland as mapped on the City's wetland inventory. The rationale for including all of the properties in the study was predicated on a concern about wetland buffers. Moving the wetland boundary on only one property would not alleviate the buffer associated with the other non -delineated "wetlands" shown on the City's inventory and located within the adjoining properties. The City accepted the proposed hydrology study and suggested proceeding with data collection. Between 2010 and 2012 several attempts were made to enlist economic participation and access permission by all of the landowners. Watershed Dynamics was unable to gain either. In addition, the lack of "normal" rainfall during the growing season precluded study implementation. In an effort to resolve the wetland boundary issues, the City solicited assistance from WDOE and a field review was completed on November 20, 1012. Present at the field review were Mr. Paul Anderson, Wetland Specialist, WDOE; Mr. Patrick McGraner, Wetland Specialist, WDOE; Mr. Issac Conlen, City Planner, City of Federal Way; Mr. Rick Williams, Property Owner; and Mr. Larry Burnstad, Watershed Dynamics. Two sample plots were evaluated during the meeting. One located approximately halfway between the toe of the slope adjacent to the east side of Military Road South and Bingamen Creek and the other was located approximately 80 feet west of the wetland boundary delineated by Watershed Dynamics in May 2008. J The first sample point was determined to be located in non -wetland habitat. The soils were hydric, but the plant community was not dominated by hydrophytic species and there was no evidence of wetland hydrology. The characteristics at the second sample point were indicative of wetland habitat, although there was some concern expressed by Mr. Burnstad the hydrologic evidence was inconclusive. Everyone present 1 agreed the soils were hydric soils. Mr. Burnstad explained the area, including the mobile home park Jlocated east of the subject property, was a peat bog that was harvested for fuel in the early 1900's. As a result, the ground surface observed during the field review was lower than the historic elevation. `J Hydrology Study Report — September 9, 2013 — Page 2 J The other two parameters observed, vegetation and near -surface hydrology, were discussed. The plant community was a confusing mixture of facultative wetland (Spirea douglasii) and facultative upland 1 (Ribes discolor) species. Mr. Anderson indicated, based on information presented in the Regional f Supplement to the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Areas, the latter species, Himalayan blackberry, could not be used as an indicator species for the purpose of evaluating wetland habitat. With the blackberry removed from consideration, spirea was the dominant species, indicating the presence of wetland habitat. The soil was saturated in the upper 12 inches of the soil column and there was standing water at approximately 8 inches below the ground surface. If the precipitation at the time of the investigation was found to be "normal" and the hydrology observed remained for 14 consecutive days during the growing season, the observed condition would be indicative of wetland habitat. Mr. Burnstad suggested the conditions were not normal, but could not, at the time, provide any data in support of that suggestion. T During the meeting the group discussed the proposed hydrology study that had not yet been implemented. } By the conclusion of the meeting there was agreement that additional evaluation of the wetland hydrology within the affected properties was needed to make the final determination regarding the wetland boundary 1 location. } NOTE: During the month following the site review Mr. Burnstad consulted the manual supplement and discovered the information presented in Section 5 of the supplement noted concerns associated with invasive plants and wetland delineation. The manual did not explicitly ban the use of Himalayan blackberry as an indicator, but did express the need to be cautious when making a wetland determination } in areas where the criteria for hydric soil and wetland hydrology were met. As Mr. McGraner noted !I during the field review, the manual discussed an alternative involving "complete " removal of the invasive vegetation during one growing season followed by an evaluation of the plant community during the next j growing season. If the invasive species was still dominant the manual suggested a more thorough evaluation of wetland hydrology. In addition, Mr. Burnstad reviewed the precipitation records for the NOAA Weather Station at SeaTac International Airport. The data revealed 2.59 inches of precipitation were recorded from November 18, 2012 through November 20, 2012 with 2.13 inches recorded on November 19, 2012. The NOAA records also revealed that from October 27, 2012 through January 20, 2013 the accumulated precipitation at SeaTac was greater than 130% of normal. As reported below, a review of the precipitation data from October 1, 2012 through May 31, 2013 revealed the accumulated precipitation was above normal. During the period between January 21, 2013 through May 31, 2013 accumulated precipitation was J between 100% and 130% of normal. Based on the recorded data, Mr. Burnstad concluded the wetland hydrology observed on November 20, 2012 was not normal. Based on the review of the manual supplement Mr. Burnstad concluded the plant community was non -definitive and the wetland hydrology study would provide the data needed to make a J final decision regarding the location of the wetland boundary. STUDY APPROACH J EQUIPMENT: The hydrology study included the installation of shallow monitoring wells (aka piezometers) in 28 locations within the study area (see Figure 4). Of the 28 monitoring wells, 27 were 1placed at 50-foot to 60-foot intervals along 5 transects within the study area. _J Hydrology Study Report —September 9, 2013 —Page 3 J One well, Well #22, was placed on Singh property approximately half way between the east pavement edge of Military Road South and the toe of the slope on the west side of the property. A small patch of willow was noted on the side hill during the November 20, 20012 field review, prompting a request from WDOE to have a monitoring well installed to monitoring near -surface groundwater in this area. Wells were located on each transect from a point near the toe of the slope on the west side of the study area V (except on the Hart property) to within 50 feet to 60 feet of the west side of the Bingamen Creek channel. I On the Hart property, the area close to the toe of slope had already been developed. The monitoring wells were installed in accordance with methods described in documents published by US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Wetland Regulatory Assistance Program (WRAP), USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and several state and local agencies. The 24-inch long monitoring wells were constructed of 2-inch diameter (ID) PVC well screen with three 0.1-inch wide slots per inch in the lower 18 inches of the well. PHOTO 1: Monitoring Well The following steps were followed at each well location: 1. A 4-inch diameter hole excavated with a soil auger to depth of 25 inches to 26 inches. 2. As each hole was being excavated a 4-inch diameter aluminum sleeve was pushed into the hole to keep the side walls from collapsing. 1 3. Once the hole excavation was complete and the sleeve was fully inserted, three -eighths inch minus gravel was placed in the bottom of the hole. Hydrology Study Report — September 9, 2013 — Page 4 4. The 2-inch diameter PVC wells were inserted into the center of the hole leaving the upper 4 inches of the well exposed above ground level. 5. While the well was held in place, three -eighths inch gravel was poured into the space between the outside of the well tube and the inside of the aluminum sleeve. The gravel was lightly tamped while the well tube wasjiggled to assure all voids were removed. I 6. Dry driller's clay (well plug) in pellet from was placed in the upper 2 inches to 3 inches of the hole and smoothed to be level with the surrounding ground surface. See Photo 2 below. 7. The distance from the ground surface to the top of the well was measured and recorded in a field notebook for each well. The clay pellets were then moistened to solidify the clay. PHOTO 2: Installed Monitoring Well w/Well Plug (dry pellets) Level with Ground Surface 8. Additional moistened driller's clay (well plug) was shaped to form a cone around the tube that Jextended approximately 2 inches to 3 inches above the ground surface. The driller's clay was used to seal the monitoring well and prevent surface water from leaking into the well. 9. The well cap was numbered for identification and screwed into the top of the well tube. J10. A 4-foot lath with the well number and fluorescent pink flagging was placed next to each well. Finally, a tipping -bucket rain gage was installed on the site to monitor precipitation at the site. The intent J was to gather site specific precipitation data to compare to the data recorded at the NOAA SeaTac Weather Station. I Hydrology Study Report — September 9, 2013 — Page 5 j 1 DATA COLLECTION: Issues related to equipment acquisition and permission from participating landowners resulted in monitoring well/precipitation gage installation being delayed until March 20, 2013. Mr. Burnstad contacted Mr. McGraner regarding the installation delay on February 25, 2013. Mr. Bumstad explained the reasons for the delay, mentioned the slightly above normal precipitation conditions at the time, and asked if the delay would adversely impact the study. After discussing the circumstances, the consensus was that we should proceed with the investigation even though we were getting a started later than we had originally planned. Data was collected from the monitoring wells every three days from March 23, 2013 to May 3, 2013. From May 3, 2013 to May 31, 2013 data was collected at 7-day to 8-day intervals. The increased interval time in May was based on an evaluation of the well data that revealed most of the wells were dry or had water levels deeper than 12 inches below the ground surface. Precipitation data was collected from the gage at 7-day to 10-day intervals, but the data was sporadic due to several attempts by intruders to vandalize the gage. The gage was installed with bolts and locked to a pole, but vandals attempted to steal the gage (pole and all) on numerous occasions, leaving the gage at an angle or with debris stuffed in the cone. Some of the data collected was viable and did indicate a positive correlation between precipitation at the site and precipitation record at the SeaTac station. In addition, Monitoring Wells 26, 27, and 28 were tampered with during the latter portion of the study. Wells 27 and 28 were not reliable in May 2013 because they had been pulled out of the ground, then pushed back in the ground, and were rocked back and forth in the hole breaking the seal on the driller's clay. As a result, the tubes filled with mud and the distance between the ground surface and the top of the tube were different than the data recorded at installation. RESULTS: The data collected was analyzed and is presented in graphic form (see Graphs section following Page 7 of this report). The SeaTac Weather Station precipitation data is displayed on the first graph and followed by 4 graphs showing the water elevation over time in each of the monitoring wells. Precipitation data reported on the NOAA web site for the SeaTac weather station indicated the accumulated precipitation was within the normal range during the study period. Daily precipitation in March and April 2013 was reported to be at or slightly below normal but within the normal range of 70% to 100% of the 20-year average. Based on the monitoring well data collected, Well #1 through Well #9, Well #12 through Well #17, Well #19 through Well #20, Well # 22, Well #24, and Well #25 did not meet the criteria for required to be positive for wetland hydrology. As a point of reference, the sample point evaluated on November 20, 2012 was located between Well #4 and Well 45. Based on the monitoring well data collected, Well #10, Well #11, Well #18, Well #21, Well #23, Well #26, Well #27, and Well #28 recorded water levels within the upper 12 inches of the soil column for a periods of 14 or more consecutive days during the growing season. Well # 12, which was closer to Bingamen Creek than Well #10 and Well #11 did not have water in the upper 12 inches of the soil column, which suggests an anomaly in the soil at that location. No water was recorded in Well 422 over the entire study period. Although there was standing water in the hole near this 1 well, the water level in that hole was generally 2.5 feet to 4 feet below the ground surface. Although no 1 evidence was collected to support this, Watershed Dynamics speculated that a street drain coming from l Military Road South may outlet on the upslope side of the hole. Hydrology Study Report — September 9, 2013 — Page 6 _j Well #23 is located at the end of a drainage ditch that was constructed along the east side of Military Road South and continues in an easterly direction from the northwest corner of the Midway Samoan Assembly of God property to southeast comer of Sakai property (see Figure 2). As a result, this well was positive for wetland hydrology during the study period, but the ditch is regularly maintained so there is no wetland vegetation adjacent to Well #23. Watershed Dynamics concluded Well #23 was not located within a regulated wetland. Mr. Singh elected to remove the blackberries and other shrub species from the portion of his property �l west of Well # 6 and Well #18 in the latter part of March 2013. By the end of the study period on May 31, I 2013 the only species that had returned was Himalayan blackberry. No spirea was observed sprouting in this area. I I I I I NOTE: Figure 5 is an aerial photo of the study area showing the approximate location of the wetland boundary based on the results of the wetland study. This boundary has not been delineated in the field, verified by WDOE and the City, or surveyed/mapped. Field delineation, agency review and approval of the delineated wetland boundary, and a final site survey will be completed after this report has been reviewed and approved by WDOE. Hydrology Study Report — September 9, 2013 — Page 7 ■ww 1 2 1 1 1 1� 1, 19 L 1: 1: U c 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 N ?6 ?5 >,4 B ►2 �1 ;0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 26 GRAPH 2: Depth from Ground Surface to Water Surface in Monitoring Well # 1 through Well #7 (inches) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 26 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 01 00 M �-+ � [� O M N N N O O O 1 N N N M OR ` M M M 4 4 :4 � � � 1 d ;+ V' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Monitoring Dates Well #1 Well #2 / Well #3 0-' Well #4 Well #5 Well #6 Well #7 11 1: 1F 21 GRAPH 3 : Depth from Ground Surface to Water Surface in Monitoring Well #8 through Well # 14 inches 0 3 Well #8 6 0 Well #9 9 12 5 8 1 24 24 261=. M M M M 26 00 IN N O O O O O O O p t 0 i j N M O O O O O O O O O O Monitoring Dates Well # 10 Well # 12 Well #13 �. Well #14 x VI ., GRAPH 4: Depth from Ground Surface to Water Surface in Monitoring Well # 15 through Well #21 inches 0 M M M M M ,tn,y 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O Monitoring Dates 3 -� Well # 15 6 Well # 16 9 Well # 17 12 5 8 1 Well # 18 Well # 19 Well #20 Well #21 GRAPH 5: Depth from Ground Surface to Water Surface in Monitoring Well #22 through Well #28 (inches) 0 3 I—/— /r fill- �— — , NOTE: Well #22 never had any measurable water in the tube during the entire study period. teA a D--� M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 00 N N N � � � � M M M 4 : � eF vl� tn V) to) � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Monitoring Dates 3 Well #22 6 _ Well #23 �T1 L� Well #24 12 Igh Well #25 15 Well #26 Well #27 21 rly J Well #28 24 ■ NOTE: This symbol indicates the well ■ had been vandalized and was reset, but 26 the reading may be inaccurate due to subsurface alterations or plugged well slits. C13 WIN awe 0 co CD z UP T1. - E L ccu: A-V- -------------- ct a) :Ll I-- LL ij A. CV 6 LWilliamsProperty A rl s- --' A. P Singh Property Hart Property Sakai Property 21 2 Midway SamoanW� Assembly Propertieslow i } P • Camelot Square Mobile Home Park _ •' .00 wAhL vc . .. q►. FIGURE 2: Tax Parcel/Ownership Map — Study Area Outlined in Red �� i0—Awpj. . IL vDGe or- too-toor wv-iep � •�• r -410 op k 1 ' L 7 , f •1 ti � L 1 1/ + , 1 r "� `% . •= t 1 � � � � �rr � r ( ff �_.�� 1 I i ! 1' ,�� -•_ hVETLAND�n� ` { _ a9 , It lk 1 � ViSIL RD AD %\ONty ( s o N G STY O F FED1:RAt V1lAY CQTI Gp.L f, I7�G GaT£D CYf-IT -Ol -wAY AR(rAS IIhLVE KTO Imo`( MAP I I P6T1=N T IAU_Y D�V >= too PAP�E AP�A (.4--. in' 9(2. 30' jr 5i 10 / 40 +k WET LAt1C) t&14DaRY 6/5E0 ON GTY OF DE - YVAi IuVi✓t13F `1 bATA , PF J.r 1 I "Pr'lp - �O@ " Chronology of Events — Singh Property Critical Areas Stud August 7, 2007: Watershed Dynamics was contacted by Shailesh Tatu requesting a proposed Scope -of - Work (SOW) and Estimate -of -Fees (EOF) to complete a wetland study of Tax Parcel 0421049172 in Federal Way, Washington. Property owned by Gian and Inderjet Singh. August 27, 2007: Watershed Dynamics prepared and submitted a proposed SOW/EOF to Shailesh Tatu. March 12, 2008: City of Federal Way sent a memo to Inderjet and Gian Singh in response to their request to place fill on the site as well as remove blackberries and other "overhanging" vegetation 1 from the site. The requested fill was <100 cubic yards to allow vehicular access to the site. The 1 vegetation removal was requested to allow survey crews easier access and mobility around the site. The request was denied because the City indicated their data base show a Category 11 Wetland covered a majority of the property. April 21, 2008: Larry Burnstad (Watershed Dynamics) visited the site with Gian Singh following Mr. Singh's request for a Wetland Study Proposal. April 28, 2008: Watershed Dynamics prepared and submitted a proposed SOW/EOF to Mr. Singh. April 29, 2008: Mr. Singh authorized wetland study. May 7, 2008: Field work was completed for wetland study. Approximate wetland boundary was established based on field data collected. May 9, 2008: Watershed Dynamics notified Mr. Singh the field work had been completed and provided a list of engineering/surveying companies for him to contact regarding the required site survey (including delineated wetland boundary and sample point locations). May 13, 2008: Watershed Dynamics met with Mr. Singh to discuss the steps to complete prior to City approval of any proposed site development plan. June 11, 2008: Following a meeting with Deb Barker, Planner, City of Federal Way, Watershed Dynamics received a copy of the Sheldon & Associates field data form for sample point closest to Singh property. This sample point was used to verify wetland presence and define boundary of wetland shown on City's wetland inventory map. Sample point was located east of the east end of the Singh property near the stream channel (ditch) adjacent to "Camelot Square" mobile home park. This was the only data point on the north end of the site and was used, along with aerial photo interpretation, to set the western wetland boundary at the toe of the slope adjacent to Military Road S. There was no documentation of any efforts to verify wetland habitat on the west side of the wetland. August 17, 2008: DMP Engineering and Surveying completed site survey and prepared preliminary site map showing locations of sample points and delineated wetland boundary. JAugust 19, 2008: Jeff Wolfe, Surface Water Management, City of Federal Way, sent e-mail to Sean R. at DMP in response to questions related to stormwater management and the "ditch" located at the east end of the Singh property. Jeff indicated the ditch is a "Major Stream" named "Bingamen Creek", 1 which was "assumed to be fish bearing" and required a 100-foot buffer. The memo noted the fill referred to by Sheldon and Associates resulted from sewer line construction and maintenance activities on the sanitary sewer line located on the east end of the Singh property. The memo also J noted "ditch maintenance" by Camelot Square personnel to reduce flooding in the mobile home park. Jeff also indicated the presence of "natural" barriers to fish passage downstream in the Bingamen Creek drainage that may suggest the stream is a Minor stream rather than a Major stream. Information attached to the e-mail included a discussion related to the "siphon culvert" under S. 288t` Street with a maximum flow capacity equal to an estimated 50-year flood event (86 cfs). Also mentioned was the intake grate at the upstream end of the siphon culvert that was supposed to be maintained by WSDOT. Page 1 August 20, 2008: Watershed Dynamics contacted City of Federal Way to determine process for changing the classification of the stream channel. This was deemed necessary because the 100-foot buffer extended into the Singh property nearly as far as the 54-foot wetland buffer. Also, the presence of a Major stream adjacent to the wetland would automatically make the wetland a higher category. City indicated a stream study was required. Said study must be submitted to the City to prove the presence of "natural" fish passage barriers downstream of the Singh property. According to the City, the presence of the impassible siphon culvert did not constitute a "natural" fish barrier even though it was highly improbable that this "human -made" barrier would ever be replaced to allow fish passage upstream of S. 288h Street. The City also discounted the presence of the impassable culvert under I-5 because it is a "human -made" passage barrier that could be corrected in the future. August 25, 2008: Larry Burnstad (Watershed Dynamics), Paul Morrow (PLS, DMP), and Hans Korve (Planner, DMP) met with Gian and Indedet Singh to review the site survey and discuss the issues related to the "Major" stream at the east end of the site. Other engineering issues were discussed including potential options for handling sanitary sewer, stormwater runofF, geotechnical evaluation of potential site filling proposals, and a variety of potential site development optionshed , Waters Dynamics was authorized to prepare a proposal for completing a stream survey for Bingamen Creek. August 26, 2008: Watershed Dynamics requested a cost estimate from DMP for surveying the channel centerline from the Singh property downstream to 55t' Avenue S. September 15, 2008: Watershed Dynamics contacted Jeff Wolfe (City of Federal Way) to discuss his knowledge of potential fish passage barriers and the need for a stream survey to obtain proof the stream should be reclassified. Jeff indicated that, in his opinion, the presence of the siphon culvert under S. 288'' Street was enough to reclassify the stream, but he was unable to do that because the barrier was "human -made". He also confirmed the need for the stream survey to gather the proof needed to reclassify the stream. September 17, 2008: Watershed Dynamics prepared and submitted a stream survey proposal to Gian and Inderjet Singh. September 21, 2008: Gian Ad Inderjet Singh approved proposal and authorized stream survey. September 30, 2008: Watershed Dynamics began work on stream survey starting at 45'h Avenue S and working downstream to 55`h Ave S. This section was completed on October b, 2008. Watershed Dynamics was unable obtain permission from private property owners adjacent to and immediately upstream of Bingamen Pond. No survey was completed between approximately 100 feet upstream of 45'� Ave S to 34 Lane S. Stream channel from 341" Lane S. to Military Rd. S. was surveyed. November 2008 through January 2009: Watershed Dynamics collected background information from published sources and rechecked wetland hydrology by visiting the site on 4 separate occasions. No evidence of wetland hydrology was observed along the northern ro p per y boundary. In addition, there was no indication of a wetland being present on the Singh property (or the properties to the north and south) on the King County Critical (Sensitive) Areas maps or on the US Fish and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory. Bingamen Creek was noted on the King County Maps, but was not classified upstream of Bingamen Pond. Watershed Dynamics contacted Larry Fisher, Habitat Biologist, Washington Department off Fish and Wildlife, and he indicated he had no reports or records of fish being present upstream of45 Avenue S. or upstream of I-5. January 12, 2009: Watershed Dynamics completed DRAFT Critical Areas Report and submitted the draft report to Ginn and Inderjet Singh for review and comment. Prior to preparing draft document Watershed Dynamics requested information regarding other wetland studies or Critical Areas Reports that may have been prepared for any of the properties adjacent to the Singh property. City did not provide documents until the latter part of January 2009. Page 2 January 26, 2009: Watershed Dynamics contacted Deb Barker, City of Federal Way, requesting a meeting to discuss findings and other project related issues. Deb returned call on January 27' to schedule meeting on January 29, 2009. January 29, 2009: Watershed Dynamics met Deb Barker at the City along with Gian and Inderjet Singh. The issue of wetland buffers was discussed since the other studies in the City's files suggested the western edge of the wetland was in a different location than either the City's wetland inventory map or the delineation Watershed Dynamics had completed. Deb deferred further discussion untirmed the location of the l after the City's consultant had reviewed the Critical Areas Report and confi wetland boundary. Deb also indicated discussion related to the stream classification would have to be deferred until after the City's consultant completed its review. January 29, 2009: Watershed Dynamics contacted Sewall Wetland Consultants to discuss the wetland study completed on the Williams (PBC) property located immediately north of the Singh property. Aaron Wills reviewed their files and provided some background data. Aaron indicated the City's consultant (Sheldon & Associates) reviewed the wetland study prepared for PBC. Aaron indicated further the City's consultant would not accept the wetland boundary as delineated, despite the fact the delineation was based on the absence of wetland hydrology. The consultant told Aaron their study would not be accepted unless the boundary was moved to the west, closer to the toe of the slope, as shown on the City's wetland inventory map (which had been prepared by Sheldon & Associates). Aaron indicated he had no choice but to comply and modified his report so the project PBC could move forward. [See additional notes dated 05111109 in File #2) February 20, 2009: Watershed Dynamics visited the project site and excavated 4 new soil pits to evaluate wetland hydrology. The soil pits were located approximately along the north property Iine starting 150 feet east of the toe of the slope adjacent to Military Road S and extending east approximately 185 feet. The toe of the slope adjacent to Military Road S. was the western boundary of the wetland mapped on the City's wetland inventory map. At the sample point I50 feet east of the toe of slope the soil was moist but not saturated from the ground surface to a depth approximately 20 inches below the ground surface. Another 85 feet east of that point, the soil was moist but not saturated from the ground surface to approximately 19 inches below the ground surface. At the next Point, approximately I00 feet further east, the soil was saturated from 16 inches to 20 inches below the ground surface (using the squeeze test), but there was no standing water 20 inches below the ground surface. Finally, at the last sample point was approximately 100 feet further east (approximately 5 feet east of the wet&md boundary delineated by Watershed Dynamics in May 2008) the soil was saturated from 16 inches to 20 inches below the ground surface, but there was no standing water in the test bole at the depth of 20 inches. Watershed Dynamics checked the precipitation data at SeaTac Airport {available on the No�,4 yneb site} and found precipitation in the area was within the normal range (plus or minus 30% of 20 year average}. This field evidence affirmed the data collected in May 2008. April 10, 2009: The FINAL Critical Areas Report is completed and ready for submittal. When the document was delivered to the City, Watershed Dynamics was told the City required a site plan showing the proposed land use action had to be submitted with the report before the City could initiate its review. The City also indicated Paul Morrow, PLS had to provide signatures on a submittal form verifying the survey prepared by DMP and included in the final report was correct. April 20, 2009: Watershed Dynamics met with DMP staff and Mr. Singh to develop a conceptual site plan showing the proposed land use on the property. April 22, 2009: The FINAL Critical Areas Report was delivered to the City along with a proposed sand use action showing multi -family dwellings (apartments) superimposed on the DMP's site survey. City indicated we need to schedule a Pre -Application meeting to officially submit the plans and reports for review. Page 3 April 30, 2009: Hans Korve (Planner, DMP) attended Pre -Application meeting at the City. Hans notified Watershed Dynamics and the Singh's regarding the need to meet and discuss the results of the Pre -Application meeting. May 7, 2009: Watershed Dynamics met with Gian and Inderjet Singh, Paul Morrow, and Hans Korve to discuss the outcome of the April 30, 2009 Pre -Application meeting. We discussed additional items that needed to be completed before meeting a second time with the City. Hans indicated the City would not allow apartments, as were shown on the April 24th site plan, on the property. Condominiums and duplexes would be allowed. We discussed having Ed Sewall and Rick Williams at the next meeting with the City. May 11, 2009: Watershed Dynamics contacted Ed Sewall who agreed to meet with the City. Ed confirmed the information Aaron Wills provided and indicated their original delineation was closer to the stream and to the area where my delineation was located. Gian Singh agreed to pay Ed's cost for participating. May 15, 2009: City accepted submittal of Critical Areas Report and indicated the next step was to arrange for submittal review by the City's consultant. May 22, 2009: City of Federal Way forwarded a proposed scope of work for the required review to and requests an estimate of fees from ESA Aldofson. June 12, 2009: Hans Korve (DMP) received a memo from the City indicating their consultant had provided an estimate -of -fees for reviewing the Critical Areas Report and conducting a field review. Hans also received an e-mail from Matt Herrara (City Planner) regarding an apparent conflict between page 14 and page 23 of the Critical Areas Report. June 16, 2009: Watershed Dynamics sent proposed I-cvisionsto Hans Korve for review. June 17, 2009: Hans e-mailed the revisions were okay. June 19, 2009: Watershed Dynamics forwarded five copies of each of the revised pages (page 14 and pages 23 though 25) to Hans Korve to replace the existing pages in the five copies of the report. June 19, 2009: Hans received a copy of the City's contract from Mr. Singh. The contract was signed and a check was attached to set up the "pass -through" account at the City. Hans will delivered the signed contract, the check, and the revised report pages to Matt Herrera. Hans called to confirm delivery and indicated the City stated ESA Adolfson would have their review completed and comments back to the City by July 6, 2009. July 8, 2009: ESA Adolson staff conducted field review at site. July 20, 2009: Hans Korve received a memo from the City of Federal Way with ESA Adolfson's July 9, 2009 memo (review comments) attached. ESA Aldofson concluded the wetland boundary should be located west of the location delineated by Watershed Dynamics, but was not specific with regard to how far west the boundary should be, other than to suggest it was not as far west as the boundary shown on the City's wetland inventory. The memo stated they found no distinct break Between the spirealwillow and the spirealbiackberry plant communities. They also stated the stream survey had indicated areas with grades steeper than 10%, but failed to note whether these steep areas were natural or human -trade. Watershed Dynamics had included numerous photographs of these area as well as other portions of the channel, but that was apparently insufficient evidence for the ESA Adoifson reviewers. July 29, 2009: A field review conducted with Larry Burnstad (Watershed Dynamics), Ed Sewall (Sewall Wetland Consultants), Lizzie Zempke (ESA Adolfson), Matt Herrera (City of Federal Way), and Hans Korve (DMP). Page 4 July 29, 2009: Following field review there was a wrap-up discussion at the site. With respect to the wetland delineation, Ms. Zemke was insistent there was evidence the wetland boundary was further west than the delineation completed by Watershed Dynamics. Her opinion was based in the fact she observed evidence of wetland hydrology in a soil pit located approximately 70 feet to 84 feet west of the reported boundary. Her evidence was soil moisture at a depth of minus 13 inches to minus 1S inches. Larry Burnstad and Ed Sewell confirmed there was moisture, but not saturation, and further observed the soil to be dry below minus 15 inches. Ms. Zemke was unwilling to accept the explanation offered by both Larry Burnstad and Ed Sewall that the soil band (layer) between minus 13 inches and minus 15 inches was less permeable (mote compact) and had possibly trapped precipitation that infiltrated following a extremely high volume thunder storm that had wetted the area a few days prior to this site visit. She was also unwilling to accept the evidence of dry hole that was closer to the reported boundary than the hole she insisted was `vet". One point of agreement was the wetland boundary was cast of the boundary shown on the City's wetland inventory map by between 150 feet and 200 feet. The only question that remained to be resolved was the location of the wetland boundary that could be accepted by ATMs. Zemke (ESA Adolfson). A second point of agreement was the delineation difficulties caused by the mixed plant community and the lack of consistent hydrology throughout the site. After further discussion, Watershed Dynamics made the suggestion to study wetland hydrology during normal precipitation conditions to allow boundary establishment based on verifiable wetland hydrology for a period of 14 consecutive days during the growing season. ESA Adolfson agreed to that approach and, at the City's direction, Watershed Dynamics was tasked with preparing a wetland hydrology study plan to be reviewed and approved by ESA Adolfson, on behalf of the City. In addition to discussing the wetland boundary issues, the stream classification was discussed. It was agreed to be an unfortunate twist in the City's regulation that a fish passage barrier had to be a "natural" rather than human -made barrier because it was clear to everyone at the meeting that the siphon culvert at S. 288 Street would never be altered to allow fish passage given the limited viable habitat upstream of that culvert. After some discussion and a review of the feld data presented in the Critical Areas Report, the City and Ms. Zemke agreed that the section of Bingamen Creek upstream of S. 288 h Street should be classified as a Minor rather than Major Stream. August 17, 2009: Watershed Dynamics prepared a memo to Mr. Singh summarizing the results of the July 29, 2009 meeting and offered explanation related to a proposed hydrology Study needed to define the location of the western boundary of the on -site wetland. There was also a discussion regarding a proposal fora "compromise" boundary located between the boundary delineated by Watershed Dynamics and that proposed by ESA Aldolfson. The latter proposal was to be presented to the City in an effort to expedite a decision by the City (which included an offer to allow buffer reduction with enhancement) and avoid the high costs associated with a hydrology study. September 3, 2009: DMP received a copy of memo from ESA Adolfson to Matt Herrera, Planner, City of Federal Way, indicating the wetland boundary delineated by Watershed Dynamics was not acceptable and recommending the wetland delineation be redone to include the moist soil area found during the July 29, 2009 field review. There was no mention of the proposed hydrology study or the discussion related to the stream classification. September 9, 2009: DMP received a memo from Matt Herrera outlining the City's decision to concur with the ESA Adolfson recommendations. The City's memo, reinforced by a telephone conversation between Matt Herrera and Larry Burnstad, suggested the need to expand the study area to include the properties north and south of the Singh property because the City has to include those wetland areas shown on their wetland inventory map as part of the area calculation used to determine the wetland category. Page 5 Without further study, the wetland area is over 1 acre in size making it a Category H Wetland requiring a 100-foot buffer. During the phone conversation the issue of wetland buffers is discussed. It was agreed that leaving the wetland boundaries on the properties adjacent to the Singh property would result in buffers that extended from those properties onto the Sin Property, constraining or eliminating any development options. p p p �'' severely h September 14, 2009: Watershed Dynamics prepared a draft memo to Matt Herrera regarding te information lacking in the September 3, 2009 ESA Adolfson memo and the September 8, 20p9 City of Federal Way memo. In addition, Watershed Dynamics provided a brief description of a proposed hydrology study on the Singh property as well as the other four properties affected by the wetland boundary as defined on the City's wetland inventory map. Watershed Dynamics indicated a detailed proposal as well as permission documents from the neighboring properties would be forwarded to the City as soon as possible so the study could commence in January 2010. September 16, 2009: Larry Burnstad (Watershed Dynamics) forwarded a copy of the September 14, 2009 draft memo to Ed Sewall (Sewall Wetland Consulting) for review and comment. September 21, 2009: Ed Sewall sent an e-mail to Larry Burnstad indicating concurrence with the proposed hydrology study. Ed also included a note about the stream classification change being left out of the of the September 3. 2009 ESA Adolfson memo to Matt Herrera and the September 8, 2009 memo from Matt Herrera to Hans Korve (DW). Watershed Dynamics finalized memo with September 16, 2009 date and sent the memo to Matt Herrera, September 28, 2009: Watershed Dynamics forwarded a copy of the final September 16, 2009 memo regarding the proposed hydrology study to Mr. Singh. October 2009 through May 2010: Watershed Dynamics, with assistance from Ed Sewall, prepared a hydrology study proposal. The proposal included an estimate of the total project costs as well as a cost per land owner based on square footage of property within the stud area. In addition, Larry and Ed worked on contacting the land owners to enlist their participation in the study. Following their review, Gian and Inderjet Singh agreed the study was needed, but were reluctant to move forward without participation by the other property owners. During this eight month period Watershed from the SeaTac International Airport weather station as Dynamics collected precipitation data reported on the NOAA web site. Unable to get other land owner participation and determining the precipitation was below normal, Watershed Dynamics advised Mr. Singh to stop work on the proposed hydrology study until late fall to early winter 2010. October 2010 through February 2011: Watershed Dynamics renewed efforts to enlist study Participation by the adjacent land owners. This effort was unsuccessful. In addition, precipitation data from the SeaTac weather station indicated precipitation was way above normal. March 3, 2011: Larry Burnstad met with Matt Herrera, Gin Singh, and Inderjet Singh to discuss what should be done to finalize the location of the wetland boundary since the effort to complete hydrology study had been unsuccessful. An agreement was reached to revisit the idea of a compromise boundary and bring ESA Adolfson into a discussion regarding that possibility. April 27, 2011: Watershed Dynamics prepared and submitted a memo to the City regarding the proposal for a compromise wetland boundary located between the boundary delineated by Watershed Dynamics in 2008 and the location of the boundary recommended by ESA Adolfson in 2009. July 21, 2011: Watershed Dynamics met with the City to discuss the process by which the "compromise" boundary could be set. Larry Burnstad and Matt Herrera developed a proposed scope of work for ESA Adolfson to participate in the process. Page 6 The proposed scope included (1) a review of the April 27, 2011 memo from Watershed Dynamics to the City and (2) field time to work with Watershed Dynamics to set the compromise boundary. Matt Herrera indicated he would formalize the proposal and forward it to ESA Adolfson. August 1, 2011: Matt Herrera forwarded a Wetland Consultant Authorization Form to Gian and Inderjet Singh and requested their signature and a payment in the amount of $2,040.00 to initiate work on the proposed boundary compromise by ESA Adolfson. August 10, 2011: City sent a memo to Gian and Inderjet Singh acknowledging receipt of their payment and the establishment of a "draw -down" (pass -through} fund to allow ESA Ado to proceed with their work. November 4, 2011: City of Federal Way forwarded a memo to ESA Adolfson indicating the funds were available to proceed with their review. The April 27, 2011 memo from Watershed Dynamics to the City, which proposes two options with respect to a compromise boundary, was attached to this memo. November 15, 2011: ESA Adolfson submited their review comments to the City. They recommended denial of Alternative A based on their interpretation that the City's code would not allow the wetland boundary to be established in the manner proposed by Watershed indicate a willingness to support Alternative B so long as the six conditions listed in the memo could be met. One of those conditions is full cooperation by the neighboring property owners, which to date has not been forthcoming. In addition to their discussion related to the two alternatives proposed in the April 27, 2010 memo, ESA Adolfson raised several other issues related to their site visit and subsequent memos in 2009. The memo discussed precipitation in the months prior to their site visit in July 2009, including a statement the precipitation records indicate a drier than average spring and summer. This information was included to support their conclusion that moisture in the soil layer 13 inches to 15 inches below the ground surface was indicative of wetland hydrology. There is no mention of our discussion in the field on duly 29, 2009 where Ed Sewall and Larry Burnstad both pointed out the difference in permeability of that band of compacted soil, the 100% dry soil above the 13 inches and below the 15 inches to a depth of 20 inches, the requirement for evidence of saturation or inundation in the upper 12 inches of the soil column for a period of 14 consecutive days during periods of normal rainfall, or the extreme precipitation event that occurred 3 to S days prior to the field investigation. Additionally, a review of the precipitation data presented in the memo indicates the precipitation at the SeaTac International Airport weather station was within the normal range during March, April, and May. Upon further review, Watershed Dynamics determined the accumulated precipitation between October 1, 2008 and May 31, 2009 was slightly above normal rather than the "drier than average" reported by ESA Adolfson in the memo. Finally, in the last paragraph of the first page of their memo, the subject of the stream classification is raised and the statement is made that the evidence presented in the Critical Areas Report prepared by Watershed Dynamics was inclusive and that additional information was need to change the stream classification. This was a surprise since the conclusion of the discussion about the stream during the July 29, 2009 field review was that the portion of Bingamen Creek upstream of S. 288`h Street should be reclassified as a Minor Stream. A representative of ESA Adolfson was present during that discussion. November 29, 2011: Larry Burnstad contacted Matt Herrera to discuss the ESA Adolfson memo. Matt indicated the memo was a draft and that he would be sending comments back to ESA Adolfson. He indicated he would forward a final copy of the memo to me as soon as it was available. Page 7 Mr. Burnstad requested a meeting with the City and ESA Adoli'so�i to discuss the memo. Matt indicated he would try to schedule a meeting before December 16, 2U 1 1. November 29, 2011: Larry Burnstad contacted Mr. Singh to report the project status. December 8, 2011: A meeting. was held at the City of Federal Way to discuss the Singh project. Matt Herrera (City of Federal Way), Lizzie Zemke (ESA Aldofson), Gian Singh, and Inderjet Singh attended the meeting. The first topic was the classification of Bingamen Creek upstream of S. 288'h Street. Lizzie insisted she did not have enough information to make a recommendation about reclassifying the stream. When asked what additional information was required she indicated she would have to review the report again and get back to Matt regarding the additional information needed. So, at that point the stream, reclassification issue remained unresolved. The second topic was the wetland boundary delineation. There was a lengthy discussion about the compromise boundary, which Lizzie insisted would not work. Ms_ Zemke also insisted a new delineation had to be completed because she was unwilling to accept the original delineation without additional information. Matt concluded he could not make any decisions that were not supported by ESA Adolfson's recommendations and suggested the only way the project could move forward was to complete the hydrology study and use the study results to define the wetland boundary location. January 2012 through October 2012: Very little progress was made toward resolving the wetland boundary issue. There were numerous discussions with the City of Federal Way. Finally, in mid - October, the City determined that it would be in the best interest of all concerned to meet with the Washington Department of Ecology at the site to review the project and discuss thriate approach going forward, e most approp November 20, 2012: A site meeting was convened to review the existing conditions and discuss the best approach to concluding the Critical Areas Determination. In attendance were Patrick McGraner, Wetland Specialist, WDOW; Paul Anderson, Wetland owner; Issas Conlen, Planning Director, City of FedSpecialist, WDOE; Rick Williams, property Dynamics. eral Way; and Larry Burnstad, Watershed Patrick and Paul excavated soil pits at two locations in the western portion of the property. The first was approximately halfway between the stream channel and the toe of the slope on the west side of the property. The second pit was in approximately the same location as one of the pits evaluated during the July 29, 2009 field review. Patrick and Paul concluded the first sample point was not indicative of wetland habitat. At the second pit, they found both hydric soils and standing water approximately eight inches below the ground surface. It was raining at the time of our visit, which prompted a discussion regarding whether or not the precipitation conditions were "normal" and would the wetland hydrology persist for 14 consecutive days during a period of normal precipitation. NOTE: Subsequent evaluation of NOAA 's precipitation records for the SeaTac International Airport weather station indicated precipitation during the latter paranuary t of October 2012 and continuing through mid�I2013 was greater Than 130% of normal. This means that the observed hydrology on November 20'h occurred at a time when precipitation was well above normal, NOAA data revealed that 2.59 " inches of precipitation was recorded between November 18'6 and November 20'h' The data indicated that 2.13 of precipitation was recorded on November 19, 2009, the day before our field visit on the morning of November 20, 2012. We had an additional discussion regarding the use of Himalayan blackberry as an indicator species. Paul indicated the Corps supplemental manual would not allow Himalayan blackberry to be used, which meant that Spirea douglasii, a wetland indicator species, was the dominant species at the sample point. The presence of wetland hydrology, hydric soils (which was not disputed), and the dominance of wetland plants suggested the sample point was in wetland habitat. Page 8 Patrick did mention that one of the ways by which Himalayan blackberry, can be used as an indicator is if all of the vegetation is removed ante blackb�ive upland species, dominant species. rry returns as the NOTE: There is a section of the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) May 2010 that refers to "aggressive invasive plants" as a potential problem with regard to wetland delineation (see Page 99 through Page 109 wj1h particular attent On to Page 105 Section and page 1 Q8 Section 5.� f, The use of Himalayan blackberry is as an indicator species is not specifcally excluded, but rather determination. there is a "warning"' that invasive plants generally can be misleading when making a wetland habitat Several suggestions are made to avoid erroneous conclusions, including the removal of the invasive species with reevaluation the following growing season and the use of reference sites for comparison. 1n addition, Section 5 an Page 108 suggests evaluation of wetland hydrology to determine if the dominant plant community is present during periods of prolonged inundation or saturation during the early (or wet) part of the growing season in years with "normal" precipitation. Page 9 o �5 1.D2, non WATERSHED DYNAMICS Post Office Box 215, Enumclaw, Washington TEL 360.825.9253 FAX 360.825.9248 DATE: June 9, 2014 HARD COPY SENT: X YES E-MAIL: NO patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov COPY SENT: TRANSMITTAL NO PAGES SENT INCLUDING COVER PAGE: 3 SUBJECT: 15 plus Attac hments Summary Report — Critical Areas Review and Hydrology Study Mr. Patrick R. McGraner, Wetland Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program TO: Northwest .Regional Office, Washington State Department of Ecology 3190 — 160 Avenue SE Bellevue, Washin on 98008-5452 FROM: Larry D. Burnstad, Senior Environmental Consultant PROJECT NAME: Singh/Williams Critical Areas Review PROJECT WD-2007026 — Critical Areas Review NUMBER: WD-2013002 - Hvdrninaw QI-I.A., INTRODUCTION To begin, I want to thank both you and Paul Anderson for your assistance with this project and for meeting with me on April 29, 2014 to discuss the most recent hydrology study results. As we all agreed, determination of the wetland boundary within the Singh/Williams project site has been difficult for a variety of reasons, not the least of which has been the indicator contradictions between the soils and plant communities on the site. As I indicated during our meeting, I was at a Ioss regarding how to best present the information gathered over story„ from the beginning, relating each of the steps taken by Watershed Dynamics the past 6 years. By the close of meeting, we had agreed the best way to present the information was to "tell the conclusion regarding the location of the wetland boundary within the subject propertiand others to reach the current and PURPOSE The purpose of this memo is to summarize the activities undertaken by Watershed Dynamics in its effort to define the wetland boundary on four properties located in Federal Way, Washington (see Figure I and Figure 2). BACKGROUND INFORMATION Proiect Location The project area is located on the east side of Military Road South between South 288'h Street and South 196`s Place in Federal Way, Washington (see Figure 1). Although the project initially involved only the Singh tax parcel, the study area ultimately included four separate tax parcels. 'This decision was made because the location of the wetland boundary dictated the location of the outer edge of the wetland buffer. Without defining the location of the wetland boundary, to the north and south of the Singh Property, the only wetland boundary the City could use on those properties ro the north and south was that winch was shown on the City's existing wetland inventory map. That would have resulted in wetland buffer which would have extended over the entire Singh property. From a development perspective, the Sin ro e limited by critical areas that would prevent any viable development of the roe P P rty would still be The four properties, which abut one another north to south, are bound on their west side by Military and on their east side by Bingaman Creek, which is a tributary to the Green River {see Figure 2InfRoadormation related to the subject tax parcels is provided below with the northernmost property listed first: Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner — June 9, 2014 — Page 1 N 1 534V,IFtlF '• S}AV I,1kc _ BOTH CT E11 166iS ^LQ 1 �\ S'If 111B5 / + Sid Hlp S �, JJs 5 e1LLBS Nt j1j7 3mI?� S Q ul `' N -!L y\ \ y kn' '-5µp45 I � •,i, ,LVaSNCT 5 .`� Sid 1/L5 ljypp SSTH FLS 5 h m .AT" STd 111:5 513 Hy+, d � � 53Ab4ffiS STriOffiS aT�• Sb �$. � 4"s may' N ii STd GhL �a /-1 STd{Sty s3Atl cAA 4 , � i N h+� s'dlslS m o rV sue. L5,5 S3ry I11D' rq IIIg---' s'd lrl05 " I�1 S s5tl 17169 51ZI111g5 k HWs �� N 5 S3AVl,1Ba S-d Hlb9 ^ n5514LH9 O n11R5 rt sad IU1: off` Sa'IV K7 ril ++ O 11}gr m STdlilBr O $ 3'dIr1W 0 - S3AV171ge 53IN Hl[: y P' STd ltlLa CC N STd N159 .� U O � 5 N,elsr S�j Hla9 STd lfjy9 S Nov ILL" U S3AVuIS, sx 4tlL: N wTH FIs q it 4: '•Ci r�l S 3AV CAZ9 '_ ,,yy c7 d 5--Atl.t'L: CV S . cl,m 53AV lSl: ti R In n n r S slalsl9 �l 51 v 1llp: M 53Ab I1109 S 3AV NlbC 53AVIrld' �l S7d,119e �^ O = S3AVIr1R ?S � O _ p. N s7d�, r£ � y S3AV Ir1eG a S s S'2 N1R y+ N • IT T:`HAVFS n %TH AVFs g' S3AV1,1 s i d! -'AV HliE- C 7 N � 3 S 3AV 1U" U [V m UTH CT o, h OGT N )I LV S 3�y ❑ ell's 3Atl IrUC H J x n �Rri S"i'QhYt '�^ ri1 O S3hvatTC x p� s-'d 1SlG m c9 N N STd '• �Cd U,,M N Shy al WW 9 S JN IIlIX' V b w S 3.qV I:1Bi F S3AVIrlLG ti ry SidltlPl. CIO P•fE5 SWIfin I--! Sid,rLK ,gS,PQ•I e•P 8� r' _ S ,d IIlLL I l 1 'A 767H N--5 .yam S_AV Iua _> I 1• y = i,TH AVES { . 53/NI, �.P `5 25fH FL5 Qy ! V. .S 4 9 A' Y 5 •v � S Td 1r1Y y, OLDh,,,.,RY RD 5 s3nvl,lac s_ STd I:lSy , by � SJiV H1Z � S o IiyQ ry 53Atl QhtZ � 3Td affiZ S3AV Uln S4 � � � y - A n •c S3AVGffiS Y. G s3ry QNzz ti G 53AV Gtl[Z N Williams Property r Singh Property 46. rot" 4 Hart Property Sakai Property �� 10.40 t' +'r " i. e, 7P% - "a- .01 } Midway Samoan Assembly Properties id Rf Its, — - Camelot Square r - , , N v - I �* Mobile Home Park t X Y LiWWMb&'+\ �r + �'•i ••'f7' r FIGURE 2: Tax Parcet/Ownership Map — Study Area Outlined in Red Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner —.dune 9, 2014 — Page 3 Tax Parcel No. 042109-9062 Parcel Size: 2.51 acres (29.6% of Study Area) Owned by: Professional Building Contractors Contact: Mr. Rick Williams 19904 Des Moines Memorial Drive Seattle, Washington 98148 Tax Parcel No. 042109-9172 Parcel Size: 2.32 acres (27.3% of Study Area) Owned by: Gian and Inderjit Singh Contact: Mr. Gian Singh 29830 —18th Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003-4202 Tax Parcel No. 042109-9149 Parcel Size: 1.67 acres (19.7% of Study Area) Owned by: Brian Hart Contact: Mr. Brian Hart 29250 Military Road South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Tax Parcel No. 042109-9063 Parcel Size: 1.99 acres (23.4% of Study Area) Owned by: Midway Samoan Assembly of God Contact: The Pastor 29726 Military Road South Federal Way, Washington 98003 CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS The following is a description of the pertinent milestones that occurred from the time Watershed Dynamics was first contacted regarding a critical areas review of the Singh property to the present. Some of the events that occurred during that time period have not been included because they were not significant to the course of events or to the ultimate outcome. August 6, 2007: Watershed Dynamics contacted by Mr. Shailesh Tatu, P.E., on behalf of Mr. Gian Singh, requesting a proposal for conducting a Critical Areas Review and preparing a Critical Areas Report for Tax Parcel no. 042104-9172 in Federal Way, Washington. August 25, 2007: Watershed Dynamics reviewed pertinent wetland and soils information available on the internet at the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) website and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS) website. Information regarding a wetland inventory was also collected from the City of Federal Way internet site. August 26, 2007: Watersled Dynamics conducted a preliminary site visit and found: ■ A relatively flat area approximately 10 feet to 25 feet wide (west to east) adjacent to Military Road South. ■ Adjacent to the east side of the flat area was a steep slope extending eastward approximately 80 feet to 160 feet. This area was vegetated with upland tree, shrub, and ground cover species. ■ From the toe -of -slope eastward for approximately 300 feet to 400 feet the ground was essentially flat and dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) and evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus) with willow (Salix sp.) and spiraea (Spiraea douglasii) visible along the eastern edge. ■ The blackberries were too thick to allow access to the east side of the property. That side of the property was viewed from the end of Dinidan Ct. and Gawain Ct. in Camelot Park, which the development to the east of the Singh property. August 27, 2007: Watershed Dynamics provided a Proposed Scope -of -Work and an Estimate -of -Fees to Mr. Tatu. This proposal included a recommendation to delay the actual field investigations until February 2008 to avoid potential issues associated with a "dry season" investigation at this site. Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner — June 9, 2014 — Page 4 • March 12, 2008: Mr. Singh contacted the City of Federal Way (City) to request an Administrative Decision regarding wetland boundary within Tax Parcel No. 042104-9172. The City indicated Mr. Singh would need to complete and submit a critical areas study with his proposed site plans. The City also 1 indicated Mr. Singh could remove blackberry bushes as needed to afford access for the critical areas scientific investigation and site survey. • April 5, 2008: Mr. Singh contacted Watershed Dynamics requesting consulting services related to j conducting a Critical Areas Review. ■ April 21, 2008: Watershed Dynamics conducted preliminary site visit with Mr. Singh and provided information regarding where the trails should be cut through the blackberries for access during the critical areas study. ■ Watershed Dynamics stopped at the City Planning Department to pick up a copy of the portion of the City's Wetland Inventory Map showing the Singh property. ■ The City's map indicated the presence of a Category II Wetland extending from the toe -of -slope on the west side to the stream channel on the east side of the subject property. The map indicated the wetland extended north across Tax Parcel No. 042104-9062 and south across Tax Parcel No. 042104-9149 and Tax Parcel No. 042104-9063. • April 30, 2008: Watershed Dynamics received signed contract from Mr. Singh and requested Mr. Singh arrange to have the trails cut through the blackberries to provide access. • May 5, 2008: Watershed Dynamics reviewed precipitation data recorded at the NOAA Weather Station at SeaTac International Airport. The records for January through April 2008 indicated slightly below normal but within -30% of normal precipitation. • May 7, 2008: Watershed Dynamics, with assistance from Cooper Environmental, completed a field investigation within the Singh property. ■ Based on the City's wetland map, it was necessary to begin the field investigation at the toe -of - slope on the west side of the site a evaluate conditions across the entire site. ■ Following the trail adjacent to the north property line sample plots were established every 40 feet to 60 feet starting at the base of the slope on the west side of the property and continuing to within 25 feet to 50 feet of the stream channel bordering the east side of the property. ■ Each sample point, starting at the toe -of -slope and extending eastward approximately 275 feet to 350 feet, was evaluated to determine dominant plant species, hydrology, and soils. ✓ The dominant plant species were blackberry (Himalayan and evergreen) with a few dead or dying spirea. ✓ The few trees present were domestic apple and cherry trees as well as English holly. ✓ There was no evidence of wetland hydrology in the upper 12 to 18 inches of the soil column. ✓ Mineral soils were present in the soil pits closest to the toe -of -slope, but the soil became more organic in the sample pits further to the east. ✓ The plant community and hydrology observed were indicative of upland (non -wetland) habitat. f ✓ The organic soil (peat) was, however, indicative of wetland habitat. J ✓ Contradictory indicators, but based on hydrology Watershed Dynamics indicated the sample point was located within non -wetland habitat. 1 ■ At the sample point SP-050708-01 located in the northeast portion of the property approximate 80 Jfeet west of the stream channel (see Attachment A: Site Survey), the plant community was dominated by dead spiraea with blackberry and English holly sprouting adjacent to and within the clumps of dead spiraea. 1 ✓ The soil was organic and saturated between 3 inches and 8 inches below the ground surface. J ✓ Soil and hydrologic indicators put this sample point in wetland habitat. ✓ The plant community indicated the sample point was in non -wetland habitat. J ✓ Contradictory indicators, but based on hydrology Watershed Dynamics indicated the sample point was located within wetland habitat. ■ Approximately 40 feet west of SP-050708-01, sample point SP-050708-02 (see Attachment A: Site Survey) was evaluated. ✓ All three parameters were indicative of non -wetland habitat. Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner — June 9, 2014 — Page 5 ■ Evaluation of the three parameters at a third sample point SP-050708-03, located in the south central portion of the property approximately 40 feet from the eastern boundary (see Attachment A: Site Survey), were also indicative of wetland habitat. • A fourth sample point SP-050708-04, approximately 15 feet west of the fourth point (see Attachment A: Site Survey), was found to be located in non -wetland habitat. ■ The last sample point (SP-050708-05), located in the southeast comer of the property (see Attachment A: Site Survey), was indicative of wetland habitat. ■ Based on the field evidence, the wetland boundary was established between the wetland and non - wetland sample points (see Attachment A: Site Survey). • May 13, 2008: Watershed Dynamics met with Mr. Singh and presented the May 7, 2008 field evaluation results. In addition, Watershed Dynamics advised the client to arrange a preliminary meeting with the City because the field results were radically different than the City's wetland inventory map. • May 15, 2008: Watershed Dynamics stopped at the City's planning department and requested information regarding the process used to prepare their wetland inventory map. The planner indicated the information would be provided as soon as possible. • June 11, 2008: Watershed Dynamics receives e-mail from the Senior Planner at the City with one field data sheet attached. During a follow-up phone conversation Watershed Dynamics learned the inventory was based on aerial photo interpretation with a minor amount of "ground—truthing". A single field data sheet was provided by the City as the "ground-truthing" for the wetland associated with the Singh property. ■ Further investigation yielded information regarding the location of the sample plot used to categorize the entire flat area within the Singh property, as well as the adjacent properties to the north and south, as a Category H Wetland. ■ The sample point was located in the "stream" corridor (east of the Singh property) and approximately 25 feet north-northeast of the northeast comer of the Singh property at the end of Gawain Ct. in Camelot Park. ■ The sample point was in an area indicative of wetland habitat, but was not indicative of the habitat west of the wetland boundary delineated by Watershed Dynamics on May 7, 2008. ■ August 14, 2008: Watershed Dynamics met with City of Federal Way staff to discuss the results of the May 7, 2008 field investigation as well as the disparity between the City's wetland inventory and those results. Wetland buffers were discussed and Watershed Dynamics suggested a 25-foot enhanced buffer would be appropriate. ■ The City indicated the wetland category had to be based on the entire wetland and not just on the portion of that wetland on the Singh property. The City also indicated the association with a "Major" stream was considered when the wetland category was determined. ■ Watershed Dynamics suggested the May 7, 2008 findings indicated the actual wetland was not as large as the wetland mapped on the inventory map. ■ Watershed Dynamics asked the City to consider administratively moving the entire western wetland boundary to the east based on the May 7, 2008 findings. ■ The City indicated they would only consider that after Watershed Dynamics collected data in the early part of the growing season in 2009. There was no mention of collecting data on the properties to the north or south of the Singh property. ✓ Additionally, the City indicated the minimum buffer width would extend 100 feet westward from the ordinary high water mark of "stream" adjacent to Singh's east property line. ✓ The buffer width was based on the stream (Bingaman Creek) being classified on the City's Stream Inventory Map as a "Major" stream, meaning the stream had salmonid use in the area adjacent to the Singh property. ■ Watershed Dynamics provided the City with information from a stream survey conducted for the Federal Way Water and Sewer District in 1994 indicating salmonids could not pass upstream of 46t' Avenue South due to natural and human -made barriers to fish passage, including a "shotgun" culvert under 46'h Avenue South. ✓ Additionally, Watershed Dynamics provided information indicating electro-shocking data showing no fish being captured upstream of approximately 50'h Avenue South (which does not cross the stream channel). Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner — June 9, 2014 — Page 6 ■ Watershed Dynamics suggested the stream should be reclassified as a Minor Stream upstream of Bingaman Creek. ■ The City indicated the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife had found sahnonids between Bingaman Pond and I-5. Watershed Dynamics acknowledged that and explained that trout had been planted in Bingaman Pond in past years, but those fish were unable to migrate upstream of I- 5 because the culvert under I-5 was an impassable barrier. ■ The City indicated they would consider reclassifying Bingaman Creek upstream of 46th Avenue SE if Watershed Dynamics conducted a new stream survey and included those results in the forthcoming Critical Areas Report. August 17, 2008: DMP Engineering and Surveying surveyed the Singh property boundaries and included the May 7, 2008 wetland delineation boundary as well as the sample point locations in that survey (see Attachment A: Site Survey). August 19, 2008: Watershed Dynamics received information from the City Engineering Department verifying the presence of a siphon culvert under South 28e Street. ■ That culvert, which is located in Bingaman Creek upstream of I-5 and downstream of the Singh property, is a complete harrier to upstream fish passage. • The City was, however, still going to require a new stream survey because the human -made barriers could be replaced or altered to allow fish passage. ■ NOTE: At this poin4 Watershed Lynam ics indicated to the City that the probability of the culvert under South 288`h Street being replaced to allow fish passage was extremely low given other higher priority projects within the Green River watershed and the lack of viable fish habitat upstream of 1-5. Watershed Dynamics also mentioned the other impassable culverts at 1-5, 35'h Avenue South, 45 Avenue South, and 4e Avenue South would be in the same category. September 30, 2008 through October 6, 2008: Watershed Dynamics conducted a stream survey of the 3,772 linear feet of stream channel from 46� Avenue South downstream to 55h Avenue South. • The change in elevation and direction was recorded along with descriptions of habitat throughout the study area. • Photographs were taken in various locations. ■ Notes were made of aquatic macroinvertebrates observed in the lower portions of the stream. • Juvenile salmonids were observed approximately Soo feet to 1,000 feet upstream of 551` Avenue South, but no fish were observed in the upper 2,772 feet to 2,972 feet of stream channel. No fish were observed in the stream channel between the outlet of Bingaman Pond and 46`h Avenue South. No fish were observed between I-5 and Bingaman Pond. ■ No fish were observed between South 288" Street and I-5. No fish were observed between Military Road South and South 288 h Street. February 20, 2009: As requested by the City, Watershed Dynamics visited the Singh property to evaluate conditions during the early part of the growing season. Sample points were investigated along the north Property line. ■ Approximately 150 feet to 160 feet east of the east edge of pavement on Military Read and adjacent to the north property line a sample point was evaluated. All three parameters were indicative on non -wetland habitat. ■ Another sample point approximately 90 feet to 100 feet to the east of the first sample point was evaluated. Hydric soils (organic) were present, but the plant community and hydrology were not indicative of wetland habitat. ■ A third sample point was evaluated approximately 90 feet to I00 feet east of the previous point. ■ Soils were hydric, but the plant community and Hydrology were indicative of non -wetland habitat. A fourth sample point was located approximately 10 feet to 15 feet north of SP-050708-02. ✓ The Plant community was not dominated by wetland plants, but there were clumps of dead spiraea and dormant blackberry patches near the sample point, ✓ The soil was hydric (and organic) and there was saturated soil at 16 inches to 20 inches below the ground surface. ✓ The new data did not provide sufficient evidence to warrant changing the wetland boundary delineated in 2008. Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner — June 9, 2014 — Page 7 ■ A quick assessment of SP-050708-01, which was deemed to be located in wetland habitat in 2008, revealed conditions similar to those observed in 2008, but slightly wetter. April 10, 2009: Watershed Dynamics submitted a Critical Areas Report to the City. This report included all of the wetland data collected in 2008 and 2009 as well as the stream survey data collected in 2008. The City forwarded the report to their consultant, ESA Adolfson (ESA), for review and comment. ■ ESA was not under contract to complete their review until May 15, 2009. • EAS reviewed the Critical Areas Report at the end of May, but did not complete its field investigation until July 8, 2009. • ESA concluded the wetland was "likely larger" than described by Watershed Dynamics, but not as far west as the boundary show on the City's Wetland Inventory Map. ■ ESA also suggested that additional explanation was needed to confirm steep channel gradients that would warrant reclassification of Bingaman Creek upstream of 46h Avenue South. There was no mention of the various impassable culverts noted in the Watershed Dynamics Stream Survey Report. ■ ESA did not find "a distinct break" between the "spiraea/blackberry" community and the "spiraea/willow" community and indicated they observed no dead spiraea. ■ They also indicated they found hydrology west of the boundary delineated by Watershed Dynamics. ✓ That evidence was the moist or saturated organic soil at 18 inches below the ground surface that was reported by Watershed Dynamics, which ESA suggested was indicative of potential soil saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil column in the early part of the growing season. ✓ The supporting document referenced by ESA was the 1997 Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual. ✓ NOTE 1: The only reference to "18 inches" that Watershed Dynamics could find in that manual was in reference to the minimum depth ofsoil pits excavated at sample points. ✓ NOTE 2: According to the 1987 Corps Manual and the 1997 WDaE Manual wetland hydrology exists when the soil is found to be inundated or saturated in the upper 12 inches of the soil column for a period of 14 consecutive days during a growing season when there is normal precipitation. ✓ ESA provided no evidence of hydrologic conditions meeting the Corps and WDOE requirements nor did they provide any information related to precipitation during the study period. July 29, 2009: A field evaluation was conducted at the site to review and discuss the differences between the conclusions put forward in the April 10, 2009 Critical Areas Report prepared by Watershed Dynamics and the conclusions reached by ESA following their office and field review. • Matt Herrara, Planner (City of Federal Way), Lizzie Zemke, Wetland Biologist (ESA Adolfson), Hans Korve, Planner (DMP Engineering and Surveying), Rick Williams, Property Owner (Professional Building Contractors), Ed Sewall, Wetland Biologist (Sewall Wetland Consultants), and Larry Burnstad, Wetland and Fisheries Biologist (Watershed Dynamics) attended the meeting. • Ed Sewall had prepared a critical areas study for the Williams property located immediately north of the Singh property. ✓ Sewall Wetland Consultants (SWC) had determined the wetland boundary was further east than shown on the City's wetland inventory map. ✓ Those findings were dismissed by the City's wetland consultant at the time the SWC study was reviewed and told SWC the boundary had to shown as being at the toe -of -slope on the west end of the Williams property. ✓ NOTE: The City's Wetland Consultant at that time was the same consultant that had prepared the City's wetland inventory map. • During the field review, Ms. Zemke excavated a soil pit approximately 20 feet west of Watershed Dynamics soil pit SP-050708-02. ✓ Ms. Zemke found moist soil at 18 inches. She attempted to use the "squeeze test" to demonstrate how the soil was saturated, but was unable to produce any free water. ✓ NOTE 1: The squeeze test was no longer a valid procedure for determining saturation at the time of the field review. Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner — June 9, 2014 — Page 8 ✓ NOTE 2: Additionally, there had been significant rainfall the night prior to this field review. ■ Based on this evidence, Ms. Zemke concluded the wetland boundary was at least 50 feet to 60 feet west of the location established by Watershed Dynamics. ■ Mr. Bumstad excavated another soil pit approximately half the distance between the May 2008 wetland boundary and the pit just evaluated by Ms. Zemke. ✓ This pit was excavated to a depth of 24 inches and no soil moisture was observed. ✓ At the same location, Mr. Sewall noted the dead spiraea amongst the thriving blackberries. ■ Although both Mr. Sewall and Mr. Bumstad disagreed with Ms. Zemke's conclusions regarding wetland hydrology being present in the pit she had excavated, Ms. Zemke was unwilling to accept the boundary as delineated by Watershed Dynamics and insisted that additional evaluation would be needed in 2010. ■ There was a brief discussion regarding the stream study and the presence of the "siphon culvert" at South 288`h Street. Ms. Zemke finally agreed the section of Bingaman Creek adjacent to the study area should be re-classified as a "Minor" stream. ■ Following Ms. Zemke's departure from the meeting, Mr. Herrera indicated he could not override her conclusions regarding the wetland boundary location without additional study. ■ After some discussion there was agreement that the critical issue was wetland hydrology and there was a discussion regarding what should be done to evaluate wetland hydrology and when would be the best time to conduct an investigation. ■ At that point Mr. Bumstad suggested that he prepare a proposed hydrology study that would be designed to evaluate wetland hydrology on the Williams and Singh properties as well as the two properties south of the Singh property. • Once the proposed study was prepared it was agreed the proposal would be evaluated by SWC and ESA. If the proposal was acceptable, Watershed Dynamics would implement the study staring in early February 2010 and complete the study at the end of April or the early part of May. ■ The only concem was that the study be conducted during a period of "normal" precipitation. • September 9, 2009: Following receipt of a memo from ESA Adlofson, Mr. Herrera contacted Mr. Bumstad to discuss Ms. Zemke's conclusions. Mr. Herrera agreed with the proposal to conduct an additional study of wetland hydrology and the proposal to expand that study onto the adjacent properties to avoid issues related to the location of the wetland boundary and wetland buffer boundary on those parcels. ■ September 25, 2009: Mr. Herrera, Mr. and Mrs. Singh, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Sewall agreed with the hydrology study prepared by Mr. Bumstad. Mr. Bumstad was charged with gaining permission to access the adjoining properties to the south. • October 2009 through December 2012: A Hydrology Study was proposed and accepted by the City and ESA, but the economic downturn combined with drier than normal precipitation in 2010 through September 2012 combined to prevent any study of the wetland hydrology until February 2013. • April 27, 2011 through December 8, 2001: Watershed Dynamics prepared a memo to Mr. Herrera suggesting a "compromise" wetland boundary between the May 2008 boundary delineated by Watershed Dynamics and the wetland boundary location preferred by ESA. There were several meeting and discussions during this time, but ESA vacillated between accepting and not accepting the proposal until the Singh's final abandoned the compromise proposal following a December 8, 2011 meeting attended by Mr. and Mrs. Singh, the City, ESA, and Watershed Dynamics. • December 2011 through September 2012: Very little progress was made during this time. In mid to late September 2012, Mr. Singh, accompanied by Mr. Bumstad, approached the City with a request to have a different consultant review the information collected to date. During that meeting Mr. Herrera agreed to have representatives from the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) review the project and data. Mr. Herrera indicated he would arrange for a field review and stated that he was willing to accept WDOE's finding with respect to the wetland boundary location. Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner — June 9, 2014 — Page 9 • November 20, 2012: A site meeting was convened to review the existing conditions and discuss the best approach to concluding the Critical Areas Determination. In attendance were Mr. Patrick McGraner, Wetland Specialist, WDOW; Mr. Paul Anderson, Wetland Specialist, WDOE; Mr. Rick Williams, property owner; Mr. Issac Conlen, Planning Director, City of Federal Way; and Mr. Larry Bumstad, Watershed Dynamics. Mr. McGraner and Mr. Anderson excavated soil pits at two locations in the western portion of the property. The first was approximately halfway between the stream channel and the toe of the slope on the west side of the property. The second pit was in approximately the same location as one of the pits evaluated during the July 29, 2009 field review. They concluded the first sample point was not indicative of wetland habitat. At the second pit, they found both hydric soils and standing water approximately eight inches below the ground surface. It was raining at the time of our visit, which prompted a discussion regarding whether or not the precipitation conditions were "normal" and would the wetland hydrology persist for 14 consecutive days during a period of normal precipitation. NOTE: Subsequent evaluation of NOAA's precipitation records for the SeaTac International Airport weather station indicatedprecipiiation during the latter part of October 2012 and continuing through mid - January 2013 was greater than 130% of normal. This means that the observed hydrology on November 20`h occurred at a time when precipitation was well above normal. NOAA data revealed that 2.59" inches of precipitation was recorded between November le and November 200. The data indicated that 2.13 " of precipitation was recorded on November 19, 2009, the day before our field visit on the morning of November 20, 2012. We had an additional discussion regarding the use of Himalayan blackberry as an indicator species. Mr. Anderson indicated the Corps supplemental manual would not allow Himalayan blackberry to be used, which meant that Spirea douglasii, a wetland indicator species, was the dominant species at the sample point. The presence of wetland hydrology, hydric soils (which was not disputed), and the dominance of wetland plants suggested the sample point was in wetland habitat. NOTE: There is a section of the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) May 2010 that refers to "aggressive invasive plants" as a potential problem with regard to wetland delineation (see Page 99 through Page 109 with particular attention to Page 105 Section f. and Page 108 Section 5) The use of Himalayan blackberry is as an indicator species is not specifically excluded, but rather there is a "warning" that invasive plants generally can be misleading when making a wetland habitat determination. Several suggestions were made in the manual to help avoid erroneous conclusions, including the removal of the invasive species with reevaluation the following growing season and the use of reference sites for comparison. In addition, Section 5 on Page 108 suggests evaluation of wetland hydrology to determine if the dominant plant community is present during periods ofprolonged inundation or saturation during the early (or wet) part of the growing season in years with "normal" precipitation. Mr. McGraner did mention that one of the ways by which Himalayan blackberry, a facultative upland species, can be used as an indicator is if all of the vegetation is removed and the blackberry returns as the dominant species. • March 2013 through May 2013: The hydrology study was not started until early March 2013 due to delays in equipment acquisition and monitoring well installation. 10 By the end of February 2013 all of the 28 monitoring wells (see Figure 3) had been installed and a by the end of the first week in March, the on -site precipitation gage was installed and operational. ■ Monitoring of water levels in each of the wells continued through early May. The results of the 2013 study area are included as part of this memo (see Attachment B). ■ The results of the hydrology study indicated the wetland boundary delineated in 2008 was correct. ■ NOTE: Further supporting that conclusion vegetation that returned after Mr. Singh removed the blackberries from a large portion of the study area in April 2013. The only observe regenerating in the mowed area was Himalayan and evergreen blackberry. 7 J Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner — June 9, 2014 — Page 10 J FIGURE 3: Aerial view of parcels (outlined in red), monitoring well locations (red dots), monitoring well numbers (yellow), and Study Area Boundary (yellow dotted line). Monitoring well locations are approximated. Monitoring well locations were the same during the 2013 and 2014 study periods. Property owners involved in the study are identified in the yellow boxes. The delineated wetland boundary is depicted by the bright green dotted line. Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner — June 9, 2014 — Page 11 ■ The lack of data collection during the early part of the growing season (mid -February through early March) ultimately became a concern for WDOE. As a result, additional study was deemed necessary in 2014. February 2014 through April 2014: The second year of the hydrology study started on February 13, 2014 and continued through the last week in April. The results of the 2014 monitoring are attached (see Attachment C). ■ In summary, the 2013 and 2014 study results indicate the original wetland boundary delineated in 2008 is still valid. In 2008, the boundary was only delineated on the Singh property. Since the study area was expanded to include properties north and south of the Singh property in 2013, the boundary was extended to the north and south of the Singh property (see Figure 3) based on data collected in 2013 and 2014. ■ The following discussion points are offered in support of the conclusion regarding the location of the wetland boundary delineated by Watershed Dynamics: ✓ The wells located west of the delineated wetland boundary are: Well #lthrough Well #6 Well #7 through Well # 10 Well #13 through Well #17 Well #19 and Well #20 Well # 22 through Well #26 ✓ The wells located east of the wetland boundary are: Well #11 and Well #12 Well #18 Well #21 Well #27 and Well #28 ✓ Water levels in the wells west of the boundary fluctuated with precipitation events and there was never a period with 14 consecutive days of saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil column that coincided with periods of "normal precipitation". Precm&ation Data: A graph of precipitation recorded at the NOAA Weather Station at SeaTac International Airport is provided as the first page of Attachment C. The data was graphed for both the cumulative total rainfall and the daily total rainfall reported by NOAA from February 1, 2014 through April 27, 2014. Cumulative precipitation recorded between February 1, 2014 and February 15, 2014 was within the "normal" range. From February 16, 2014 through April27, 2014 the cumulative total precipitation was above normal. Looking at the graph showing the daily totals, the 2014 recorded daily precipitation was above normal: February 10 —12, 14 —18, and 23 — 25. March 2 — 6, 8 —10, 14 —16, and 28 — 29 with nearly 2 inches of precipitation on 03/05. April 5, 8, 16, 17, 19, 21— 24, and 26. NOTE: March 2014 was the wettest March at SeaTac since record keeping began. Well Data: The well graphs presented in Attachment C do indicate periods when the water surface elevation measured in some of the wells west of the delineated wetland boundary was in the upper 12 inches of the soil column. Each of those instances is listed below along with information regarding the associated precipitation. NOTE: For a well to be deemed indicative of wetland habitat, the water surface elevation within the well must be within the upper 12 inches of the ground surface or above the ground surface for a period of 14 consecutive days during a growing season with normal precipitation. Refer to Attachment C G h 2A: Well #1: the water surface elevation was not measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column at any time during the 2014 study period. Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner — June 9, 2014 — Page 12 Well #2: the water surface elevation was measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column for 8 consecutive days (02/13/14 through 02/20/11), for 9 consecutive 1 days (03/04/14 through 03/13/14), for 3 consecutive days (03/16114 through 03/18/14), and for 2 consecutive days (04/23/14 through 04/24/14). During each of the periods when the water level was recorded in the upper 12 inches of the soil column both the daily and the cumulative total precipitation were above normal. Well #3: the water surface elevation was measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column for 11 consecutive days (02/13/14 through 02/24/14), for 13 consecutive days (02/28/14 through 03/13/14), for 4 consecutive days (03/15/14 through 03/19/14), and for 2 consecutive days (04/23/14 through 04/25/14). During each of the periods when the water level was recorded in the upper 12 inches of the soil column both the daily and the cumulative total precipitation were above normal. Well #4: the water surface elevation was not measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column at any time during the 2014 study period. Well #5: the water surface elevation was not measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column at any time during the 2014 study period. Well #6: the water surface elevation was not measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column at any time during the 2014 study period. Well #7: the water surface elevation was measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column for 3 consecutive days (03/08/14 through 03/11/14), Refer to Attachment C Gra h 2B: Well #8: the water surface elevation was measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column for 10 consecutive days (02/13/14 through 02/23/14), for 18 consecutive days (03/01/14 through 03/19/14), and 2 consecutive days (04/23/14 through 04/24/14). Precipitation from 03/0I/14 through 03/19/14 was above normal for 11 Of the 18 days and 3 days of precipitation greater than I inch in 24 hours. With very few days of at or below normal precipitation as well as very few days for groundwater levels to recede during the 18 consecutive day period, Watershed Dynamics concluded Well #8 was not indicative of wetland habitat. By comparison, the water surface elevation in Well #I1 stayed within the upper 12 inches of the soil column when the water surface elevation in the wel Is to the west dropped to a depth deeper than 12 inches. Well #9: the water surface elevation was measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column for 9 consecutive days (02/13/14 through 02/22/14), for I7 consecutive days (03/02/14 through 03/19/14), and 2 consecutive days (04/23/14 through 04/24/14). During each of the periods when the water level was recorded in the upper 12 inches of the soil column both the daily and the cumulative total precipitation were above normal. Well #10: the water surface elevation was measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column for 11 consecutive days (02/13/14 through 02/24/I4), for 19 consecutive days (03/01/14 through 03/20/14), and 7 consecutive days (04/20/14 through 04/27/14). With very few days of at or below normal precipitation as well as very few days for groundwater levels to recede during the 18 consecutive day period, Watershed Dynamics concluded Well #8 was not indicative of wetland habitat. By comparison, the water surface elevation in Well #11 stayed within the upper 12 inches of the soil column when the water surface elevation in the wells to the west dropped to a depth deeper than 12 inches. Well #13: the water surface elevation was not measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column at any time during the 2014 study period. Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner — June 9, 2014 — Page 13 Well #14: the water surface elevation was measured within the upper. 12 inches of the soil column for 2 consecutive days (02113/14 through 02114/14), for 8 consecutive days (03/05/14 through 03/13/14), and 4 consecutive days (03/15/14 through 03/19114). During each of the periods when the water level was recorded in the upper 12 inches of the soil column both the daily and the cumulative total precipitation were above normal. Refer to Attachment C G h 2C: Well #15: the water surface elevation was measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column for 14 consecutive days (03/04/14 through 03/18/14) and for 1 day (04/24/14- During each of the periods when the water level was recorded in the upper 12 inches of the soil column both the daily and the cumulative total precipitation were above normal. Well #16: the water surface elevation was not measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column at any time during the 2014 study period, Well #17: the water surface elevation was not measured within the upper 12 inches of the sail column at any time during the 2014 study period. Well #19: the water surface elevation was measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column for 3 consecutive days (03/07/14 through 03/10114), for 1 day (03/17/14), and for one day (03127114. During each of the periods when the water level was recorded in the upper 12 inches of the soil column both the daily and the cumulative total precipitation were above normal. Well #20: the water surface elevation was measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column for 10 consecutive days (03/02/14 through 03/12/14), for 2 consecutive days (03116114 through 03/18/14), and for one day (03/27/14. During each of the periods when the water level was recorded in the upper 12 inches of the soil column both the daily and the cumulative total precipitation were above normal. Refer to Attachment C G h 2C: Well #22: the water surface elevation was not measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column at any time during the 2014 study period. Well #23 through Well #26: These wells were located in a drainage ditch along the north side of the Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church property. The ditch was originaIIy constructed to convey stormwater runoff from a portion of Military Road South, as well as developed area adjacent to the west side of that portion of Military Road South, into Bingaman Creek. Due to previous grading between WeII #25 and Well #26, the ditch did not continue all the way to Bingaman Creek_ As a result, the area where Well #23 through WeII #26 were located was a de facto retention/detention pond. Watershed Dynamics was not aware of the drainage ditch/detention pond situation until monitoring start in March 2013, Concerned that moving the wells to a preferred location prior to the 2014 monitoring season would be detrimental to the study, Watershed Dynamics elected to leave the wells in place through the 2014 monitoring period. The data reflects the drainage ditch issue with all ofthe wells having water surface elevations within the upper 12 inches of the soil column during nearly the entire study period. 1n some cases, the water surface was shown at ground level when the area surrounding the well was actually inundated. Note that the water surface elevation in all of the wells dropped below -12 inches during the time period when the daily precipitation was at or below normal March 30, 2014 through April 17, 20014. Note also that Watershed Dynamics did not extend the delineated wetland boundary into Church property because there was no data collected south of the ditch. Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner — June 9, 2014 — Page 14 April 29, 2014: Watershed Dynamics met with WDOE on April 29, 2014 and reviewed the data collected in 2013 and 2014. After reviewing the information presented in this report, the conclusion by three wetland scientists affirmed the 2008 wetland boundary delineation. ' The tasks that remained following that meeting were: ✓ Provide a copy of this report to WDOW (Patrick M.) for review and approval. ✓ Wait for Mr. McGraner (WDOE) to prepare his submittal and forward his approval memo to Mr. Matt Herrera at the City. ✓ Contact Mr. Herrera to verify the City's acceptance of WDOE's recommendation and the location of the wetland boundary. ✓ Reset the wetland boundary on the Williams, Singh, and Hart properties. ✓ Survey the location of the wetland boundary and the monitoring well locations. Prepare a site survey map to provide to City along with a copy of this report. ✓ Following approval of this report by the City, proceed with site development plans. PLEASE NOTE: The completed Development plan package must include the following prior to submittal to the City for review and approval: • an appropriate stormwater management system designed to meet both water quantity and quality standards for stormwater leaving the developed site. • the outlet points from the stormwater retention/detention facility into the wetland to assure wetland hydrology. • the terraced 25-foot, enhanced wetland buffer between the delineated wetland boundary and the eastern edge of the developed site. • a planting plan for the terraced buffer that includes method of i rri Uation. • maintenance access to the buffer terrace. Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner — June 9, 2014 — Page 15 I ATTACHMENT A r 2008 Site Survey 's } 5, } s. ,5 FND 1/2" REBAR W/CAF 19635" 1.0' N. OF UNE a� I NB&1; 01'W 647.3' HfliLOCK 2■" g / 1 ! �D" �EDAR .• / r I �Y_Y,�410—_ y f 32. 13EljpR\� • , 1 r 20- CEDAR /%1 / 14' CEOAASING�� PROPERTY �_ ,\\ ,\--�-_\ - / CEOkR 16" CEDAR 1, 187CEDA� _ C f TB EDAR 24' MEMLL 414' FIR \ \ 32" \ } } I { \ 22 FIR 22- FIR FIR 20" FIR7 24- FIR\\ { YS` }�22" CEOAIt� 14" CFD r� R\ 4, �l 227 FIR 20" 38" IKIR `.FND 1/2 MAR W/ ¢ 6" CIiNN,UNK \ _ 3754d SO1E 1.1` J i N \ JJJ ! 01(1 A-09 O SP-050708-030 A_oB O WOOD •• / BRIDGE SP-050708-030 A-02 A-67 y'Y.ANE1 BOUNDARY A-05irR� ® Sp- --04 A-03 O/0M'�✓/ /C6 6' WIRE FENCI A-01 <�S SP-050708-05 FND 1/2" REBAR W/CAP "37540' S61'41' W 2.4' SSMhI--- RIM - 411.00 I.E. = 401.70(MC)1B" S-NE I.E. = 402.40(8")E ' o / WOOD r� I \ � I \ �408— \J ";A r Sbv- NORTH 1"= 50' ATTACHMENT B 2013 Study Results 0 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 GRAPH 2: Depth from Ground Surface to Water Surface in Monitoring Well # 1 through Well #7 (inches) 0 6 Well #2 �.- 9 Well #3 0, 12 Well #4 .5 Well #5 8 Well #6 �. 1 Well #7 M M M M M _M M M en en O p M N N M O N M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O - O Monitoring Dates GRAPH 3: Depth from Ground Surface to Water Surface in Monitoring Well #8 through Well #14 (inches) 0 3 Well #8 6 Well #9 9 Well #10 L 12 15 18 21 24 26 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M G1 N M 0000 O M O M N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Monitoring Dates Well #12 Well # 13 ' Well # 14 FA J J GRAPH 4: Depth from Ground Surface to Water Surface in Monitoring Well # 15 through Well #21 (inches) 0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M\�-i d' [� O M O [� .�- N N N M O �--i .-+ N en O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Monitoring Dates 3 Well # 15 6 Well #16 9 Well # 17 12 Well # 18 15 W. 21 24 26 Well # 19 Well #20 Well #21 _® GRAPH 5: Depth from Ground Surface to Water Surface in Monitoring Well #22 through Well #28 (inches) 0 3 Well #22 6 Well #23 9 Well #24 ' 12 Well #25 15 / Well #26 Well #27 21 r, �-- Well #28 �—----------____-- ,.-- — _ --—�--� 24 NOTE: Well #22 never had any measurable water in the tube during the entire study period. ■ NOTE: This symbol indicates the well ■ had been vandalized and was reset, but 26 ■ the reading may be inaccurate due to M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ■ subsurface alterations or plugged well cn �o all n oo r+ .-+ .--� N N N N OO C o M o i n slits. IN�O M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O V1 V� O O O O O O Monitoring Dates ATTACHMENT C I2014 Study Results I I I I I I I j 39- Accumlated Precipitation from 10/01/13 through 04/24/ 14 and 20-year Average 38 - Data Source: NOAA Weather Station at SeaTac International Airport 37' r1� 17tlrtrit Illilllllll 36- 111111111_II IlllllllFIT 35- - 34 -17tr Trrrlrr rrrri rrt' It I tI rrrr IIIIII 33 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII! 32 �I-1 u k 4-1-1-14-1-1 1-1-1-4 IIIIIII I II IIII II IIIIII IIIIIIII 31- -r -1 r r7'- r 1!7-1-1-rt r - -1 r -T m r-1 IIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII 3U 1 1 1 11 1 1_I_ I I I 111mi-ii1111IIIii 111111. I-II-II1-1II�IllII-I-1_IllllulllllllL-Il4ill _LI-a1II1I129 11111111111�I11 Will1!1. 1......1I. III 28' riTrtT-1 rlt1-1 ltI"-ti 1-1-1Illlllllllllllllillllllllllllllll III 27- 111 IIIII III 26- 1-4+1-4U� 4-1-4-l--141-1 Dili IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItllllll IIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111l11111 25- 14-Ithr1 rltm-Irtrtrrlt rr 7t1„ III I I I I �I I I' 24- III 23- 22- 21- a IIII■ IIIII 20- IIIIII IIIII 19- 18o l t r1 !IIII - ' IIIII 17- 141� u V IIIII 16- � IIII 1 1-1 1 5- IIIII IIII 14-I HIM IIIIII IIIII 13. 1"I ViTll -.I I I I. III I 1 2- it IIII IIIII IIII 11. L1- I 4 II IIIIIII'. I Milli l 0- _ 1 r r1 r -r 1 1 r r11- t r T rt r -1 rl r17- IIII IIIIIII IIIIIII III III I ill 9- II III IIII III 8_ I-I4L1414_1-I- - I_ III 1-L IIII IIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIIIIII III 7' 'Ilrrltl rltlirlrtrtrtrltrlrl,rit Illlillllllllllllllllllllllllllll IIII III 6- II Irlllil 5_ 1,-4 'Il-4 III I 4- 1-1l-rriTltrlTrit-I-l'"T"1-It 3- - 2- - 1_ 0, rit r1-1r1-rri-riItI-trrYrrrlrriItltrii-I t-it-1rl't !III!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII II, III I i1-!.i-I_I 1 i I! I I II III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFIT IIII Illllllllilll III III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIII u u� �ukl-lu�u�l-4u�ulal-lllu �1-ill-ll_la-ullll-+u�!1u41�u�u-1141� a-11u II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillll II .IIII111.111111111III!III IIIIII i 1-rt r1 Ti-f r 1-11-Pt III I IIII- 0% of Normal III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1_I Ala- P-4-41-I-1-41-I 1--lil4 4-1r-ru -J-I-I 4 IIII IIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIII IIIIIII. III......11111111111111 rl �-rl-rrl-rr rI-t-; IIIIII IIIII III I II III IIIIII IIIIIII III1141 H IIIIIII HIM u -I� J-a-1- W -L 1 1= a I (IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I III I (IIIIIIIIIIIIIII III I r1T11 rit H T 1-1 rl-r jljl II .III IIIIIIIIIIIII111 IIIIIIII IIIIIIII (IIIIIIII u 1-I-I 11u��1-i11 1-I1u-I-I-1 �I.I+I-1 u�U+11 1u-4-1-1+ 1I111 111111111I IIIIIII! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII .IIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIH IIIIIIIIII 1111111111111 rit r1r11r1T tilt rltrirlrtrt II111111111 III I IIIIII IIIIIIIII II ,�IIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIII III IIIllllllll •„ Jig+rllllllllll+,' I 1 4 -11 a u.1-14 w 1_t i 14- u 1 II IIIIIIHill II IIIIII•IIII11111' III -I-rrltrl ratrlTit t-- I rl-r1-rrri r rr I� l I t Y7 rl -r li i � IIII �I III II I li i i Ili lil I II 1 u III I- I II r! � I rl-t II III f III III 7 III I L I r rt L � II III II III III 1I I II I I 1- 1 I IIIII III IIIIIIIIIIIIIII'Illlllllil III ! IIIIIIII_IIIII III I II11l IIIII I III 1 I I III rlrlrtrl� illll �'�I lI�I�IIIlI �IlI r1Tl i1 III IIIII�I111.IIIIIIIIII 1=111� T I :. 114- 1-4 �-I IIIIIIII IIII I I: I II.. IIIIIIIII' 1 -- 1 1-1 i-14 1.--1--4 L- 4-1-41-1-i � ! 411- 1-4II� 14 J- - IIIIIIIIIIIII II IIIII I -I II1-1III Ti 1 IIIIIII'• IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIII II I ,'�„IIIIIII'III�•,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII! rI-1rl-r1-1V7rlt 1rr-tt1tr1t-1-1I-1tr11-,-rr-1TTI1-1r--1t-It !-1trlrrrr1Tr-rrl-tr-1rl-rrIr11-1-T1-1- r1tl-t (IIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111!Illlllllll•IIII'Illlllllllll _IIIIIII 1111111111111111111_IIIII!III11_IIIIIIIIII_III-III_lillllll_Illlil_ IIIIIIIIIIIIII I'Illlllllllllllllllllllll III1111111111!IIlim it li........11!IIIII I I III I IIIIIIIIIIIIII"(IIII'' II'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�II11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII!!III IIIII Hill !IIII IIII 1-I4 1-!1 11-•-1-A 1_-_11-1-1-14 11A _LI.I I IIIII' III I-4 ll IIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIII 1 I IIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIII IIII r I IIII II 1"rtr1 rI ri t r7Trirl t-�- I IIIIIII II I'Illllllll lillllllll Ij II1 IIIIII1111 II Illlllill II IIIII r1r! 1I !III 111! III I • 1 70% of Normal I i-1 t r, Dili u �I 111 r1rt rr !I I1 IIIII I I 111.14 II ri t r1 IIIIII IIIII IIIII II �'I1-u .IIII 111! r1 III I III I III III III t7 t I III II III III u� III II r1 t I III III III III 1-4 I - III .II r1 �� III III III I I� III III I III III 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 - 29 28 27 - 26 25 24 22 I� 21 40 20 o - 19 18 17 16 0. 15 - 14 13 12 11 - 10 _ a - �-7 3 2 1 j 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 10 �9 8 7 6 5 4 3 0 I SeaTac Daily and AccumulatedPrecipitation - February through April 2014 I I I SeaTac Daily Normal and Accumula red Normal Precipitation - February through April 2014 I 130'/o and 70% SeaTac Daily and Accumulated Normal Precipitation - February through Apri12014 — — — — — — — — — — — — — JI— I I -_-_--_- i -- _-_-_------ __I____ _-- __-__---------------�- I I I _ - 1 I I — _--- i------�---— — — — — — — — — — — — — — ---------------- �-------i------------------- — — i I I I I --------i---- i - _..-_-_----------i---_- __---__ - -------.------.-----__-_�- -fi_------- __-___t----_------_--.._----__.----_I--- - -- - I I I I n09icSMowplAa�cfl'm�m'm —_- - — — — — — — _ —I___- �- _ _ — _ _ _ — — _ — _ _ — _ — — — — —t — - I I -----_-_-_---_-_ - __ __ _ - I____ - 1 I -i� _I-.- - -- ' - I---__---_-_-__----�-_ I-_--.-----------------�- I -rt-------- fi------------- I---------------- `I -t - iI —- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I- _i_-_-_------------- -- _ --t----- - — — — — _ ------I-- �_-_-_.- I_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I r - - - AWMOW2014 _- -- _-__ _- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ --I--- _ ___ _____ -I ------- l . --- - -t------.---- - - - --_- _.__ - - -_- II I------------i-.-----_---_-----____--_-�--- rdrtdN�lft r1l0.,mr A.ve , �` r, 'M%dNzcW — _ .- — ._ — — _ _— _ -- — _ - — _ _.. — _ _ Ded Iwo" Aai?Mm 2014 I — — — — — gaao,ded P-*a6m 2014 I_ _ _ --- — — — — — — — �-- — ._ — ..-� — — — ...— — I — In, dNwml Drip RP3tirAragrl �. — — - — — — — �tA-W)�i I Gm®d Ammm/No kffl a I -� - - --"I----'---- — — — — — — — — -- -- Snow,bidNoRem I I — � — ---- S"mOLrW' bW Seedy Sid- WclDeli Co&e� mSWD&2014 I I I I I 31[10000000011111]1111.222222222IOOOt]OOOODI111111111221222222223�innnnnnnnn,,,, 1. t 90 i s 5 7 ft n 1') 2 A r 6 T Q n n,' T a r r �f n _ JAN FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUN GRAPH 2A: Depth from Ground Surface to Water Surface in Monitoring Well #1 through Well #7 (inches) 1 J 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 I All �r y 71 IrI14 I �;T,�I;i� I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 i I I I I I�f.I11I 111 I 1 111 II�, - I I- 1- I ii i I I I I I J4, 4 P 21 I P II I l I IAil-- - 1I I I I I , � 24 � f I-- ! ir.T �1 L I I� I I 26 't qt It � I � qt It � It It It It It It It It � �r � 't 4 M �O O\ N V1 00 en\p ON N kn 00 �--� l� O N Vn 00 ,--I 't O M \O O� N Vn .-- .-- N N N M O O O �-- �--i 1 N N N N O O N N N N N N M tn M M en en en M en en O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Monitoring Dates ;IJ, Well #1 3 Well #2 6 Well #3 9 Well #4 12 Well #5 Well #6 15 Well #7 18 21 24 26 GRAPH 2B: Depth from Ground Surface to Water Surface in Monitoring Well #8 through Well # 14 (inches) /i/ /I 3 V'4/ .7e k 6 / r � - 8 I i Ii'� llll I ICI � � ZPP 12 -F F >> �; I f l I II i C ;II 15 I I lift ;�I,`1E11, I; I;i 1111 III<<I II��;Ili;IlEll f�il,l�,l� �I I IE° 'III; f � I /7 71 I 1 � 1 1 {�I I 1� lffl1ij I I;;IE,I;II ,I I I III 1 1 I ,jfll, f,�ll l';I I 1 I II I I� ;; l 21 ; ----� --1 - 1 T ' i -� i [ i l I i i; I ii li ° I I I 'Alki i I ; 1 j j IIj IRV HIM 1111.; i 24 - I I- ; � I -T- ! FT IE i ' I E 7 T I - I i 7 I 26 E .M� � N N N O O O O N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O J Monitoring Dates WE Well #8 3 Well #9 6 Well #10 9 Well #11 12 Well #12 Well #13 15 Well #14 18 21 24 26 GRAPH 2C: Depth from Ground Surface to Water Surface in Monitoring Well #15 through Well #21 (inches) 21 26 J ._i :1 /1 A /I I X —IG )T/- I 1 ./771 1 I� l j ff I I I I 1 II _ 1i'I 'li'Ili I � 11 � I � Ifjl it �f� ik I` lllllll 'I';f Il f li i I E 1 f �IIri III11�'�� I771I��I11�}!7'"I r 1 I I I ; III�Illill lli�li4�1�11! I 1 ,�I, 1 II��II�1 11. � Ict It It � let N N N N N N N M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O Itt I'* 't 't 'T v It 00 4 h 00 .� � � O M N M O O O �--� �--� ' N N N N O O 0 Q � '0 Q � O O O O O g O O O O O O O O O Monitoring Dates 0 Well # 15 3 Well #16 6 Well #17 9 Well #18 12 Well #19 Well #20 15 Well #21 18 21 24 26 .Q GRAPH 2D: Depth from Ground Surface to Water Surface in Monitoring Well #22 through Well #28 (inches) E 3 C E 12 15 21 24 26 V 1 141 i 1 ' I < ► ,� P. ij# ' ; ;T� ,� ;11 1 1 11i ijI I: 1 likl!il �l �; ,i 1 I� III I 111ii1�,l; I�I I li�li�l� I it I ;I�1 �I I� li�l,�l , 44 - IL , -4 I'1T 1 Ir I 1 1 ARL Ii iE ' lid { '1111 ,1 1 '1 I II;I 11.1 1; 1 { 1 ;I 1 ,11:1 I r"i �i I r � M �O 01 N V'1 00 40 �O C= N OO O —4 � 4'l N N N N en en N M en en 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 r O O O O O O Monitoring Dates l�l I I l ! 7I,:I I N h 00 O 0 tn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Well #22 3 Well #23 6 Well #24 9 Well #25 12 Well #26 (partial data set) 15 21 24 26 Well #27 Well #28 NOTE: Well #23 through Well #28 are located in a low area that receives surface water runoff from a ditch on the west side of Nlilitary Road via a culvert that discharges to the east side of the road into this low area. The low area forms a swale between the Samoan church and the house to the north. The swale conveys the road runoff east through the church property to Bingaman Creek. Bingaman Creek flows north along the east side of the Study Area. This graph was not designed to show inundation. As a result, the surface water level may actually be above the ground around the monitoring well rather than at the ground surface as indicated by the graph. Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT For Proposed Multi -family Residential Development Project Report Prepared for: Project Proponent: Property Location: Current Land Use: Proposed Project: Project Size: Property Information: Mr. Gian Singh 29830 —18'h Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Contact Phone: 253.250.2059 Mr. Gian Singh 29002 Military Road South (may not be correct address) Federal Way, Washington 98003 (see Figure 1) The property is currently undeveloped (vacant). The property is zoned as RM 3600. This zoning allows development of single - and multi -family housing with 1 dwelling unit per each 3,600 square feet of developable property. Construction of multiple single-family residences in the form of townhomes or apartments with one detached single-family residence for property manager. Additional site development work will include construction of driveways and parking areasas well as installation of utilities such as electricity, al gas, water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management facilities, r telephone, and cable (internet/digital TV). 2.32 acres or 101,059 square feet (see Figure 2A and liigure 2B) Tax Parcel No. 042104-9172 Critical Areas Report by: Larry D. Burnstad, Senior Biologist Watershed Dynamics P.O. Box 215 Enumclaw, Washington 98022 Contact Phone: 360.925.9253 Field Review Date: December 17, 2007 and January 4, 2008 INTRDDUCTIQN Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide the Project Proponent and the Project Design Team with information regarding Critical Areas located within or in close proximity to the Proposed Project site. The City of Federal Way Municipal Code lists 6 different types of Critical are Areas that regulated within the City. Based an available published data and a preliminary site review, Watershed Dynamics determined that only two the six types of critical areas were potentially present within or in close proximity to the subject property. The two critical area types of concern were: 1. Regulated Wetlands 2. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (Stream Habitat) Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gi Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 Subject Property Description The subject property, Tax Parcel No. 042104-9172, is located on the east side of Military Road in Federal Way, Washington. The subject property is owned by Mr. Gian Singh, the Project Proponent. According to the King County Assessor's data base the street address of the subject property is 29002 Military Road South. It appears, however, this address may be incorrect given that the address of the property immediately north of the subject property is 29200 Military Road South and the property immediately south of the subject property is 29250 Military Road South. The subject property is currently undeveloped. The western one-third of the property is forested and the eastern two-thirds of the property is dominated by shrubs, domestic apple trees, blackberries (see Photo below and Figure 2B), and spirea (Spiraea douglasii). The eastern two- thirds of the property is mapped by the City of Federal Way (City) as a wetland (area east of the dashed line in Photo 1). That wetland extends both north and south of the subject property. In addition, the City has identified the drainage course adjacent to the east side of the wetland as a Major Stream (see definition in Attachment 1). mar ', ��.; a� i.. Al U s -r■ '. .�� . MAJOR � �� •�".•Y :,� • STREAM ■ g r � ,r "• L n PHOTO 1: Aerial view of the subject property showing the approximate property boundaries, the area of potential wetland, and the drainage course identified as a Major Stream. Property Located Immediately North of the Proposed Project Site Tax Parcel No. 0421049062, is a vacant 2.51 acre parcel that is very similar in character to the subject property. The property address is 29200 Military Road South, Federal Way, Washington 98003 (see Figure 2A and Figure 2B). Watershed Dynamics did not enter this property, but did observe potential wetlands in the eastern portion of the property directly north of the potential wetlands located within the subject property. The identified Major Stream is located along the eastern edge of this property. Critical Areas Report — Page 2 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 Property Located Immediately East of the Proposed Project Site The property located to the east of the subject property is part of a large mobile home park known as Camelot Square Mobile Home Park. The property is fully developed. The identified Major Stream (see Photo I above) is Iocated along the western edge of this property. Property Located Immediately South of the Proposed Project Site Tax Parcel No. 0421049149, is a fully developed single-family residential lot with an existing residence located in the western of the property. The eastern portion of this property is similar in character to the eastern portion of the subject property. On the City's Critical Area Maps the eastern portion of this property is mapped as a wetland. Watershed Dynamics did not enter this Property, but did observe potential wetland characteristics on this property similar to those in the subject property. The identified Major Stream (see Photo I above) is located along the eastern edge of this property. Property Located Immediately West of the Proposed Project Site The property located on the west side of the subject property is the right-of-way for Military Road South. This right-of-way is managed by the City as a public roadway. FINDINGS Background Data Search Prior to conducting a field reconnaissance Watershed Dynamics reviewed available public sources to determine what information was already available regarding the subject property. Watershed Dynamics reviewed the following sources: 1. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) online data base, which contains information regarding wetlands that have been mapped throughout the United States (see Figure 3). 2. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) online soils inventory data base, which contains information regarding soil series classification and mapping throughout the United States (see Figure 4A). 3. A Catalo a of Was ton on Streams and Salmon Utilizatio Volume 1, Puget Sound that was published by the Washington Department of Fisheries in November 1972. This document provided information about rivers and streams in the Puget Sound Area, including those rivers and streams located in Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 9. WRIA 9 is the Duwamish River basin, which is the watershed in which the subject property is located. The subject property is located in the Bingaman Creek basin, which is a tributary to Mullen Slough that drains into the Green River. A portion of the upper reaches of Bingaman Creek is located at the eastern edge of the subject property. 4. The City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map — Soils Map (see Figure 4B) and Stream Ratings (see Figure S). Critical Areas Report — Page 3 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 Results of Background Data Search NWI Map: Review of the USFWS NWI Map pertinent to the subject property revealed that no wetlands or stream channels had been identified or mapped by the USFWS. NRCS Web Soil Survey: Review of the NRCS data base did not reveal any information regarding the soil series mapped within or in close proximity to the subject property. Watershed Dynamics reviewed the Soil Conservation Service (precursor to the NRCS) Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington that was published in November 1973. The subject property is shown on Sheet 15 of the SCS publication. There were two soil series mapped within and adjacent to the subject property. The three soil series were: AgC The western one-third of the subject property is mapped as AgC soil series. This soil series is identified as Alder -wood gravelly sandy loam located on 6% to 15% slopes. This is a moderately well drained weakly consolidated gravelly sandy soil that is typical in areas where there are or were coniferous forest. This soil series is not identified as a hydric (wetland) soil on the National Hydric Soils List (maintained by NRCS) Or The eastern two-thirds of the subject property is mapped as Or soil series. This soil series is identified as Orcas peat, which is typically located in level to slightly concave areas. This soil series is very organic, very poorly drained soil that is listed as a hydric soil on the National Hydric Soils List. NOTE: The 1973 SCS Soils Map of this area included an area of Norma silt loam (No) in the western half of the subject property. This soil series, which is a hydric (wetland soil) was no shown on the Web Soil Survey. Stream Catalogue: Review of the stream catalogue revealed that the upper reaches of Bingaman Creek were not mapped by WDFW when the catalogue was compiled. The lower portion of the creek is mapped but the portion of the channel downstream of 55 h Avenue South has been relocated since the maps were prepared in 1972. City of Federal Way Critical Area Maps: The City had one map showing the inventoried wetlands and the inventoried streams (see Figure 5). Review of the map showed the presence of a wetland, the boundaries of which corresponded to the boundaries of the hydric soils mapped on the 1973 SCS Soil Survey. Discussion with City of Federal Way staff revealed that the wetland boundary had not been delineated as part of the 1998 wetland inventory, but that a test pit was excavated near the eastern boundary of the site to verify the presence of hydric soils. Review of this map also revealed that the stream adjacent to the eastern boundary of the subject property was identified as a Major Stream. Field Reconnaissance Based on the results of the background data search it was apparent that there was a potential for both a wetland and a major stream to be present within or in close proximity to the subject property. That discovery prompted Watershed Dynamics to undertake a field reconnaissance to confirm that the two critical areas were present. Critical Areas Report — Page 4 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 Watershed Dynamics completed an initial site review and a basin reconnaissance on April 28, 2009. Watershed Dynamics was unable to evaluate the entire site because of the dense vegetative cover, primarily blackberry thickets. Watershed Dynamics walked through the western portion of the site in the forested area and the eastern fringe of the site. The latter area was accessed from Camelot Square Mobile Home Park. The upper extent of the Bingaman Creek watershed is located south and west of the subject property on the west side of Military Road. Bingaman Creek eventually flows into the Green River via Mullen Slough located in Kent, Washington. Bingaman Creek is classified as a Major Stream (see Figure S) in Federal Way because it is believed that salmonid fish (both anadromous and resident) utilize the stream. Watershed Dynamics drove through the Bingaman Creek watershed starting at the upper end of the basin near Military Road and ending at the crossing under S.E. 272nd Street in Kent, Washington. The intent of this reconnaissance was to look at the channel condition in various readily accessible locations (i.e. road crossing, public property, etc.). Watershed Dynamics photographed some of its findings, which are presented below. PHOTO 2: View of stream channel at the east end of King Arthur Court, a street inside the Camelot Square Mobile Home Park. The cyclone fence visible in the lower right hand corner of the photo is part of the Interstate 5 right-of-way boundary fence. Critical Areas Report — Page S Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gwn Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 PHOTO 3: View of Bingaman Creek in ditched section of channel adjacent to one of the mobile homes in the Camelot Square Mobile Home Park. The cyclone fence is at the western boundary of the Interstate 5 right-of-way boundary. The blue dashed line is the centerline of the ditch. The stream reconnaissance was intended to validate the City's classification as a Major Stream by finding the characteristics set forth in the definition of a Major Stream, which is published in the City of Federal Way Municipal Code, Chapter 22, Article 1, Section 22-1 Definitions (see Attachment 1). During the reconnaissance effort, Watershed Dynamics was primarily interested in habitat and channel conditions as well as the presence of fish using the channel. Watershed Dynamics began the reconnaissance at Military Road south of the subject property and continued in a downstream direction to S.E. 272°d Street in Kent. The channel section from Military Road to the northeast corner of Tax Parcel 0421049062 is a ditch that has been manipulated numerous times, including the sewer line installation by Lakehaven (formerly Federal Way) Water and Sewer District in the late 1990's or early 2000's (see Figure 2A). Watershed" Dynamics did not observe any fish in this channel section and the habitat quality was poor to very poor for salmonid species. The channel section along the eastern edge of Camelot Square Mobile Home Park south of S. 288th Street within the Interstate 5 right-of-way is typical of the stream channel (ditch) in the area where there are mobile homes on both sides of the channel (see Photo 2 and Photo 3 above). The channel from the northeast corner of Tax Lot 0421049062 to the south side of S. 288 h Street is a partially maintained ditch located on both private property and in the Interstate 5 right-of- way. Critical Areas Report — Page 6 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 Bingaman Creek enters a culvert on the south side of S. 288th Street and flows north under the street. This culvert is not a fish passable culvert due to the immediate drop at the culvert entrance. Watershed Dynamics walked through the area on the north side of S. 288t' Street to determine the culvert outlet locations north of the S. 288t` Street. Watershed Dynamics was also trying to determine if there was an open stream channel along the west of the Interstate 5 corridor north of S. 288'' Street. Watershed Dynamics did locate the outlet of the culvert under S. 288" Street and the open channel (ditch) along the west side of Interstate 5. The channel (ditch) extends several hundred feet north along the freeway to a culvert that crosses under Interstate 5 (see Figure 6). The dense vegetation and poor lighting in this area prevented Watershed Dynamics from acquiring a photograph of this reach. NOTE: The stream channel location shown on Figure 5 in incorrect between the south side of S. 288t4i Street and the interior road within the Lost Creek Village complex (located on the east side of Interstate 5). Figure 5 is a copy of a portion of the City of Federal Stream Ratings Map. The channel location shown in Figure 6 is approximately correct in the area where S. 288`h Street crosses under Interstate 5. The culvert located under Interstate 5 extends at an angle across nearly the entire width of the right-of-way, a distance of nearly 200 feet. Photo 4 below was taken on the west side of the Lost Creek Village complex near the east edge of the Interstate 5 right-of-way. PHOTO 4: View of the stream channel in the western portion of the Lost Creek Village Complex. Blue dashed line shows the approximate stream thalweg (energy centerline). Critical Areas Report — Page 7 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Glan Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 Watershed Dynamics continued its reconnaissance in a downstream direction looking at the channel where it leaves Bingarnan Pond, the 45`h Avenue South crossing, and the 46th Avenue South crossing. Although it was not confirmed during the reconnaissance, Watershed Dynamics noted that the crossing at 46th Avenue South did not appear to allow fish passage. This assessment was based on the observed elevation difference between the stream channel on the upstream and downstream sides of the road. Watershed Dynamics reviewed the area west of where Bingaman Creek crosses under 55th Avenue South (see Photo 5, Photo 6, and Photo 7 below). PHviv a: view of the downstream (outlet) end of the culvert under 55`" Avenue South. This culvert is not fish passable in its current condition, but can be corrected to allow fish passage to habitat available upstream. It was apparent that the stream channel in this area had been recently manipulated and the stream no longer flowed eastward to the field ditches located east of the houses and barns adjacent to 55th Avenue South. The channel configuration at the time of the reconnaissance was a ditch immediately adjacent to 55th Avenue South and the driveway access to the houses and barns on the east side of 55 h Avenue South. Watershed Dynamics did observe fish in the stream. The fish appeared to be juvenile salmonids in the 50mm to 65 mm size range. Although Watershed Dynamics did not capture any of the observed fish, it was suggested that these were either juvenile cutthroat trout (ancorhynchus clarkii) or juvenile coho salmon (Qncorhynchus kisutch), both of which should be in this stream at the time the reconnaissance was completed. Critical Areas Report — Page $ Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 rt OTO 6: View of the Bingaman Creek channel under the driveway from 55th Avenue South to the farm. PHOTO 7A (left) is view of channel immediately downstream of the section shown in Photo 6 (above). Photo 7B (right) is view of channel downstream of bridge access to house shown in Photo 7A. Critical Arens Report — Page 9 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian si►agir Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 Following the stream reconnaissance Watershed Dynamics contacted the City of Federal Way to determine why the entire stream channel of Bingaman Creek was classified as a Major Stream, given the conditions if the stream upstream of approximately 46`, Avenue South. The City indicated that the stream and wetland inventory completed in 1998 resulted in that classification. Watershed Dynamics informed the City that it had conducted a stream habitat assessment in the lower reaches of Bingaman Creek (downstream of 46 h Avenue South) in the late 1990's, but had not reviewed any of the upper stream reaches. At the time of their survey in the late 1990's Watershed Dynamics found several sections of the channel between 55`� Avenue South and 46 h Avenue South appeared to be too steep to allow fish passage. These steeper sections were primarily in the upper end of the study area. During their survey, Watershed Dynamics used an electro-shocker to capture fish within the study area and found fish only in the lower half of the study section as well as in the channel between 55h Avenue South and S.E. 272nd Street. Field Assessment of Potential Wetlands The initial investigation of the subject property focused on identifying and delineating the wetland that was shown on the City of Federal Way Stream Ratings Map (see Figure 5). Watershed Dynamics conducted this study in accordance with the Co s of En ineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1) published in January 1987 by the US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. This document is commonly referred to as the 1987 Manual. Watershed Dynamics also followed the guidance presented in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (WDQE publication No. 96-94) published and distributed by the Washington Department of Ecology in March 1997. Finally, Watershed Dynamics used the wetland classification system defined in the Classification of Wetland and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWSIQBS 79131) that was released by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in December 1979. This classification system is commonly referred to as the Cowardin Classification System after one of the principal authors. Transects: The majority of the property was densely cohered by a combination of Himalayan blackberry (Rebus discolor), evergreen blackberry (Rebus lacinialus), and spires (Spiraea dauglasii). Watershed Dynamics directed the property owner to cut narrow pathways (transects) through the property from east to west and at intervals of approximately 50 feet to 75 feet apart. The owner was instructed to place one transect approximately 25 feet north and parallel to the south property boundary and another approximately 25 feet south and parallel to the north property boundary. Due to the density of the vegetation and the degree of difficulty associated with creating the pathways using only machetes and pruning shears, the pathway was more of a wandering trial through the site rasher than the anticipated straight-line transects Watershed Dynamics had intended to use to identify the wetland and non -wetland areas of the site. Field Data Collection: The field investigation started on May 7, 2008, once the area was cleared enough to allow access. Initially, Watershed Dynamics determined that the plant community within 80 feet to 100 feet of the stream channel (ditch) located at the east end of the site was dominated by willow (Salix sp) and spirea. Because this plant community was dominated by hydrophytic plants it met at least one of the criteria needed to be classified as a wetland. Watershed Dynamics then proceeded to locate a distinct change in the plant community as the field investigation continued from east to west. Critical Areas Report —Page 10 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 Watershed Dynamics identified a distinct edge between the spirea/willow plant community and the community to the west that was dominated by Himalayan and evergreen blackberry mixed 7�5 with spires. This distinct change in the vegetation appeared to indicate a variation in the b ` subsurface hydrology. To determine whether or not the blackberry/spirea plant community was hydric (wetland) or non-hydric (upland), Watershed Dynamics had to evaluate the character of the soils and near surface groundwater on both sides of the vegetation break. Sample Points and Data Collection: Watershed Dynamics established 5 sample points, numbered SP-050708-01 through SP-050708-05, and excavated a soil pit in the center of each of those sample locations. The sample points were identified by tying florescent pink and florescent blue survey flagging on lath placed at the approximate center of each sample point. The vegetarian within 3.3 feet of the center of the pit was evaluated to determine the species present and the dominant species within the sample point. Soil characteristics were evaluated and recorded for each soil layer between the ground surface and a depth of 18 inches or greater. The hydrologic condition was determined and the depth of soil saturation and the depth of free water in the pit were measured and recorded. The data collected was recorded in a field notebook and later transferred to field data sheets that are included in this report (see Attachment 2). During its evaluation, Watershed Dynamics noted that there was a layer of bark and chips covering almost the entire area within 15 feet to 20 feet of the distinct vegetation break. The owner had no knowledge regarding when the chips may have been placed in the area. The material did appear to be old and was partially decomposed. In addition, Watershed Dynamics noted that most of the spirea was dead in the area where the bark and ships were located. To determine the conditiions of the spires that appeared to be dead, Watershed Dynamics broke individual stems off near the ground level and found no green tissue or moist, spongy tissue in any of the stems. Whether or not the dead spirea was the result of the placement of bark and wood chips is unknown. Plant Data Summary: The sample plots had up to 50% unvegetated, essentially bare ground. The dominant plant at SP-050708-1 through SP-050708-04 was dead spirea while the dominant plant at SP-050708-05 was Himalayan blackberry. There was Himalayan and/or evergreen blackberry invading the dead spirea at SP-050708-01, SP-050708-02, SP-050708-03 and SP- 050708-04. There was English holly and cascara growing at SP-050708-01. There was bitter cherry and a non-native species of birch located at SP-050708-02. The plant community was confusing at best and indicated both hydric and non-hydric conditions. Hydrologic Data Summary: The soil at SP-050708-01 was saturated at -3 inches and there was standing water in the pit at -21 inches. From -8 inches to -16 inches the soil was only moist, not saturated. The soil at SP-050708-02 was saturated at -13 inches and there was no standing water in the pit that was 20 inches deep. The soil at SP-050708-03 was saturated at -13 inches and there was no standing water in the pit that was 20 inches deep. The soil at SP-050708-04 was saturated at -3 inches and there was standing water at -25 inches. There was a moist, not saturated, layer at -8 inches to -18 inches. The soil at SP-050708-05 was saturated at -11 inches and there was no standing water in the pit that was 20 inches deep. Watershed Dynamics concluded that SP-050708-01, Sp-050708-04, and SP-050708-05 exhibited at least marginal hydrologic characteristics representative of wetland conditions. Critical Areas Report — Page 11 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 Soil Data Summary: The soil sampled at each of the 5 sample points had an organic layer (bark and chips) to a depth of from -1 inch to -3 inches. The soil below the organic layer was hydric to a depth of -I I inches to -12 inches. The soil below -I I inches or -12 inches was a silty clay loam (5YR 2.5/2) without mottles, which is a non-hydric soil. In summary there was hydric soil in the upper 12 inches of soil at all 5 sample points and there was non-hydric soil under hydric layer at all 5 sample points. Additional Data Collection: On February 20, 2009 and again on March 31, 2009 Watershed Dynamics visited the subject property to evaluate hydrologic conditions at the sample point locations established on May 8, 2008. These additional visits were prompted by information about a wetland delineation that had been completed on the parcel immediately north of the subject property. At a meeting with the City on February 10, 2009 Watershed Dynamics was provided information regarding a critical areas review that had been completed on Tax Parcel No. 0421049062. This study had been completed by Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc. (SWCI) in April 2006 and revised July 2006. The SWCI delineation was reviewed by Sheldon and Associates, Inc. (SAI), a consulting firm under contract to the City to review critical areas studies at the time of the SWCI wetland delineation, stream analysis, and critical areas report preparation. The information in the SWCI report and the subsequent review memo from SAI indicated that the wetland on Tax Parcel No. 0421049062 extended from the stream channel on the east side of the property to the toe of the forested slope on the west side of the property. This information indicated that there was regulated wetland habitat immediately north of what Watershed Dynamics had identified as non -wetland habitat. This incongruity could only be resolved by collecting additional data along the northern boundary of the subject property in those areas where the north side of the boundary was delineated as wetland habitat and the south side of the boundary was delineated as non -wetland. On February 20, 2009 Watershed Dynamics established four (4) additional sample points along the northern property of the Singh property (see Figure 2A). These 4 sample points were identified as SP-022009-01 through SP-022009-04 with SP-022009-01 located approximately 220 feet east of the northwest property corner and SP-022009-04 located approximately 500 feet east of the northwest property corner. The following is a description of the conditions observed at each of the 4 sample points. Although Watershed Dynamics was primarily interested in the hydrologic condition at these sample points, the sample points were evaluated to determine vegetative community, wetland hydrology, and soil characteristics. SP-022009-01 was located at a point that was on the SWCI delineated wetland boundary just north of their boundary point A-8 and on the north property line of the Singh property. Vegetation: At SP-022009-01 the vegetative community was comprised of approximately 15% salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), approximately 20% Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), approximately 5% evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), and approximately 15% Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis). There was no herb or tree layer within the sample point. The ground was essentially bare with organic matter (bark and mosses) at the surface. The plant community was dominated by facultative upland (FACU) plants. Critical Areas Report — Page 12 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 Hydrology: The soil moisture was evaluated during a period of normal precipitation. The soil profile was comprised of an organic layer (surface to -3") and a 10YR 2/1 silt loam w/o mottles (-3" to -20"). On March 31, 2009 when Watershed Dynamics visited the site for a second additional review, the soil was moist, but not saturated from the surface to -18 inches during a period of normal to above normal precipitation. Watershed Dynamics concluded that this sample point was in a non -wetland habitat. Soil: The soil profile was comprised of an organic layer (surface to 4") and a 10YR 2/1 silt loam w/o mottles (-3" to -20"). Based on the data collected Watershed Dynamics concluded that this sample point was located in a non -wetland habitat. SP-022009-02 was located approximately 85 feet east of the SWCI delineated wetland boundary on the north property line of the subject property (see Figure 2A). Vegetation: At SP-022009-02 the vegetative community was dominated by Himalayan blackberry and evergreen blackberry, which together covered 100% of the sample point. Both species are FACU or drier. Hydrology: On February 20, 2009 the soil was moist, but not saturated from the surface to a depth of 19 inches. On March 31, 2009 the soil was moist, but not saturated to a depth of 16 inches. The soil moisture was evaluated during a period of normal precipitation. Soil: The soil profile was comprised of an organic layer (surface to -4"), a 10YR 2/1 silt loam w/o mottles (-4" to -11"), and a 5YR 3/3 silt loam w/o mottles (-I I" to -19"). Based on the data collected Watershed Dynamics concluded that this sample point was located in a non -wetland habitat. SP-022009-03 was located approximately 185 feet east of the SWCI delineated wetland boundary on the north property line of the subject property (see Figure 2A). Vegetation: At SP-022009-03 the vegetative community was dominated by spirea, a facultative wet (FACW) species that covered 100% of the sample point. Although the plant community was dominated by a hydrophytic species, the majority (approximately 90%) of the spirea within and outside of the sample point was dead. Himalayan and evergreen blackberry appeared to be replacing the spirea outside the sample point, which could be an indication the site was getting drier and converting from wetland to non -wetland habitat. Hydrology: On February 20, 2009 the soil profile was moist, but not saturated from the surface to a depth of 16 inches and it was saturated from -16 inches to -20 inches. On March 31, 2009 the soil was moist, but not saturated to a depth of 13 inches and was saturated from -13 inches to -20 inches. The latter soil moisture probably reflects the 0.59 inches of precipitation that occurred between March 28, 2009 and March 31, 2009. The soil moisture was evaluated during a period of normal precipitation. Soil: The soil profile was comprised of an organic layer (surface to -3 inches), a 10YR 2/1 silt loam w/o mottles (-4" to -14"), and a 5YR 3/3 silt loam w/o mottles (-14" to -20"). Based on the data collected Watershed Dynamics concluded that this sample point was located in a non -wetland habitat. Critical Areas Report — Page 13 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property J Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 (this page revised 06116109) SP-022009-04 was located approximately 285 feet east of the SWCI delineated wetland boundary on the north property line of the subject property (see Figure 2A). Vegetation: At SP-022009-04 the vegetative community (cover) was comprised of approximately 15% spirea and approximately 10% Himalayan blackberry with the remainder of the sample point bare organic material. Although this plant community was dominated by a hydrophytic species, a majority of the spirea within and outside the sample point were dead. The Himalayan and evergreen blackberry appeared to be replacing the spirea, which would indicate the site was getting drier and converting from wetland to non -wetland habitat. Hydrology: On February 20, 2009 the soil profile was moist, but not saturated from the surface to a depth of 16 inches and it was saturated from -16 inches to -20 inches. On March 31, 2009 the soil was moist, but not saturated to a depth of 13 inches and was saturated from -13 inches to -20 inches. The latter soil moisture probably reflects the 0.59 inches of precipitation that occurred between March 28, 2009 and March 31, 2009. Soil: The soil moisture was evaluated during a period of normal precipitation. The soil profile was comprised of an organic layer (surface to -3 inches), a 10YR 2/1 silt loam w/o mottles (4' to -14'), and a 5YR 3/3 silt loam w/o mottles (44" to -20"). Based on the data collected Watershed Dynamics concluded that this sample point was located in a non - wetland habitat. Conclusion: Based on the data collected in May 2008 and the additional data collected in February 2009 and March 2009 Watershed Dynamics used the vegetation in combination with the hydrologic conditions to determine the location of the boundary between the spirea/willow community and the blackberry/spirea community (see Figure 2B). Watershed Dynamics concluded that the spirea/willow plant community was hydric (scrub -shrub wetland) and the blackberry/spirea community was non-hydric (non -wetland). The identified/delineated wetland extends both north and south of the subject property onto the adjoining parcels. The wetland within the subject property is approximately 10,169 square feet (0.23 acres) in size. The size of the entire wetland is not known, however, Watershed Dynamics estimates that it is less than 1 acre in size. If the wetland is one acre or less in size in its entirety, it is, FWMC §22-1357(b)(3) and FWMC §22-1357(b)(3) a Category lU Wetland requiring a 50- foot buffer. In addition, the onsite and offsite wetland exhibits only one wetland class since the adjacent Minor Stream is a managed ditch and not a wetland class per City definition. Non -Wetland Habitat: The blackberry/spirea community changed approximately half way across the property (on the east -west axis) to a community that included domestic apple trees. This plant community appeared to be upland, a conclusion based primarily on the dominance of non-hydrophytic plants and the lack of near surface hydrology (saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil column). Approximately 90 feet to 180 feet west of the east edge of Military Road South the plant community was dominated by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesh), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) with some red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata). This mixed conifer/deciduous plant community was definitely upland. Critical Areas Report — Page 14 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 City of Federal Way Review: Once the critical areas report is submitted to the City of Federal Way, City staff' will review the report and complete a site visit to verify the location of the wetland boundary. The wetland boundary delineated by Watershed Dynamics will not be final until the City completes its review. Field Survey of Stream Channel After the wetland delineation was completed, Watershed Dynamics contacted the City of Federal Way to revisit the classification of the stream adjacent to the east side of the subject property. Based on the observations made during its field reconnaissance, Watershed Dynamics felt that the stream channel did not meet the code definition of a Major Stream from S. 288t' Street southward. To clarify the definition and what information was needed to potentially change the steam classification, Watershed Dynamics contacted Mr. Joe Wolfe. P.E., Stormwater Management Engineer with the City. During the latter part of August 2008, Mr. Wolfe discussed this issue with Mr. Larry Burnstad, Senior Environmental Biologist with Watershed Dynamics. During the phone conversation Mr. Wolfe indicated that a stream survey needed to be completed to identify fish passage barriers in the channel. He also indicated that the survey must be stamped by a professional licensed surveyor (PLS). Mr. Wolfe explained that a fish passage barrier had to be a natural feature and that any section of the stream channel that had a gradient of 10% or higher was considered to be a fish passage barrier. Mr. Burnstad asked about human -made barriers that were impassable, such as the culvert under Interstate 5, and was told that only natural barriers would be considered, but human -made barriers observed in the survey area should noted. Critical Areas Report — Page IS Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 Field Survey: The field work was initiated at the end of September and was completed on October 6, 2008. The survey was conducted from the outlet end of the culvert under 46 Avenue South (see Photo 7 below) to the inlet of the culvert under 55 h Avenue South. PHOTO 7A (left) is a view of the outlet end of the culvert under 46`h Avenue South. Photo 7B (right) is a view of the steep channel below the culvert outlet. The first 50 feet of channel downstream of the culvert outlet bad an average gradient of 24.98% with the gradient in the first 15 feet of channel at 45.30%. The road fill over the top of the culvert is approximate 20 feet deep and the culvert section is approximately 120 feet long at a 5% gradient. The channel leading up to the culvert and the culvert itself combine to make a fish passage barrier. It appears that even if the culvert were removed, a bridge was installed, and the stream channel was restored to its natural state the restored channel would have a gradient steeper than 10%. Critical Areas Report —Page 16 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 The stream survey was completed using a three person field crew. One person was dedicated to chopping brush along the stream to allow the other crew members to survey the thalweg (centerline of energy) from Station 0+00 (outlet of culvert under 46h Avenue South to Station 37+72 (inlet of culvert under 55 h Avenue South). The survey was completed using a level and rod to determine elevation change, a laser to measure the distance between stations, and a compass to determine the station to station azimuth (see Photo 8 below). PHOTO 8: This is a view looking downstream toward the rod that was used along with a level to determine the difference in elevation between stations. The crew member with the level is upstream at one station (a point along the thalweg where the azimuth changed) to the next station downstream. The elevation change, distance, and azimuth were measured at each station and the data collected was recorded in a field notebook. The field data was transferred to a spreadsheet and plan sheets were drawn showing the plan and profile view of the channel from STA 0+00 to STA 37+72 (see Attachment 3). The data has been approved and stamped by a PLS as required by the City. Watershed Dynamics did find several areas where the channel gradient was greater than 10%. Fish were observed during the field survey from STA 14+90 downstream. No fish were observed upstream of STA 14+90. Critical Areas Report — Page 17 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 Between STA 0+00 and STA 14+90 there were 15 sections of stream where the channel gradient was 10% or greater. The steepest section had a 45.3% gradient and was located between STA 0+00 and STA 0+15 (see field data provided in Attachment 3). Between STA 14+90 and STA 37+72 Watershed Dynamics observed six fish in various locations (primarily pools) along the stream. The largest fish observed was approximately 250mm to 260mm in total length (ocular estimate). Four of the six observed were in the 50mm to 60 mm size range and did appear to be salmonids. Watershed Dynamics did not try to capture any of the fish observed to actually measure the size or to determine the species of the fish because that would require a Scientific Collection Permit. Since the intent of the survey was to evaluate the physical characteristics of the stream, Watershed Dynamics did not pursue acquisition of a collection permit for this project. Photo 9 through Photo 16B (see photos below) are representative of photographs were taken to document the habitat conditions within the stream channel. Watershed Dynamics has 68 photos taken in Bingaman Creek on file. Those photographs are available upon request. PHOTO 9: This is a view of the channel incision and steep side slopes that were typical in the upper 1,500 feet to 2,000 feet of the stream channel. Most of these steep banks were contributing significant amounts of sediment to the channel. Critical Areas Report — Page 18 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 PHOTO 10: This is a view of typical channel bottom material. Note the "cementation' of the bed gravel due to the high amounts of Ime sediment compacted between the larger bed material. PHOTO 11: Large woody debris and debris slides were prevalent throughout the stream corridor. Critical Areas Report — Page 19 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property l AEC ip- . . . . . . . . . . . ado - AA Fj Or, r'• +ly= .,, 1 � ?t: 4 �i " ' kvi:ii C y - r j ^ tiI�R]N� 1� •,y'•-'y •~` T-jam. "�y�" - Ong Kam'• ,r ` r• ♦ "� '• • • ••� L y Y +� . 1 Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 ter` \ PHOTO 16A (left) is a view of some of the human -caused channel slope failures in the stream corridor. Roof /1 and yard drains are routed ever the top of the slope into the stream corridor and the concentrated flow is discharged on to unstable slopes. The result is debris slides that carrier woody material along with soil and rock into the stream. This material is typically delivered on greater volumes than the stream can process so there in significant habitat degradation and, in some cases, the creation temporary fish passage barriers. PHOTO 16B (right) is a view of a broken drainage pipe that cause the side slope to fail. Watershed Dynamics observed several debris jams in the channel that include embedded human -made materials include pieces of drainage pipe such as the pipes shown in the two photos. In addition to the human -made materials that are shown in the photographs above, Watershed Dynamics observed another failed concrete weir at STA 17+06. The stream channel was located in a path around the weir that at some point was a water supply diversion structure. Watershed Dynamics observed sections of wooden water pipe on the north side of the channel that may have conveyed water from the creek to the farm on the east side of 55`' Avenge South. Watershed Dynamics also observed numerous tires (with and without rims), vehicle parts, metal drums, plastic bottles, and various other human -made products imbedded in debris jams and along the channel floodplain. This type of material is common in urban stream corridors. Watershed Dynamics also observed a group of gabion baskets on the north side of the channel at STA 25+63. This "structure" appeared to be an energy dissipation system installed at the end of a 24-inch diameter HDPE pipe that was placed on top of the ground from the top of the slope to the stream channel. This pipe was installed to convey stormwater from a retention/detention pond located within a residential development to the stream channel. The stormwater management system appeared to be working as planned and there was no evidence of stream channel or habitat alteration as a result of that installation. Critical Areas Report —Page 22 Proposed Multi family Residential Deelopment Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 (this page revised 06116109) CONCLUSIONS Wetland Habitat: There is a wetland shown on the City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map within the subject property. As mapped, this wetland appears to cover the eastern two-thirds of the subject property, the eastern two-thirds of the parcel (TPN 0421049062) that is immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the subject property, and the eastern two-thirds of the parcel (TPN 0421049149) that is immediately south of the subject property (see Photo I above). The field verification for the designation of this area as a wetland was one sample point located at the eastern edge of the subject property. That sample point was located approximately 15 feet to 20 feet west of the west side of the stream channel located adjacent to the east side of the subject property. No other sample plots were evaluated prior to mapping the wetland in the location shown_ The plot evaluated by the investigators who prepared the City's Critical Areas Map was east of the wetland boundary delineated by Watershed Dynamics and was, therefore, located in wetland habitat. That sample plot was not, however, representative of the entire area that was eventually included on the City's map. The boundary was set on the basis of the vegetation shown on an aerial photo. Watershed Dynamics evaluated a total of 5 sample points to determine the approximate location of the wetland edge. Hydrology, vegetation, and soils were all examined at these 5 sample points. In addition, Watershed Dynamics evaluated 4 additional sample points located along the north property line. Those sample points were examined to determine wetland hydrology during the early part of the 2009 growing season. Watershed Dynamics determined based on the distinctive break between the willow/spirea community and the blackberry/spirea community that the actual wetland was significantly smaller than that shown on the City's Critical Areas Map. Watershed Dynamics determined that there was regulated wetland only in the eastern one-third of the subject property. That area was approximately 10,169 square feet (0.23 acres) in size. The onsite wetland was part of a larger scrub -shrub wetland that extended off site to the north and south. Watershed Dynamics was unable to find any published studies completed on the property that is south of the subject property. Although Watershed Dynamics did not have permission to enter the property to the south, based on ocular observation of those areas visible from the subject property Watershed Dynamics concluded that the vegetative communities were similar in character to those sampled on the subject property. There was a definite break between the willow/spirea community and the blackberry/spirea community just as there was on the subject property. Watershed Dynamics concluded the area of wetland habitat on this parcel was approximately the same size as the wetland area on the subject property. Watershed Dynamics did find a wetland study for the property to the north of the subject property. That study was prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (SWC) and reviewed for the City by Sheldon and Associates, Inc. (SAI)_ The wetland report had to be revised following SAI's review because there was a disagreement between the SWC biologist and the SAI biologist regarding the location of the western edge of the wetland. Critical Areas Report — Page 23 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 (this page revised 06116109) The SAI biologist contended that the wetland boundary was west of the location delineated by the SWC biologist. The field data, collected at the single sample point documented in the report, did not support the SAI conclusion because wetland hydrology was not present at the time of the investigation. The SAI biologist insisted, however, that wetland hydrology had to be assumed because of the presence of spirea and organic soils. Typically, the lack of wetland hydrology during the early part of the growing season under normal precipitation conditions would have been evidence that the sample point was located in non -wetland habitat rather than in a wetland habitat. Apparently SWC was unable to sway the City's contract biologist based on the lack of one of the three parameters that, under normal circumstances, must all be present for a sample point to be designated as being in wetland habitat. As a result, the wetland boundary on the property to the north of the subject property was delineated at the toe of the upland slope and approximately two-thirds of TPN 0421049062 was classified as wetland habitat. During its field investigation, Watershed Dynamics found the southern most wetland boundary marker set by the PLS who surveyed TPN 0421049062. This point was located on the northern boundary of the subject property. Watershed Dynamics evaluated a sample point to the west and one to the east of that wetland boundary point and did not observe wetland hydrology in either sample point between January and April 2009 when precipitation was essentially within the normal range. The lack of wetland hydrology and the presence of non -wetland vegetation at the location of this wetland boundary point led Watershed Dynamics to conclude that the wetland boundary delineated on TPN 0421049062 may actually be significantly east of where the boundary was set by SAI. Watershed Dynamics observed conditions on TPN 0421049062 that were very similar to those observed on the subject property. The western portion of the site was a upward sloping upland adjacent to Military Road, the central portion of the site was dominated by Himalayan and evergreen blackberry rooted within and growing over the top of dead or dying spirea, and eastern portion of the site was a mixture of spirea and willow with the latter species located closer to the Minor Stream that is adjacent to the eastern edge of all three properties. Watershed Dynamics concluded the vegetation indicated a transition from wetland to non - wetland habitat in the central portion of the site because of the gradual alteration of near -surface groundwater down -slope of the developed areas that are west of these three properties. Over time, probably during the period 20 years to 50 years ago, the tributary basin the vegetative community gradually changed from forest and agricultural vegetation to low -density single- family residences with more lawn and fewer trees to high density residential areas with minimal vegetative cover. Part of the changing pattern of land use included a significant increases in the amount of impervious surfaces within the basin. A majority of the development occurred prior to the inclusion of the stormwater management practices that are common today and in developments that have been constructed during the past 20 years. As a result, near -surface groundwater recharge has diminished causing the wet season water table to be lower than it was 50 years to 100 years ago. In addition, stormwater runoff from the increased impervious surfaces has resulted in higher and longer duration peak flows during the wet season and diminished base flows during the dry season. This is evidence by the fact that the stream adjacent to the east side of the subject property is dry most of the summer and early fall. Critical Areas Report — Page 24 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 (this page revised 06116109) During the early part of the growing season, however, water flowing through the stream channel flows into the near -surface groundwater and provides sufficient wetland hydrology to support wetland habitat in those areas near the stream channel. That would account for the presence of the wetland community that was delineated by Watershed Dynamics in the eastern one-third of the subject property. The gradual change in the hydrologic characteristics of the tributary basin accounts for the transition from the facultative wet and facultative plant species (willow and spirea) observed in the eastern one-third of the site to the facultative upland and dying facultative/facultative wet species observed in the central portion of the site. Based on the field evidence collected, conversation with other wetland biologists, and the ocular review of the offsite areas, Watershed Dynamics determined the onsite wetland was part of a larger scrub -shrub wetland complex that was less than one acre in size. Watershed Dynamics concluded further that this wetland complex was a Category III Wetland, primarily because it was a monotypic community that was disconnected from other wetland habitats and surrounded on three sides by high density residential development. NOTE: The minimum buffer width adjacent to a Category III Wetland is 50 feet. Stream Habitat: Following completion of the stream survey, Watershed Dynamics determined that Bingaman Creek is not a Major Stream in the area adjacent to the subject property. A combination of natural and human -made passage barriers prevent the upstream migration of anadromous salmon and trout species upstream of a point approximately 1,500 feet downstream of 46th Avenue South. If there are resident trout in Bingaman Creek or Bingaman Pond those fish would not be able to migrate upstream of the outlet of the culvert under Interstate 5 or the culvert under 45th Avenue South. It is feasible that the culvert under 45th Avenue South could be replaced with a fish passable structure. It seems highly unlikely, however, that either the culvert under Interstate 5 or the culvert under S. 288 h Street would ever be replaced to allow fish passage since anadromous salmon and trout cannot migrate any further upstream than a point located downstream of 46rh Avenue South. Critical Areas Report —Page 25 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 April 10, 2009 J Water ed Dynamics determined that there was regulated. wetland in the eastern portion of the subject perty. The onsite wetland was part of a larger scrub -shrub wetland that extended off site to th north and south. The wetland was determined to be a Category II Wetland, which would requi e a 100-foot buffer. Following co pletion of the stream survey, Watershed Dynamics determined that Bingaman Creek is not a ajor Stream in the area adjacent to the subject property. A combination of natural and hum -made passage barriers prevent the upstream migration of anadromous salmon and trout species pstream of a point approximately 1,500 feet downstream of 46th Avenue South. If there are resident ut in Bingaman Creek or Bingaman Pond those fish would not be able to migrate upstream of th outlet of the culvert under Interstate 5 or the culvert under 45th Avenue South. It is feasible t the culvert under 45th Avenue South could be replaced with a fish passable structure. It see s highly unlikely, however, that either the culvert under Interstate 5 or the culvert under S. 288th et would ever be replaced to allow fish passage since anadromous salmon and trout cannot mi to any further upstream than below 46th Avenue South. Critical Areas Report —Page 23 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 January 12, 2009 ATTACHMENT 3: Stream Survey Results This attachment documents the Bingaman Creek stream survey data collected by Watershed Dynamics. The stream channel thalweg (center line of energy) was surveyed by a three person crew in late September and early October 2008. The survey started at the outlet end of the culvert under 4e Avenue South. The starting point was designated as STA (survey station) 0+00. The survey ended at the inlet end of the culvert under 55`h Avenue South. The ending point was STA 37+72. The survey was conducted in an upstream to downstream (west to east) direction. The starting point elevation assigned at the invert of the culvert under 46`h Avenue South was 241.0 feet. This elevation was assigned based on available topographic maps and is not the actual culvert invert elevation. Because the intent of the survey was to determine the channel gradient from STA 0+00 to STA 37+72, the exact starting point elevation was not critical to the study. One member of the survey crew was assigned to clear the brush along the channel corridor to allow the channel to be surveyed by the other two crew members. One of the two members was assigned to the rod and the other was responsible for using a level to measure elevation at each station, a laser to measure the distance between stations, and a compass to determine the azimuth from one station to the next. The stations were located where the stream channel (thalweg) changed direction as the crew worked its way downstream. The data collected was recorded in a field notebook and was later transferred to a spreadsheet. That spreadsheet is included as part of this attachment. In addition to recording the elevation change, the station to station azimuth, and the station to station distance the survey crew photographed various features in the stream channel. Watershed Dynamics has a file with 68 photographs taken during the survey. Some of those photographs are included in the Critical Areas Report to which this document is attached. Unfortunately the weather did not cooperate during the survey and it was raining too hard to take photographs of all of the features that were observed. Once the data was transferred to the spreadsheet and channel gradients- were computed Watershed Dynamics prepared plan sheets showing both the plan and profile view of the channel thalweg. There are 13 plan sheets included in this attachment. Watershed Dynamics found 15 sections where the stream channel gradient was 10% or greater. The gradient of those sections of the channel are highlighted in yellow on the spreadsheet. The survey data and the plan sheets have been reviewed and approved by Mr. Paul E. Morrow, PLS, with DMP. This review was completed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Federal Way. Based on the stream survey data collected, recorded, and plotted Watershed Dynamics has concluded that the stream channel upstream of STA 14+90 should not be classified as a Major Stream. Watershed Dynamics recognizes that the City may choose to maintain the Major Stream classification on Bingaman Creek from Interstate 5 downstream because of the possible use by resident trout above and below Bingaman Pond. Watershed Dynamics has concluded, however, that the designation of Bingaman Creek upstream of Interstate 5 as a Major Stream is not warranted and that the classification should be changed to Minor Stream in that section. a va' CUC .a N � M .�. O O O U y N C.)'0 o a DWI +O 4 O � 6 R -r. 3 cN Gn U3 U �" y py i1 O con V-4 >~ O Y ° O - ° Y V1 .y Qi In 'on a�� Q a� on U) N N w ..M Cd 3 dp E O v M m y o > 00 N Cr! N '�? ,n N � 00 00 (0t- Cl) N kn N O O N 7s IW�I in ~ N [� r-Z lei tZ 00 1.6 V'1 1.6 Cr; 00 \O O\ 00 y O O O 'd U N v vOi OCA O 'C3 O N 0 +� 0 �+ M cn o °q p oo O� o0 0o o M oo M r N0-4 O w a z N N •-• •--� CV •--� N N •--i nj ° o � c W�A N ° b jo O O O O M O M O M N O N M U 7V. O Q ew N N M N N N m m N N NM M N N M �n N N N t CQC§ ;d U 4 N y y p y 'b E� q v+ N •� b4 b � ° p" A -'e . � c0 7 ¢ o t) 0 o> v) to o 0 0 Wn CD 00 00 0 0 0 }al .� 9 '� l 00 DD N �p .�-. N� -, - 0 ON 0 O� M a1 W O R% iOy W O N * M r+ vl 00 O [- N kn �O N [� O �n 00 l� �O O� Wn wn �t N M w N O M O C1 U3W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r+ b rl N M O �n �--� [- M O Wn O l- a1 O1 m m 1.0 � �O o0 O1 0 � �--� O [- �n 01% W — O W) �--� O N cn "T 110 �'O W W W W W Ey + O + O + O + CD + O + O + �--� + --� + -� + N + N + N + N + + + + + + + O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O z z z 4 z 0 0 � U N ~ � O O _ � II O O 3 � O V] II n .�; o m O U FW+ 3 `" o O N 3 44 cn En cn H 0.2 O U N M N 00 Cl -0 o a v z O% -- p oo O� O [- �O m to oo ? N kn -- as O N oo 00 0� l-: N_ 4 00 4 l to 'n kn N d l N kn U v � py �n N --� �n V'� N •--� t` � a1 � � [� t o0 --� � N \O v� .--� V 1 N v1 � N m � C cn v N N N O C O O O - N �A U G�y kn N m N N N m d 00 N N N 01 N N It m -- (~ M m Wn m m A O O kn O O O N O O Vn � O v1 O to v) CD CD O v1 to W) W) tn p 00 l� m m [� to m \p ry 00 m M 0\ en [� r- ",.i l0 01 t- 00 .,.i ,� M ^--i m 00 m m t- 00 a 00 kn O C� (+1 01 06 t-Z vi W) N 01 [� V7 vi M kn 'T wn wn wl N 00 01 00 m m r- V1 00 M .--i O N m M "T kn t- r- r. 00 1p ao -- O d1 m r- "It W) H O + m + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N + N kn O to O to O 110 O %D O t- O r- O t- 0 t- O 00 O 00 O 00 O 00 O 00 O 0%, O a*, O D1 O CD O w O a� Y to 'AM + � .- O 9 N b [6 'A v ti O z 0 c /-. Qy" cd U b O rn W U + O F O Y n � � z ' Y a�N 'C LC 'b •.may rn � O O O. O U S� Or, N O U N M U L1 v ZW O en l- "I: O\ N D1 N N O\ m °O O1 N O1 O .o O N [.: �_ �C [gy m- O °O r; vi �6 V) .O z N N M N U G7 w. iU•l p,{ N V) m --� G0 O N O OR a� n N A U m - - [� -+ N ^� N �O N v) N 01 -- � N M N 00 r+ C� N ItT l� N N 01 N N d V'1 N M O N to M oo v) N O N C m V] A `a O kf) k O O h v) kn O W) m O O N O O y) V'1 O O O m h W) m O W) ,n 01 in a, O to C1 kn h v) �O t- Z Z r- �t O, oo O O w w O ' + �O Wn m O\ N rl: N O, m M (0\ [- \�O v) O tt O, m 110 'O Cl \O N �O O m to + + + + + M m M m M kn W) %lo %.D �10 %O r- r- r- 00 00 00 ON ON m N 00 M N H O M + N Cr' z + H o N 0 O wo c� U ° o o rA 42 o b b o b En i a 3 U U N b0 ate+ En � CA N O N a �- W F O M N O m O to [� �-O O O kn N l� O O� O M V•; �n V1 r+ N �O �O C� m M [� N U G7 y H py N [� •--� M M V� O� M d: N O In In [� C� r� M O O O N N O N O '+ N O CO O O O O O N O O N O O A U [- N O 'n m � kn O O O M [� 00 M M �n 00 N HI v/ A x o O O O O kn — v, N CD [� O vl O �n CD[� O0 CDO v1 �n h O N O a1 O to O M O O �n D\ \O CDkn Cl O N C -� ,n m C� kn C)) N M 00 00 O n O Wn oo "i oo �O ,a o O O O O O o rn rn rn o, a� a� m oo oo oo 0000 00 0000 00 00 r r �O -- 00 N .-r V-t M M �O O O� N M N l— l� O� 'D O O\ 'n O 'n �--� Vn N "O -- �O N o0 v1 O M N M �t 'O to M 6� N O '� �O O �D M CO �O H + + N + N N + N + + + + N + N + N + N + N + N + N + N + N + N + N + N + N + in N + N + V) N + % N + N + N N N N N Q. .d O O U o g a °o F' C z U 3 [- t o O + M .0 n cq a4 O A N ^ 8 �+ N U O v z O O r� I: M: \�P O M t O m Nt N M M N m M d' OO M O vi 61 00 to 00 zt l- N vl O N N N m N U N M C7 a d U i.y G►y �O �a O M M IO lO �n n n lO o0 cn N N N o0 C, �n -- V - Nt 0o M O fV �--� �--� O O O O O O O �--� --� --� O O •--� --� O O O O --� as A U � N tn - O o0 1.0 \O O t O m O N v1 N V'1 M k/'i M m N m - N N v7 O N o0 'n N M to C m N N m V2 A �j O O to �n Cov'l ^, O O ,� O oo �n N 'm�/'� v7 O 1p O O l� O O v'� � tn V'1 w DD N 00 N O M O O t It .0s b 1-1 � � .�-i O� --i 00 00 .--� .-+ ,� 00 l� M l� 00 M --i .--i Wtn 011 M M O M O O� ? ? O o0 vl O C� I'D %D �10wnWntn,n,ntnWn,n,n w r-r-r-r-��%0 O to O O \D 00 It O 110 O Cl O m O kn kn %0 00 O kn 00 00 m O �.a M �a a, N --� 00 N V [- r N m N - O m In tn 00 O O + N + t + + O + N + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N [� N [� N t- N 00 N 00 N 00 N all N ON N a\ N � N a% N O m O M O M M -- M M - M N M N m N cn N M N cn M M M K1 M M M N 0 a0i M O � W `n m Y v �1 W F 00 C U L7 p., O vn M Nt 't Io �t cn OR bb �A W U wN F N (+1 I�t m m O1 N 00 N N �t O\ 00 kn O O �10 O 00 A F ,1 C m � v) bb a m � W) It 'T It 'IT I It lzt It' M W O M �O W) M v) Wn m w 00 co It N + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M T. 00 IV N G1 tn N eq O p 00 �p � M d1 a 2 C A N O 9A O U) N 1� R m Cl) 6SZ£p25 WZEVZfr 05i E4ZS OOL EcZS aSa EtrZS WO£trZ5 O O LY,LL.ZZL L4 Ll .ZZL N ,► M " i T '�CL lu AO 'r y N O cn Zi ■ �w aL n O a gg m Z ,.S.BL aZU ■ ['d m L X � P � m m Q C N � � N C � O W A ' .- m o 0 r N •C H C ti a �co Y.i ?^ o o N O A— k• z 0 °' c zQ ZU 091�EYZS , OSt1EPZ5 f700E4Zi �� io O N V �j k p $ 0)o f 0)§\ e _ §�) ®(L � Cd ° \ k\ § 2 O # k to p x 2) _ ��n G- �k 7 °I/ a{8 z ..kE§ « / ■ _,� � ± fC 2 \§;� ) 9 9 S §§ 2 e< 0 / 9 \0 $ �2 7 M§&t j ��E� Z ° § ) kk 0� G) 2 ' 7 _� = 'a)ƒk \\w � / S � k �� \ � } §2'o §r oCDo$a) § c m2ƒfƒ/ §R2) § _ 2`)/ = § An ] 0E / � ]k § } $ kw �§[2t » %k/ CLo r;$aG§AQ § a) == oE2E r80] EE / �= \ ) a. �\ / )( k_ )/ IM )\ 2 _ k ) �- 0 £ . ]ƒ ƒv 0 t$ m« c) J R& ■ k ts o §_ ] 2 f q G2d k a 2 G+ 2( t LU a -r. 6%CL 0 IL ■ W � a I Q 0 . _ E # 7 f] $) :\ f\ƒ 2 f 3 B 2) J� 2#£ o a 3 2 «- - 2 f f f$ S ■2 # & f % ) k °co ■f • K 2 2 2 3 n | 6 a | a a s § s I . (n U) A Q e$ k# k §c 20 k 4» e■>+ 2| A m n 2§ ) f qx,@ CL to « a z � 5 Soil Map —King County Area, Washington Soils Map - Gian Singh Property Map Unit Legend King County Area, Washington (WA633) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI AgB Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 6.8 23.4% j percent slopes AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 1.5 5.1 % percent slopes AmB Arents, Alderwood material, 0 to 6 percent 13.6 46.8% slopes Or Orcas peat 7.2 24.7% Totals for Area of Interest 29.0 100.0% USDA Natural Resources � Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2.1 National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 _ - Q "4 = c. �. c ... .rO Z 04 di V� m co rj ��v •....._ .._ 6 ,wl a cul rA vi i z a S 'OrA � Miiita Rd o. gi p' U O n i v 4� c , a �z N CA 04 H O O (A. V CA x" f C:p 0 0 i o y f I]'. ,0 ,>, O co z Z CIAa sPC co ai O wl 0 pow C, S ^b 419 4 ca `' a a O 3 } i.._,.-.__ o Wy S 0 �.- w Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 January 12, 2009 SAMPLE PLOT NUMBER: SP-050708-01 DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION ashi n ton State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 COE Wetland Delineation Manua! Pro'ecVSite: Gian Singh Property — Tax Parcel 0421049172 Date: 05/07/08 A licaut/Owner: Gian Singh County: King Investigator(s) : Larry D. Burnstad, Watershed Dynamics State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES X NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES X I NO Transect ID: f needed, explain on site condition on the reverse side of this sheet) Plot ID: VEGETATION(Note those s ecies observed to have inor hole ical adaptations to wetlands with an *) Dominant Plant Species % Stratum IS 1 Sub -dominant Species % Stratum IS S iraea dou lasd 95 S FACW Ilex a ui olium 5 S NI Rubus laciniatus 5 S FACU Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). >50 Includespecies noted * as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands: HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS Check all indicators that apply and explain below: Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of Physiological/reproductive adaptations: prolonged inundation/saturation: Wetland Database: Morphological Adaptations: Knowledge of regional plant communities: Technical Literature: Other (explain): Is Hydrophytic Vegetation dominant? Yes ?? The plant indicators were confusing. Rationale for Decision/Remarks: The sample plot was approximately 40% bare ground and 80% of the spirea was dead. The English holly and the blackberry were invading the plot, which is an indication the plot was getting drier. HYDROLOGY Is this the growing season? Yes Determination based on soil Temperature: no Recorded soil temperature (° C/F): na Other Information: Growing season is from 2/1 to 10/31 each year as defined by USACE guidance. Depth of inundation: none Depth to free water in pit: -21 inches Depth to saturated soil: -3 to -8 inches; -16 to -21 inches Recorded Data (check all that apply): Stream or Lake gaze data: YES I X I NO Aerial photogra Other (explain): YES I X I NO Water marks (P): YES I X Found on: na Sediment Deposits (P): NO 1 1 YES I X I NO Drift lines (P): YES Oxidized Root Channels present in upper 12" (S): YES I X I NO Found on: na Drainage Patterns (P): YES X I NO Local Soil Survey (S): X I YES I I NO FAC Neutral Test (S): Water -stained leaves (S): YES I X INO YES X I NO Other pertinent information: The soil was saturated starting at -3 inches but was dry between -8 inches and -16 inches. Is Wetland Hydrology present? Yes?? The dry layer from -8 inched to -16 inches was confusing. Rationale for Decision/Remarks: Because there was saturation between -3 inches and -8 inches there was an apparent positive indicator of wetland hydrology. There had been significant precipitation in the days prior to this field work so it is possible that the layer of bark and wood chips was affecting the near surface saturation. With the standing water at -21 inches and the dry laver the indicator was confusing. Critical Areas Report — Attachment 2 - Page I Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 January 12, 2009 CONTINUATION SHEET for SAMPLE PLOT NUMBER: SP-050708-01 SOIIlS Map Unit Name: Or (Orcas peat) Drainage Class: poorly drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): na Confirm Mapped Type: YES X NO Field Observations: appeared to be moderately well drained. Soil Pit Profile Description: Mottle Texture, Concretions, Depth Matrix Mottle Abundance/ Rhizospheres, etc. (inches) Horizon Color * Color * Contrast 0 to -3 O na na na wood chips d bark -3 to -11 A 7.5YR 2.5/1 na na silt loam -11 to -22 B 5YR 2.5/2 na na silty clay loam * MunsellColor of Moist Soil; Contrast: F = faint, D = distinct, P = prominent; Abundance: F = few, C = common, M = many; Size: F = fine, M = medium, C = coarse Diagram Soil Profile described above: DIAGRAM PROFILE DESCRIPTION Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking Probable Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List X G[eyed or Low Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Are Hydric Soil indicators present? Yes Rationale for Decision/Remarks: Low chroma indicated that the A horizon was a hydric soil. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X YES NO Wetland Hydrology Present? X YES NO Hydric Soils Present? X YES NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? X YES NO Rationale for Decision/Remarks: Although there was evidence that conditions at this sample point were getting drier, Watershed Dynamics concluded that the indicators were at least marginally suggesting that the sample point was located in or at the edge of a wetland. Critical Areas Report —Attachment 2 - Page 2 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Projec-t — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 January 12, 2009 SAMPLE PLOT NUMBER: DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Washin ton State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 COE Wetland Delineation Manual Project/Site: I Gian Singh Property — Tax Parcel 0421049172 Date: Applicant/4 wner: Gian Singh CounY. Investi ator(s): Larry D. Burnstad, Watershed D amics State: Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? SP-050708-02 05/07/08 YES X NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES I X I NO Transect ID: if needed, explain on site condition on the reverse side of this sheet Plot ID: VIFGEIATLON Note those s ecies observed to have morp ological adaptations to wetlands with an x) Dominant Plant Species % Stratum IS Sub -dominant Species % Stratum IS Betula s (escaped cultivar) 25 T Ni Rubus discolor 25 S FACU Prunus emar inala 25 T FACU Rnir Jim dnu¢lasii 25 S FACW Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). <50 Includespecies noted * as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands: HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS Check all indicators that apply and explain below: Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of Physiologicallre roductive adaptations: prolonged inundation/saturation: Wetland Database: MhMl iogi Arlsantsatinne- Knowledge of regional plant communities: Technical Literature: I Other Is Hydrophytic Vegetation dominant? No Rationale for Decision/Remarks: Majority of plants were FACU. HYDROLOGY Is this thegrowing season? Yes Water marks (P): Sediment Deposits (P): Determination based on soil Temperature: no I YES I X I NO I YES X I NO Recorded soil temperature (° C/F): na Found on: na Found on: na Other Information: Growing season is from 2/ 1 to 10/31 Drift lines (P): Drainage Patterns (P): each year as defined by USACE guidance. YES X NO YES X NO Depth of inundation: none Oxidized Root Channels Local Soil Survey (S): Depth to free water in pit: none present in upper 12" (S): X I YES NO Depth to saturated soil: -13 inches YES X NO Recorded Data (check all that apply): FAC Neutral Test (S): Water -stained leaves (S): Stream or Lake gage data: YES X NO YES I X I NO YES I X I NO Aerial photographs: YES I X NO Other pertinent information: Other (explain): Is Wetland Hydrology present? No Rationale for Decision/Remarks: Critical Areas Report —Attachment 2 - Page 3 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property CONTINUATION SHEET for SAMPLE PLOT NUM 8E-R: BrJUAN Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 January I2, 2009 SP-050708-02 Map Unit Name: Or (Orcas peat) Drainage Class: poorly drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): na Confirm Mapped Type: YES X NO Field Observations: appeared to be moderately well drained. Soil Pit Profile Description: Mottle Texture, Concretions, Depth Matrix Mottle Abundance/ Rhizospheres, etc. inches Horizon Color * Color * Contrast O na na na wood chips and bark A 7.5YR 2.5/1 na na silt loam B 5YR 2.5/2 na na silty clay loam * MunsellColor of Moist Soil; Contrast: F = faint, D = distinct, P = prominent; Abundance: F = few, C = common, M = many; Size: F = fine, M = medium, C = coarse Diagram Soil Profile described above: DIAGRAM PROFILE DESCRIPTION Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking Probable Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Are Hydric Soil indicators present? Yes Rationale for Decision/Remarks: �zmm1 ♦ 7�m nL TL D1%A-FW A T7l1N Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES X NO Wetland Hydrology Present? YES X NO Hydric Soils Present? X YES NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? YES X NO Rationale for Decision/Remarks: Critical Areas Report —Attachment 2 - Page 4 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 January 12, 2009 SAMPLE PLOT NUMBER: DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (Washin to« State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 COE Wetland Delineation Manual Project/Site: Gian Singh Property — Tax Parcel 0421049172 Date: Applicant/Owner: Gian Singh Coun . tt L D Bumstad Watershed Dynamics State: SP-050708-03 05/07/08 C:l Inves i a or(s . Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES X NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES I X I NO Transect ID: f needed, explain on site condition on the reverse side of this sheet Plot ID: YE C&TATION Note those species observed to have morphological ada tations to wetlands with an *) Dominant Plant Species % I Stratum IS Sub -dominant Species_ % I Stratum IS .4niraea douQlasii 100 S FACU Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). >50 Include species noted * as showing morphologies I adaptations to wetlands: HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS Check all indicators that apply and explain below: Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of Physiological/reproductive adaptations: prolonged inundation/saturation: Wetland Database: Mne nhnlrarrenai Arlanfafinnc! I w--,ledge of reeional plant communities: Technical Literature: I Other (explain): _ Is Hydrophytic Vegetation dominant? Yes, but only marginally. Rationale for Decision/Remarks: Approximately 50% of the spirea was dead and there was Himalayan and evergreen blackberry within <1 foot of all sides of the sample plot. Is this the growing season? yes Water marks (P): Sediment Deposits (P): Determination based on soil Temperature: na I YES I X I NO I YES I X I NO Recorded soil temperature (° C/F): na Found on: na Found on: na Other Information: Growing season is from 2/1 to 10/31 each year as defined by USACE guidance. Drift lines (P): Drainage Patterns (P): YES X NO YES X NO Depth of inundation: none Oxidized Root Channels present in upper 12" (S): Local Soil Survey (S): Depth to free water in pit: none X I YES NO Depth to saturated soil: -13 inches I YES X I NO Recorded Data (check all that apply): FAC Neutral Test (S): Water -stained leaves (S): Stream or Lake gage data: YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO Aerial photographs: YES X NO Other pertinent information: Other (explain): Is Wetland Hydrology present? No Rationale for Decision/Remarks: Critical Areas Report —Attachment 2 - Page 5 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 January 12, 2009 CONTINUATION SHEET for SAMPLE PLOT NUMBER: SP-050708-03 SUMS Map Unit Name: Or (Orcas peat) Drainage Class: poorly drained Taxonomy (Subgroup): na Confirm Mapped Type: YES X NO Field Observations: appeared to be moderately well drained. Soil Pit Profile Description: Mottle Texture, Concretions, Depth Matrix Mottle Abundance/ Rhizospheres, etc. inchcs Horizon Color * Color * Contrast 0 to -2.5 O na na wood chi s and bark 10; 2/1 na -2.5 to -11 A44a na silt loam -11 to -20 B 5YR 2.5/2 na na silty clay loam * MunsellColor of Moist Soil; Contrast: F = faint, D = distinct, P = prominent; Abundance: F = few, C = common, M = many; Size: F = fine, M = medium, C = coarse Diagram Soil Profile described above: DIAGRAM PROFILE DESCRIPTION Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking Probable Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Are Hydric Soil indicators present? Yes Rationale for Decision/Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X NO Wetland Hydrology Present? *YE XNO Hydric Soils Present? X NO is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? X NO Rationale for Decision/Remarks: Wetland hydrology was not present at the time of this field investigation. Critical Areas Report — Attachment 2 - Page 6 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 January 12, 2009 SAMPLE PLOT NUMBER: SP-050708-04 DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (Washington State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 COE Wetland Delineation Manual) Pro'ect/Site: I Gian Singh Property —Tax Parcel 0421049172 Date: 05/07/08 Applicant/Owner: Gian Sin Countv: King Investi ator(s): J Larry D. Burnstad, Watershed Dynamics State: Washington Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? YES X NO Community ID: Is the area a potential Problem area? YES X NO Transect ID: f needed, explain on site condition on the reverse side of this sheet Plot ID: VEGETATION Note those s ecies observed to have mor bolo ical adaptations to wetlands with an Dominant Plant Species % Stratum IS Sub -dominant Species % Stratum IS Rubus discolor 90 S FACU Spiraea douglasii 5 S FACW Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). <50 Includespecies noted * as showing morphol2gicaI ada tations to wetlands: HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS Check all indicators that a pply and ex plain below: Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of Physioly icallreproductive adaptations: prolonged inundation/saturation: Wetland Database: Morphological Adaptations: Knowledge of regional plant communities: Technical Literature: Other (explain): Is Hydrophytic Vegetation dominant? No Rationale for Decision/Remarks: This point was at the wetland edge or line between the spirea/willow plant community to the east and the blackberry/spirea plant community to the west.. Is this the growing season? yes Water marks (P): Sediment Deposits (P): Determination based on soil Temperature: na YES I X NO YES X NO Recorded soil temperature (° C/F): na Found on: na Found on: na Other Information: Growing season is from 2/1 to 10/31 Drift lines (P): Drainage Patterns (P): each year as defined by USACE guidance. YES I X NO YES X I NO Depth of inundation: none Oxidized present Root in upper Channels 12" (S): Local Soil Survey (S): Depth to free water in pit: -21 inches X I YES NO Depth to saturated soil: -3 to -8 inches; -16 to -21 inches I YES TX] NO Recorded Data (check all that apply): FAC Neutral Test (S): Water -stained leaves (S): Stream or Lake gage data: YES X NO YES X I NO YES I X I NO Aerial photographs: YES X NO Other pertinent information: Other (explain): Is Wetland Hydrology present? Yes ?? The dry layer from -8 inched to -16 inches was confusing. Rationale for Decision/Remarks: Because there was saturation between -3 inches and -8 inches there was an apparent positive indicator of wetland hydrology. There had been significant precipitation in the days prior to this field work so it is possible that the layer of bark and wood chips was affecting the near surface saturation. With the standing water at -21 inches and the dry layer the indicator was confusing. Critical Areas Report —Attachment 2 - Page 7 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property CON TINUATIONSMEET for SAMPLE PL0TNUMBER.* vnn.V Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 January 12, 2009 SP-050708-04 Map Unit Name: Or (Orcas peat) Drainage Class: poorly drained Field Observations: appeared to be moderately well drained. Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type: na YES X NO Soil Pit Profile Description: Depth inches Horizon Matrix Color * Mottle Color * Mottle Abundance/ Contrast Texture, Concretions, Rhizospheres, etc. 0 to -1 O na na na wood chips and bark -1 to -12 A 7.5YR 2.5/1 na na silt loam -12 to -24 B 5YR 2.5/2 na na siM clay loam * MunsellColor of Moist Soil; Contrast: F = faint, D = distinct, P = prominent; Abundance: F = few, C = common, M = many; Size: F = fine, M = medium, C = coarse Diagram Soil Profile described above: DIAGRAM PROFILE DESCRIPTION Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking Probable Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Are Hydric Soil indicators present? Rationale for Decision/Remarks: \ Tr A AT" TU TUD 1"M A Til1N Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES X NO Wetland Hydrology Present? X YES NO Hydric Soils Present? X YES NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? X YES X NO Rationale for Decision/Remarks: The wetland hydrology was confusing and the plant community was not typical of the areas within 10 feet of less around this sample point. In the end, Watershed Dynamics used the vegetation break to define that wetland boundary and this sample point ended up inside the line. Critical Areas Report —Attachment 2 - Page 8 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Watershed Dynamics PN2007026 January 12, 2009 DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETESAMPLE RMINATION PLOT NUMBER: SP-05070$-Q5 State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 COE Wetland Delineation Manual Gian Singh Prove — Tax Parce10421049172 Gian Sinvh Date: 05/07/08 jinvesti agars : D. Burnstad, Watershed D amics ann qua Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed? State: Washin on Is the area a Potential Problem area? YES X NO Communit ID: If needed, ex lain on site condition on the reverse side of his sheet S X NO Transect ID: VEC,T TAT rn Mote those s ies observed to have mar hold ical ada Cations to wetlands with ano* ID: Dominant Plant S ecies % Stratum IS Sub -dominant S ecies % Stratum IS Rubus discolor 15 S FACU Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). <50 Includes ecies noted (J!1showing mor polo ical adaptations to wetlands: HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS Check all indicators that a ! and ex lain below: Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of Physiologicallreproductive adaptations: prolonged inundation/saturation: Mor holo ica! Ada Cations: — Wetland Database: Technical Literature: Knowled a of regional ex )[ant communities: Is Hydrophytic Vegetation dominant? Other lain : Rationale for Decision/Remarks: Approximately 50% of this sample point was bare ground with some moss. The only plant in the sample plot was Himalayan blackberry, but there was Nootka rose and willow and other hydrophytic plants within a few feet of the sam le oint. HYDROLOGY Is this the growing season? yes Water marks (P): Sediment Deposits (P): Determination based on soil Temperature: na YES X NO YES X NO Recorded soil temperature (° C/F): na Found on: na Found on: na Other Information: Growing season is from 2/1 to 10/31 Drift lines P each year as defined by USACE guidance. ()' Drainage Patterns (P): Depth of inundation: none YES X NO YES X NO Oxidized Root Channels Local Soil Surve S Depth to free water in pit: none present in upper 12" (S): y ( ) X YES NO Depth to saturated soil: -I I inches YES X NO Recorded Data (check all that apply): FAC Neutral Test (S): Water -stained leaves (S): Stream or Lake gage data: YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO Aerial photographs: YES X NO Other pertinent information: Other (explain): Is Wetland Hydrology present? Yes Rationale for Decision/Remarks: ReportCritical Areay e 9 Proposed Multi family Residential DevelopmentPro ct A2 Gian Singh CONTINUA LIPN SHEET for SAMPLE PLDT NUMBER: SQILi' Map Unit Name: Or (Orcas peat) ETaxonomy bgroup); na ed Type: YES X NO Watershed Dynamics PN 2007026 January 12, 2009 SP-050708-05 Drainage Class: poorly drained Field Observations: appeared to be moderately well drained. Soil Pit Profile Description: Depth Matrix Mottle Mottle Texture, Concretions, inches Horizon Color * Color * Abundance/ Rhizos h p eyes, etc. 0 to -1 O Contrast -1 to -11 A na 1 OYR 2/1 na na wood chi s and bark -11 to -20 ]3 SYR 2.5/2 na na silt loam na na silty clay loam * MunsellColor of Moist Soil; Contrast: F = faint, D = distinct, P = many; Size: F = fine, M = medium, C = coarse =prominent; Abundance: F = few, C =common, M Diagram Soil Profile described above: DIAGRAM PROFILE DESCRIPTION Histosol Histic Epipedon SulSdic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions X Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Are Hydric Soil indicators present? Rationale for Decision/Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Indicators: Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Streaking jOrganic Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Wetland Hydrology Present? YES X NO Hydric Soils Present? X YES NO Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? X YES NO YES X Rationale for Decision/Remarks: The plant indicators within the sample plot indicate of non -wetland habitat, bNO there were hydrophytic plants all around and within 1 to 2 feet of the plot. Watwere ivut ershed Dynamics elected to include this ample point in the wetland because it appeared to be close to the wetland edge. Propused Multifamily ResidenCrid,11 Areas tial Development Pr j rl —Attachment Singl: Property SHE>=T 1 op t3 0 0 �' ra IoSa O oa �7 on ao g 22, 3 40 1y► $50 +Z �5a NOIzTM D $tt4G1AM,►N Gt "V- - Pt.P R V tQN4 1r7, = D15TAN4GE 5rA,00+-ao To STA 021-95 ic;,* 3 %►21MUTFt F` 1 E @ R,ORpVJA-( Ce4AMIZ-WW- '-'c Z.,%.0 IE OF G [ Uk U'T--tZ 461-A ANES = 241 0 p�tNAAMAN GRE�'cK- - Pltotrll VIErI S40 - Vt 1"=10� kL 13 2y r L 23l . 3' ' zl•s� j e o0t90 t''Z% L2i5.2- 00 99 EL 2.ro j OIt33 --- �� I IL10 001.00 C0f7D 004t-'4,0 ZA-I&O Dt,I)D �1+10 O1r�k0 EL zz.o.-+ OI t �6 OIKPO Ot"SO 02ioo 61_ 2-146 " EL 214-.S' �Z}� 1-1% 0 l9 oytae 0-1.t-40 024f o -EL 2 6.2`/o EL�11 4� 02*74 0l.+95 oit6o °3rao N � o 02+95 ELmtl_A`, Z(o M 190 1so , 02+95 03 r15 05 e-55 OJW55 03r7-10 b Z pL�.N V►EW - 01NGAMlkM GR.. 5TA 024-95 'ro yt�'► 05+14 pp_os-tL.F,- V IF-W - lb t Nta AMPcN GR, crTA 02t 9 5 TO 51TOt 0"Ar 03}95 -,%-r T7 PTA J Zo of r55 5�it=xi 2 of 13 r � W O� 6 'J3a X" Sam � W 241o� W 0 3 O C 41 tj ap PI.l►N V►�N - bl taC>tOdrtp.�i GR-. 5TA D94, . 10 STA 08+I'i- pacriLie Vied - 61NC-lhKoAaL. 'j*A os494 To 3TPs o8+}} EL.190.3 190.1-- 015 + eL, I' Si:b' 1299h EL 163•'b' obt-Gs 4.4q° 24' cL.1�9.0� 150 Olt Vj3 a.a7o 1 ' L 1 3z, r:L t� ' 4.1`Yo r oitare E 1*' 1;5.4 r-L.174a }.oYe oe 3 oEtzo 4_� o8 ss y1' EL�72.1 s}x EA. 164.4' 11.T% 16o 05+9q oro t l4 o6±r'�4 ofo+gq b6+i4 OG jr c4F14 oa r34 o�r54 oirt7 4 p}+9.� Ob �14 o8t34 o�t54 08+}4 0 + Sl4EtT 3 Ol= 13 94, XA f3o F-Lr—��.4 1050 -- 80• w dry Qe + o [p D 10 Ate+ Asa _ yq c 03 09 II PLAN VIF-V IL- %A 08r1+ Z 6TA l�+-81 W rWK l N y 9d 21+r �L 53iy#� V, l",t0' K-. 1"; 20' 9 41 0 4.15% 140 ► +- i QBrT} 0"+ 09+1� 09F3� pR ptM VjrW-T%wC,,1p.►4AN G'R,. &M TO STA It lr61 + 9L 16g• 1 58 %6 — El. b39 o7:flto 4 8% Z9 + tors I 12-*5 06)tvq- o9+-:�i o9F9} jot-IZ- EL160.3 � to t4A 1 p }VA_ m►y8e( °J.'L°iv 1o+b9 10+ 3-- lv jil} 2'S�6III It«►3 lof91- 11 ti--v .54f ► ali'j.01 e 4.4/0 t}' VL154.5 1►1.4�' �.1� 11"A 1-9°O6 11rb1 11+3i- t1+s} llpv ` 5keET 4 bF IS i e� �1 N 15� tj a}� iv tJ is 105, P—*%t4 VIEW-?;4AC-- AKA A CV. OrP% I[ +-St TO STA. NO R-TH VI 2,D' PROFILE VIEW - BIWC-AAMAN GQ, STA 14 4-5% TM sTA 14+-(04 — � { I I I I e151v 5'2'1�� 12t3-!F ro.a'I. 12+49 � I [b• tong, t2+91 r I I I T 4e ; ' 13 pro-+ 4 -+% ►3r i4 , ' f E 1 T [ ! 11+80 12t00 1%+-ZD 114-40 12+ad0 t1i)4-00 13+20 t',+40 13+60 LOt.-At'�ED cON�l i W�tR-Q STD. 1��35 f 9• Ln 9S'o.. '1'y a ��0 y► 711 N O N I I 14.2% 13104 I I EC-l:sc bl I I , + 1 r � ! 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I i I 13+• 80 14*00 14 + 20 I� r r I 1 1 1 , 1 r � r I r , I t 50 I I I ' 1 r I 1 ' I 1 � I 140 I � I � I , SL t33.t I A-1649{ � l30 I4 t- 410 14+ (00 14+80 -AAEFT 9 of I3 I/ 140 -A lop• O Z3 v� UI �. a ey w zo NORTH Pl„�N YtEY11 - 13l NC-tAMo►iJ GR. 6`CA 14+<.4 t'b t-+V403 PK or-1 I.E V 1>:1►J - 6(NG1AMAN Gib r5TI 14 t-44 To I 14490 1 1 8.3% ISr31 ' I 1 I I 1 I .5 I 1 I I 1 EL 11l!P 9' 122.5 ! I rrl_ I 54% (i*b2- . Et_.12a.9' ' I I %95*00 %'f+$0 4-(Q0 1ht SO i 1�+2i 1 I I 1 T I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I SL1 Ig.2` TCL rI '3 i 1'4-f to 1--4-40 1-*4-(00 SFkEr--T Co cr- 13 120 l}tb3 o I— 1* 60 43 ' w 99o0 O 9�itl 1'2�9 1 1p I V1 90' a � s 'T05 a R • �, Oo 950 . Q .9 NOILTR 1'' ' so PLAN VIEW - 115INGAMA14 CV- 611P. TO STA Zo+ 6'S MOFIL.E VIF-W- elINGAMAN CZ STA «+-(03 TO 3TA 2.0Ir 1c, � fl 100� s F 1 1ew6 T I 1 I I � i I { I EL114.1 i EL 113 I , fL 112 dog I 1 19rc9 l.�o% ��'i'i I 2 d% 19i�i ' 19+Ido 19+81 o.oye I I F (JIO.b� I I MAIO.2- I 1 I El.ltJ9•E� I EL 109. b 1 I:t,. lou . co � F 1 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I ( I I t l 1 I r I I 1 E t I T I i I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 [ I 14+80 1t+00 MOM 1e*40 14y♦b0 IStBO IA+00 19+210 19+40 0+60 l +80 ZO+00 2.0}ZO 5HeFTi-tr-13 8.2% 2Ot�3 >✓� Io4.s' Z04-40 20460 N 0 w ZZ7- a�P (l0 iL 104:3' 100 90 8o L-- 20" NA, NORTH ti N O k6e !� o 1p �a LIP � xDr w� VLAt4 \[IE.W — OjNCalAMAN CSL 5TA 204-lo3 Tb 6TA2--3*61 PRDFI I,S VI EN - SINGAMAW M 5-rA,, Z6*41 TO STA 2'�+GI i 0/6, tDt90 i i t I ; 1 j I e FiL1o4.L i ' 2[rjrL r 2.3% I ZI+'i2. 1 'zt+' i I I 1 r FUa ril/a I 1 &L93.fi' 9.0% I I I I E 1 2zt90 I I 1 23t0 _, y3rtr3 1 .5 t2s I 23.a1o4.}'l.2.T I I I 1 1 F ` EL9L9e IELg,9' ZA'/, 1 svl I I [ I I I j 9i.grn 14F-L°A•D' 'E'L3v5, l 1 10t80 V DO j l a 2A Zr;40 21 4,fo0 Zl + So 22+00 ZZ►20 ZZ+ 40 2Z 4-b0 2Lt 60 23*Co 13tZO Z31•40 2-14460 '514E—T 8 OF 13 br —90 „T 40 -x s� M 14 g� W O 4� v�l m •• z3' A $� 90' 2� w Z3t'b0 2"50 N _... �° Flo a W 100 �p fig. N 10 its. V g5, oo NOtX� �o s L0 PLAN VIF-%V - 81N4AMAN GR. StA 2.3+61 -TO -5r^ PgoI?I L.e VtP-W - fal h AM4AN M ST& 23+41 TO 51 A Up %.,g 29 9yo 3Z ►tea T s+ r 24Fo5 10' 1 1 t r 4. ty244i S.a 24t43 4 I s 9X Z•�' '36 r r I r N% 1: ZO I I I I I EL 8}.2' r I I t = +4o r .rya2Fs«1.3 I 4.4� I r r I >`d.s i EL 80.8�i I ELMS I 7�ag I o.�90 Z(or36 I r I t f I I I I r ! I I 1 I t r I 1 I l l I I r I r I I I I I r I [ I ! I 1 I 24�bo ZA to Z4+40 24 trey 2h+60 24+00 t5+• 40 254-GO LS+eo Mo 4-00 240+2.0 2.b4-4.0 15AEE-7 9 OF 13 2.2% Zb 4•b8 6L4�.v• 2,+ 460 r at � MULT1 P1.i: G4[AWNfibS �—�i40 wv_lrw I. -,zoF 80 Z I►)b8 .E 2itZfi ! 2,4i I I I Elm$ EL�'S.9' 2,} k I 25to8 441. 128*24 EL}5.a Ttl.�.3' I I I I EL}4_-Q i t:.L93.3 i I -4o I I t , I I I r b0 I j I I I I I f �o 26+60 2,34.0 2--++40 7--f+610 Zl-I• 26+00 25420 w dr �v• N $o I I I I r I I I I b 4 0% 28tbo I I ZLI+.O� � I I r l I f ! t I I I 1 I I I t f I I 1 I I I �}40 2a�6o r I I I t I I I Zgtoo I I e I I I I I i I Et-69.4' ' S.3XI 29t'y0 Zso.� 291050 29r I EL f.}.0 I EL (0. 4 t r 1 I j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � I I I TO 80 I 29400 r 29t2-b 29t4o 29+4p !"MT 10 OP. 13 10 60 61% 294-65 I L9 + Vo I 2.4X 33"/a '304-01 El.. 64.9' EL b4.t � I EL65.9' I I r I I I 1 I { I I I I r r I I r I 1 I I 1 r " z9+r"0 2.9 +-Aa 30+00 ob 3� `y Oj MORTA P"" VIEW - 0ING,AMAN clv. StA Z14ro5 TO Vr^ 32+ k MOF (L-E VI" - P-IN GA M A N GP- • 5TA Z9 +bS TO ST4. 3 2Z Ir 54 5hNEET I I or- I3 1 ¢.10 30+- 4 f i I I.9/a 3orbb 31103 I I I I [ I r x.o.� bA*% [ I r El. 65.3' I EL 64.3' a F-L642 I 4.3 31;L4 I I r 1 1 1 I I EL63.0� 31+96 3.b% 5 0'/v 32t12 1.9% 32t 2$ I I I V: C-10' ( r r ! I 1=t_bo.to, I �� I I t:�s9•S59.5 I I l I 30+Z0 3ot40 3o{-(PO 30 4-b0 tot t00 31 +20 I,t 40 314-`O 'J 1I 4�0 32+00 '�Z�2o I i I 8 � 32t54 I EI_ 54.a' I 1 1 I I r I I 1 3Z + 40 32tb0 .1 60 et,se.o' �30 40 30 1 3Z+40 r w i � Nw b[" NORTH 1'. ' ZO' PLAN VIEW - 81NGtAl-%A.14 CR STp, 3Z+154' TO STA35+385, pgopius VIEW - DiNGAMG.N M 5TA -',2+54 'co STA 33+-% 4 33 t 12. I I I +'� I 1 F I I I 3.1%, ELr7b°j i EL�r ; F;Lg6.4' °5r°.O' I O.o°/. I 3.15`/• 14+43 j gLyS.Z' 1 I 'q I I I t m 522-4f I r I r I I r V-, I%to' I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 f I I r E I I I I I I I E t I I 32.+ 60 32+ >a0 520; 00 3'j+ ZO I;b + 40 33+60 'S3 } ob 344-00 34 } so 34 top '54 + (60 S0 r 1 ! 1 1 5.57[+ 1 35trocv r 35 v 2.0 35+40 SfW-.F_T 12 OF tS 50 40 30 4r d4 42.E 19. Sop r b lose to b w NOR.TN I" ' w A' pLA.M VIEW - fINGGAMAN C/PR STP• 35*35 To STA 31,4-1Z FWOFILE VIEW - 15INyAMA4 09- 5Ti9.'35*35 TO $TA S,10.2 354-4-0 35+f00 "+-1l0 4-00r00 346,+-20 3(0}40 3(.+-f0O 3(0+So }}rot 3}+zo 3}r4o SHEET 13 aF m