Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
17-104645
i AkCITY OF Federal Way November 17, 2017 Inderjit K. Singh 29830 18'h Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 CITY HALL 33325 Sth Avenge South Federal Way, Wq 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. citYoffederalway.. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor Email: inderiit.k.sin h mail.eom RE: File #17-104645-00-PC; PREAPPLICATION SUMMARY LETTER Singh Plat, 29002 Military Rd S, Federal Way Dear Mr. Singh: Thank you for participating in the preapplication conference with the City of Federal Way's Development Review Committee (DRC) held November 2, 2017. We hope that the information discussed at that meeting was helpful in understanding the general requirements for your project as submitted. This letter summarizes comments given to you at the meeting by the members of the DRC. The members who reviewed your project and provided comments include staff from the City's Planning and Building Divisions and Public Works Department, and representatives from Lakehaven Utility District and South King Fire and Rescue. Some sections of the Federal Way n Revised Code (FWRC} and relevant informatio handouts are enclosed with this letter. Please be advised, this letter does not represent all applicable codes. In preparing your formal application, please refer to the complete FWRC and other relevant codes for ail additional requirements that may apply to your project. The key contact for your project is Dave Van De Weghe, 253-835-2638, david.vandeweghe@citypffedera.lway.com. For specific technical questions about your project, please contact the appropriate DRC representative as Iisted below. Otherwise, any general questions about the erred to your key contact. preapplication and permitting process can be ref PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes subdividing one 2.3-acre parcel into 11 parcels plus a new street for detached, single-family residential development. Wetlands are present. MAJOR ISSUES Outlined below is a summary of the major issues of your project based on the plans and information submitted for preapplication review. These issues can change due to modifications and revisions in the plans. These major issues only represent comments that the DRC consider most significant to your project and do not include the majority of the comments provided. The major issues section is only provided as a means to highlight critical requirements or issues. Please be sure to read the entire department comments made in the next section of this letter. Mr. Singh November 17, 2017 Page 2 a Planning Division 1. A subdivision of ten or more lots and/or tracts requires review and public hearing on the preliminary plat application by the city's Hearing Examiner. 2. SEPA review is required. a Public Works Traffic Division I . Transportation Concurreney Management (FWRC 19.90) — Transportation concurrency permit with application fee of 4 6�50.00 is required for the proposed project. 2. Traffic impact Fees (FWRC 19.91) — Traffic impact fees, estimated at $433 9_05.34 for this project, are required for single-family residential dwelling units. 3. Frontage Improvements (FWRC 19.135.040) — Construct street frontage improvements and dedicate right-of-way (ROW) along the property frontage on Military Rd S. 4. Access Management (FWRC 19.135.260) — The development shall meet access management standards. a Lakehaven Water & Sewer District 1. A Sewer Certificate of Availability issued u Id sing paratieit applications. ly by ven may be required to he submitted with any land use 2. A Lakehaven Developer Extension (DE) Agreement will be required to construct new water distribution system facilities for the proposed development. South King Fire and Rescue 1. The proposed road lacks an approved turn -around. 2. A new fire hydrant will be, required. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS y the representatives of each department present a the Outlined below are the comments made b preapplication conference. Each section should be read thoroughly. If you have questions, please contact the representative listed for that section. . PLANNING DIVISION (Dave Van De Weghe, 253-835-2638, david.vandeweghe@cityoffederal,way.com) I , Zoning Designation and Density — The site is zoned RM3600 and has a comprehensive plan designation of multi -family. For detached dwelling units, lots in the RM3600 zone must be a minimum of 5,000 square feet. Lot #5 does not meet the minimum size. 2. Review Process — A subdivision of 10 or more lots and/or tracts requires review and public hearing on the preliminary plat application by the city's Hearing Examiner. In summary, following application, the City will review the application for completeness and technical comments. The first procedural decision point is the State Environmental Policy, Act (SEPA) review and determination. Following conclusion of the SEPA review, City staff will present the staff report and recommendation on the preliminary plat to the Hearing Examiner, who then makes the final decision on the preliminary plat application. The Hearing Examiner's written decision on the preliminary plat is based on the applicant satisfying rursuant o Feria nt to WRC l $35.2 p3 After the final decis decision cf the ision the Hearing Examiner may be appealedp Doe I D. 76707 17-104645-00-PC Mr. Singh November 17, 2017 Page 3 preliminary plat, engineering plans must be submitted and reviewed by the City Public Works Department. Following review and approval of engineering plans, construction of plat infrastructure may begin. Substantial completion of plat improvements is required prior to final plat review and decision by the City Council as described below. A preliminary plat informational bulletin and Master Land Use application are enclosed. The application must be prepared in accordance with the submittal requirements listed in the enclosed informational bulletin. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) — Subdivision applications and associated permits for less than 20 residential dwelling units are exempt from state environmental review. However, the SEPA exemption does not apply when wetlands are on a site to be subdivided, pursuant to WAC 197-11- 756. Therefore, a SEPA checklist and associated application fee is required to be submitted concurrent with the subdivision or preliminary plat application. If SEPA review is required pursuant to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-800, then a completed environmental checklist must be submitted with the Master Land Use application. A thoroughly completed checklist that gives comprehensive answers to each item will expedite the review process. SEPA notice will be as provided in FWRC 14.10.040. In summary, the public, government agencies, and tribes will be invited to comment on the checklist during a 14-day comment period. The SEPA determination has an appeal period as identified in FWRC 14.10.060. An environmental threshold determination made by the director must be rendered prior to the preliminary plat public hearing. 4. Environmentally Critical Areas — When a wetland exists within 225 feet of the subject property, the director may require the applicant to submit a wetland report prepared by a qualified professional. The City accepted the applicant's wetland delineation report prepared by Watershed Dynamics and dated August 22, 2014. The wetland report is valid for five years from the date of the report. The report classifies the subject wetland as Category III with five habitat points. FWRC 19.145.420(2) requires a 105 ft. wide buffer. The draft plat shows a wetland buffer measuring only 79 ft. and it is drawn due West of the wetland. The buffer area should be shown perpendicular to the wetland in question. The sizes of Lot #6 and Lot # 11 will be reduced once the required 105 ft. buffer is applied. In general, avoidance of wetlands and wetland buffer impacts is the highest priority under FWRC. Any intrusions into wetlands and/or wetland buffers are discouraged, and must meet applicable FWRC technical and procedural requirements outlined in FWRC chapter 19.145. Two options are available to build within the 105 ft. buffer —wetland averaging and wetland reduction with mitigation. Wetland averaging — Per FWRC 19.145.440 (5), the city will review and decide upon buffer averaging using Process III based on the following criteria that shall be added to the critical areas report: (a) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; (b) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion; Doc. LD. 76707 17-104645-00-PC Mr. Singh November 17, 2017 Page 4 (c) The buffer at its narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required width; and (d) Unless authorized in writing by a consenting neighboring property owner, the averaging will remain on the subject property. Wetland reduction with mitigation — Per FWRC 19.145.440 (5), (6), buffers may be reduced by up to 25 percent on a case -by -case basis if the project includes a buffer enhancement plan that clearly substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve and provide additional protection of wetland functions and values. Buffer reductions may not be used in combination with buffer averaging. The city will review and decide upon buffer reductions using Process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC, based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland or buffer wildlife habitat; (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property or the city as a whole; and (f) All exposed areas are stabilized with native vegetation, as appropriate. A buffer enhancement plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be incorporated into the critical area report. The plan shall assess the habitat, water quality, stormwater retention, groundwater recharge, and erosion protection functions of the existing buffer; assess the effects of the proposed modification on those functions; and address the six approval criteria of this section. Partial Wetland Exemption for Sewer Extension — Per FWRC 19.145.120(1), the director may permit the placement of an essential public facility, public utility or other public improvements (i.e. public sewer) in a critical area if no practical alternative with less impact on the critical area(s) exists. The specific location and extent of the intrusion into the critical area must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of the public facility or utility and not pose an unreasonable threat to the health, safety, or welfare on or off the subject property. The intrusion shall attempt to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area function and values. The director may require supporting documentation to demonstrate compliance with partial exemptions. To apply for a partial exemption, submit an Administrative Decision application (enclosed) with supporting documentation. Public Notice — Pursuant to FWRC 18.35 and 14.10, the preliminary plat and SEPA review require notices of application, SEPA decision and public hearing. The applicant will be responsible for supplying a map and list of all properties within 300 feet of the subject property. Three sets of stamped mailing envelopes for each property owner with the department's return address must accompany the map and list. The city's GIS Department provides this service for a nominal fee (less the postage and envelopes). Please see the enclosed bulletin for further information. The applicant 17-104645-00-PC Doc 1D. 76707 Mr. Singh November 17, 2017 Page 5 will also be required to post City supplied notice boards at the appropriate times and pay the notice board fee. 6. Open Space — All residential subdivisions are required to provide open space in the amount of 15 percent of the gross land area of the subdivision site per FWRC 18.55.060(2). A minimum 10 percent of the open space is required to be usable open space, i.e. appropriate for active recreation areas. Additionally, any onsite open space must be set aside in a tract and owned in common undivided interest by all property owners within the subdivision. All or some of the open space requirement may be satisfied by a fee -in -lieu payment at the discretion of the City Parks Director, after consideration of the city's overall park plan, quality, location, and service area of the open space that would otherwise be provided with the project. The fee in lieu of open space is calculated on 15 percent of the most recent assessed land value of the property. If the fee -in -lieu option is chosen, a written request to Parks Director John Hutton is required. A copy of this request is a required component of the preliminary plat application. Usable open space design size and location options, along with provisions for access, improvements, ownership, and maintenance, will be reviewed in conjunction with review of the preliminary plat. 7. Tree Retention/Replacement — The city's tree standards require each development/redevelopment to maintain a tree unit density. The minimum tree density requirements for RM zones are 30 tree units per acre. The required density for the subject property will be determined by multiplying the gross site acreage, minus streets and critical areas, by 30. A tree retention plan detailing how the subject property will meet tree unit density requirements shall be submitted with the preliminary plat application. Items required to be included in the plan are itemized in FWRC 19.120.040(2)(a) through (e). The table below identifies tree unit values for retained and replacement trees. FWRC 19.120.130-2 — Tree Unit Credits Retained Trees Tree Unit Credit Existing Tree 1" to 6" d.b.h. 1.0 Existing Tree > 6" to 12" d.b.h. 1.5 Existing Tree > 12" to 18" d.b.h. 2.0 Existing Tree > 18" to 24" d.b.h. 2.5 Existing Tree > 24" d.b.h. 3.0 Replacement Trees Replacement Tree - Small (Mature canopy area < 450 SF) .50 Replacement Tree - Medium (Mature canopy area 450 to 1,250 SF) 1.0 Replacement Tree - Large (Mature canopy area > 1,250 SF) 1.5 Clearing & Grading — With the preliminary plat application, a clearing and grading plan addressing items listed in FWRC 19.120.040(1)(a) through 0) is required. Prior to beginning clearing and grading activities, all critical areas and buffers and trees/vegetation that are to be preserved within 17-104645-00-PC Doe. LD. 76707 Mr. Singh November 17, 2017 Page 6 and adjacent to the construction area shall be clearly marked and protected per guidelines prescribed within FWRC 19.120.160. Any retaining walls and rockeries must comply with standards in FWRC 19.120.120. 9. School Access Analysis — A school access analysis is required to be submitted to the City with the plat application, to assure that safe walking routes to schools or bus stops are provided as required by RCW 58.17. If there are not safe and adequate walking routes available, walking route improvements may be required as part of the plat review process. Contact Tanya Nascimento at 253- 945-2071 for information about the school access analysis requirements. 10. Design Criteria and Improvements —Subdivisions and short plats are subject to the subdivision design and improvements criteria set forth in FWRC Chapters 18.55 and 18.60, respectively. It is the responsibility of the applicant to identify how the proposed subdivision meets applicable design and improvements criteria and is therefore entitled to the land division. 11. Tacoma Smelter Plume — The subject property is located in the Tacoma Smelter Plume detect area containing 20.1 ppm to 40.0 ppm arsenic and lead concentration. Please contact Eva Barber, Technical Assistance Coordinator, Department of Ecology, at Eva.Barber@ecy.wa.gov or 360-407- 7094 regarding the Voluntary Soil Clean -Up Program. Additional information on the smelter plume testing and cleanup requirements can be found at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/sites—brochure/tacoma smelter/2011/ts-hp.htm. The City will require soil testing and soil cleanup (if applicable) as a component of the short plat application, review and site development. The applicant shall provide preliminary soil testing data in compliance with Washington State Department of Ecology guidelines with the preliminary plat application. 12. Approval Duration — Per FWRC 18.35.220, preliminary plat approval shall expire five years from the date of hearing examiner approval, unless the applicant requests an extension as provided in FWRC 18.05.090. 13. Final Plat — The final plat fee, in effect at the time of the final plat application, and items identified in FWRC 18.40.020, are required to process the final plat. Substantial completion of the plat infrastructure must occur prior to submittal and processing of the final plat. The City allows bonding of only minor improvements as determined by the Public Works Department. Pursuant to FWRC 18.40.050, the City Council will review and take action on the final plat. If the final plat is approved by the City Council, city staff will record the final plat map with the King County Recorder's Office. 14. Administrative Fees —Application Fees & Submittal —Please contact the Permit Center at 253- 835-2607 for current fee schedules for applications and permits. 15. School Impact Fees — School impact fees are to be paid at the time of individual single family building permit. 16. Recording — Following substantial completion of subdivision improvements, the city will record the plat with the King County Recorder's Office. The applicant is responsible for the plat recording fees. Prior to recording the plat, all surveying and monumentation must be complete. In addition, all other 17-104645-00-PC Doc. LD. 76707 Mr. Singh November 17, 2017 Page 7 required improvements must be substantially completed as determined by the departments of Community Development and Public Works. 17. Miscellaneous Residential Regulations (FWRC 19.205.030) a. Maximum height of structures — 30 ft. above average building elevation. b. Setbacks for structures are minimum 20-foot front yard and 5-foot side and rear. C. Maximum lot coverage — 60 percent. d. Required parking spaces — two per dwelling unit. e. Driveway and/or parking pad may not be closer than five feet to any side property line. PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION (Kevin Peterson, 253-835-2734, kevin.peterson@cityoffederalway.com) Land Use Issues — Stormwater Surface water runoff control and water quality treatment will be required per the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). This project meets the requirements for a Full Drainage Review. At the time of preliminary plat submittal, a preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), addressing the relevance of the project to the nine core and five special requirements of the KCSWDM will be required. A Level 1 downstream analysis shall also be provided in the preliminary TIR. The City has 1" = 100', five-foot contour planimetric maps in GIS format that may be used for basin analysis. 2. The project lies within a Conservation flow control area, thus the applicant must design the flow control facility to meet this performance criteria. In addition to flow control facilities, Best Management Practices (BMP's) are required as outlined in the KCSWDM. The project also lies within Enhanced Basic Water Quality Area. Water Quality Treatment shall be designed to meet the treatment criteria of the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu. Because the natural discharge location of stormwater runoff from the site appears to flow into or towards the adjacent wetlands, the civil engineer shall work with the project's wetland biologist to determine the appropriate means of discharging stormwater from the drainage pond to the wetland. Additionally, there appears to be off -site flows from upstream/Military Road drainage systems that discharge onto the property. The civil engineer shall analyze this condition and attenuate these flows as outlined in Section 1.2.3.2.F. of the 2016 KCSWDM. 4. If infiltration is proposed, soil logs prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer must be provided to verify infiltration suitability. Detention and water quality treatment facilities for subdivisions are required to be above ground (i.e. an open pond), within a separate storm drainage tract, and dedicated to the City for future maintenance. Detention and water quality facilities may be within the same tract. 6. Show the proposed location and dimensions of the detention and water quality facilities on the preliminary plans. 17-104645-00-PC - Doe. I.D. 76707 Mr. Singh November 17, 2017 Page 8 7. If more than one acre will be disturbed during construction, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction storm water permit may be required. Information regarding this permit can be obtained from the Washington State Department of Ecology at http://www.ecy.wa.go�/programs/wq/stormwater/construction/index.htmI or by calling 360-407- 6048. 8. If work is to be done below the ordinary high water mark of the nearby stream, a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit may be required. Information regarding this permit can be obtained from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Right -of -Way Improvements 1. See the Traffic Division comments from Erik Preston, Senior Traffic Engineer, for traffic related items. 2. If dedication of additional right-of-way is required to install street frontage improvements, the dedication shall be conveyed to the City through a statutory warranty deed. The dedicated area must have clear title prior to recording. All stormwater treatment and detention requirements outlined above may apply to any improvements within the public right-of-way. Engineering (EN) Permit Issues 1. Engineered plans are required for clearing, grading, road construction, and utility work. Plans must be reviewed and approved by the City. Engineering review fees are ($2,430.00 — 2017 rate) for the first 18 hours of review, and ($135.00 — 2017 rate) per hour for additional review time. A final TIR shall be prepared for the project and submitted with the engineering plans. Both the TIR and the plans will require the signature/seal of a professional engineer registered/licensed in the State of Washington. 2. In addition to engineering approval, projects that will be filling or grading in the area of the future building pads are required to obtain a separate grading permit from the Building Department. The Federal Way Public Works Development Standards Manual (including standard detail drawings, standard notes, and engineering checklists) is available on the City's website at h!W://www.ciiyoffederalwgy.corn/index.aspx?nid=171 to assist the applicant's engineer in preparing the plans and TIR. 4. Bonding is required for all street improvements and temporary erosion and sediment control measures associated with the project. The bond amount shall be 120 percent of the estimated costs of the improvements. An administrative fee deposit will need to accompany the bond to cover any possible legal fees in the event the bond must be called. Upon completion of the installation of the improvements, and final approval of the Public Works Inspector, the bond will be reduced to 30 percent of the original amount and held for a two-year maintenance period. 5. The developer will be responsible for the maintenance of all storm drainage facilities (including the detention and water quality facilities) and street systems during the two-year maintenance period. 17-104645-00-PC Doc. I.D. 76707 Mr. Singh November 17, 2017 Page 9 During that time, the Public Works Inspector will make periodic visits to the site to ensure the developer's compliance with the maintenance requirements. Upon satisfactory completion of the two-year maintenance period, the remainder of the bond will be released. Maintenance for public roads and subdivision drainage facilities then become the responsibility of the City. Maintenance for private roads and drainage facilities, including short plats, remain the responsibility of the individual property owners. 6. When topographic survey information is shown on the plans, the vertical datum block shall include the phrase "DATUM: N.G.V.D.-29" or "DATUM: K.C.A.S.," on all sheets where vertical elevations are called out. 7. Drawings submitted for plan review shall be printed on 24" x 36" or 22" x 34" paper. Site plans shall be drawn at a scale of 1" = 20', or larger. Architectural scales are not permitted on engineering plans. 8. Provide cut and fill quantities on the clearing and grading plan. 9. Temporary Erosion and Sediment control (TESC) measures, per Appendix D of the 2016 KCSWDM, must be shown on the engineering plans. 10. The site plan shall show the location of any existing and proposed utilities in the areas affected by construction. PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC DIVISION (Erik, Preston, PE, 253-835-2744, erik.grestonCa. cityoffederalway.com) Transportation Coneurreney Analysis (FWRC 19.90) 1. Based on the submitted materials for 11 single-family detached housing units, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation - 8'11 Edition, land use code 210 (Single -Family Detached Housing), the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 11 new weekday PM peak hour trips. Alternatively, the applicant may submit a site specific trip generation study for the proposed development. A concurrency permit is required for this development project. The PW Traffic Division will perform concurrency analysis to determine if adequate roadway capacity exists during the weekday PM peak period to accommodate the proposed development. Please note that supplemental transportation analysis and concurrency mitigation may be required if the proposed project creates an impact not anticipated in the six -year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). 3. The estimated fee for the concurrency permit application is $4 650.0 (11 - 50 Trips). This fee is an estimate and based on the materials submitted for the preapplication meeting. The concurrency application fee must be paid in full at the time the concurrency permit application is submitted with land use application. The fee may change based on the new weekday PM peak hour trips as identified in the concurrency trip generation. The applicant has the option of having an independent traffic engineer prepare the concurrency analysis consistent with City procedures; however, the fee remains the same. 17-104645-00-PC Doc. I.D. 76707 Mr. Singh November 17, 2017 Page 10 Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) (FWRC 19.91) Based on the submitted materials for 11 single family dwellings, the estimated total traffic impact fee is $43,905.34. The actual fee will be assessed and collected from the applicant when the building permit is issued, using the fee schedule then in effect (FWRC 19.100.070 3(c)). At any time prior to building permit issuance, the applicant may request to defer to final building inspection the payment of a transportation impact fee for a single-family residential dwelling unit (FWRC 19.100,075). If this option is selected, a covenants prepared by the city to enforce payment of the deferred fees will be recorded at the applicant's expense. Refer to defer payment of impact fee code for process. Street Frontage Improvements (FWRC 19.135) 1. The applicant/owner would be expected to construct street improvements consistent with the planned roadway cross -sections as shown in Map III-4 in Chapter III of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) shown as Table III-10 (FWRC 19.135.040). Based on the materials submitted, staff conducted a limited analysis to determine the required street improvements. The applicant would be expected to construct improvements on the following streets to the City's planned roadway cross -sections: ■ Military Rd S is a Minor Arterial planned as a Type "G" street, consisting of a 66-foot street with curb and gutter, 6-foot planter strips with street trees, 8-foot sidewalks, and street lights in a 100-foot right-of-way (ROW). Assuming a symmetrical cross section, between 12 and 14-foot ROW dedication and half -street improvements are required as measured from the street centerline OR far side edge of travel way. ■ Internal street(s) shall be a Type "W" Local streets, consisting of a 28-foot street with curb and gutter, four -foot planter strips with street trees, five-foot sidewalks and street lights in a 52-foot right-of-way (ROW). ■ If the applicant chooses to construct the internal street along the northern border of their property, a half -street improvement would be required with Type "W" frontage and 20 feet of pavement. ■ Hammerhead turnarounds are not permitted on public streets; a Cul-de-Sac Bulb "Type Z" is required for the internal street. 2. The applicant may make a written request to the Public Works Director to modify, defer, or waive the required street improvements (FWRC 19.135.070). Information about right-of-way modification requests is available through the Public Works Development Services Division. These modification requests have a nominal review fee currently at $290 ($270.00 plus $20 recording fee). Tapers and transitions beyond the project frontage may be required as deemed necessary for safety purposes, taper rate shall be WS^2/60 or as directed by the Public Works Director. Access Management (FWRC 19.135) Access management standards are based on roadway safety and capacity requirements. FWRC 19.135.280 provides access standards for streets based on planned roadway cross -sections. Please note that access classifications are per Drawing 3-1A in the Public Works Development Standards. 17-104645-00-PC Doc. LD. 76707 Mr. Singh November 17, 2017 Page 11 2. Please show all neighboring driveways within 150 feet of the property lines. Military Rd S is Access Class " 3", which permits full access as close as 150 feet to any other street intersection or driveway (whether on or off the subject property) or aligned with those on the opposite side of the street. The current proposal may not meet access management standards with future development and may need to be modified. 4. Driveways that serve any use other than detached dwelling units may not be located closer than 150 feet to any street intersection or to any other driveway, whether on or off the subject property. Driveways that serve only residential use may not be located closer than 25 feet to any street intersection or driveway. Separation distances shall be measured from centerline to centerline of roadways and driveways. The director may grant a modification administratively to reduce spacing standards by up to 20 percent of the tabular values with supporting documentation (FWRC 19.135.290). Please note that these modification requests have a nominal review fee of $290. Once preliminary traffic queuing analysis has been completed, the applicant's traffic engineer may submit a written request for access modification if desired. PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING DIVISION (Rob Van Orsow, 253-835-2770, robv(@,cityoffederal_wa .cam Solid Waste & Recycling Design Considerations Solid waste and recycling design considerations include: • Adequate space allocation for interior and exterior garbage, recycling, food waste, waste oil, yard debris, hazardous waste, or biohazard collection containers. Minimum recycling space allocation is established by FWRC 19.125.150. • For basic solid waste and recycling needs within a single enclosure, clear interior dimensions measuring 10' deep by 20' across are recommended, along with a two -door swing -open or roll - open gate that spans the front width of the enclosure. When gate doors are opened, no structure or hardware should remain above grade across the enclosure opening. Gate pins/holes are preferred for holding gates in closed and open positions to ease service access and maximize the life of gate hardware. • Sites may require a larger enclosure, or multiple enclosures, to accommodate on -site user access and/or additional waste types and containers. • Plan for user access to interior waste and recycling storage areas/containers, and to exterior containers screened by enclosure(s). • Plan for unobstructed, safe enclosure ingress and egress for service vehicles, directly in line with enclosure openings. Allow appropriate turning radii for service vehicles, and minimize potential `blind spots' during ingress and egress. • Consider landscaping, setbacks and screening requirements [based on FWRC Section 19.125.040 (4) & (5)]. • Note that larger -scale commercial or multi -unit housing developments may see long-term savings from the use of on -site waste compaction equipment. Planning for this equipment may require larger enclosure dimensions, defined overhead clearances, consideration of power utility access, and drainage management. 17-104645-00-PC Doc. LD 76707 Mr. Singh November 17, 2017 Page 12 R Mixed -use developments may also benefit from on -site waste compaction equipment. Additional mixed -use development considerations include: o Designated chutes and/or internal facility maintenance areas or services for tenants, o Moving waste and recycling streams from interior units to collection areas, and o Access by business tenants and/or residents to exterior waste and recycling areas. Help with many design parameters related to service access is available via the City's contracted solid waste services provider, Waste Management. Contact: Dian Young, Route Manager, at 253-804-6815 (office) or 206-786-4530 (cell). BUILDING DIVISION (Peter Lawrence, 253-835-2621, Peter.Lawrence(a7cityoffederalway.com) International Building Code (IBC), 2012 Washington State Amendments WAC 51-50 International Mechanical Code (IMC), 2012 Washington State Amendments WAC 51-52 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), 2012 Washington State Amendments WAC 51-56 & WAC 51-57 International Fire Code (IFC), 2012 Washington State Amendments WAC 51 -54 National Electric Code (NEC), 2012 Accessibility Code, ICC/ANSI A117.1 - 2009 International Residential Code, 2012 Washington State Amendments WAC 51-51 Washington State Energy Code, 2012 WAC 5 1 -11 Building Criteria Wind/Seismic: Basic wind speed 85 Mph, Exposure, 25# Snow load, Seismic Zone D-1 A complete building permit application and commercial checklist. (Additional copies of application and checklists may be obtained on our web site at www.cityoffederalway..com.) Energy code compliance worksheets are required to be completed and included with your permit application. A wet stamp and signature is required on all sheets of plans and on the cover page of any calculations submitted. Federal Way reviews plans on a first in, first out basis; however, there are some small projects with inconsequential review requirements that may be reviewed out of order. 17-104645-00-PC Doc, I.D. 76707 Mr. Singh November 17, 2017 Page 13 Some projects may require a third party review or inspection. The cost to cover these fees is the responsibility of the applicant. Any third party fee is in addition to regular permit fees and costs. Review Timing Revised or resubmitted plans shall be provided in the same format, size, and amount as the originally submitted plans. Revised/resubmitted drawings shall indicate by means of clouding or written response, what changes have been made from the original drawings. Plans for all involved departments will be forwarded from the Community Development Department. Other Permits & Inspections Separate permits may be required for electrical, mechanical, plumbing, fire suppression systems, and signs. Applicants may apply for separate permits at any time prior to commencement of construction. When required, special inspections shall be performed by WABO approved agencies or by agencies approved by the building official prior to permit issuance. Construction must be approved by all reviewing departments prior to final building division inspection. All concerned departments (Planning, Public Works, Electrical, & Fire) must sign off before the Building Department can final the structure for occupancy. Building final must be approved prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Construction projects may be required to have a pre -construction conference. If a pre -con meeting is required, the general or representative, all subs, the architect or representative, the engineer or representative, electrical contractor, and any other interested party, should attend this meeting. Meetings will occur at the Building Department and will be scheduled by the inspector of record for the project. The information provided is based on limited plans and information. The comments provided are not intended to be a complete plan review and further comments are possible at time of building permit plan review. LAKEHAVEN WATER & SEWER DISTRICT (Brian Asbury, 253-946-5407, BAsbury@lakehaven.org) Water ■ A Water Certificate of Availability issued separately by Lakehaven may be required to be submitted with any land use and/or building permit applications (check with land use agency for requirement). Certificate is valid for one (1) year from date of issuance. If Certificate is needed, allow 1-2 work days to issue for typical. Current/2017 cost for a Water Certificate of Availability is $90.00. ■ Hydraulic model results (FF #101, copy attached) indicate that Lakehaven's standard maximum allowable system liquid velocity of 10 ft/s, at no less than 20 psi, is exceeded at a fire flow rate above 5,300 GPM. This flow figure depicts the calculated performance of the water distribution system under high demand conditions. Fire flow rates greater than available in the existing distribution system may be accommodated through water distribution system improvements. Please contact Lakehaven for further detail. • A Lakehaven Developer Extension (DE) Agreement will be required to construct new water distribution system facilities for the proposed development. Additional detail and/or design requirements can be obtained from Lakehaven by completing & submitting a separate application to Lakehaven for either a Developer Pre -Design Meeting or a DE Agreement. Lakehaven encourages 17-104645-00-PC Doc. I.D. 76707 Mr. Singh November 17, 2017 Page 14 owners/developers/applicants to apply for Lakehaven processes separately to Lakehaven, and sufficiently early in the pre-design/planning phase to avoid delays in overall project development. • For water use during site construction/development, a hydrant meter may be rented from Lakehaven for this purpose. Please contact Lakehaven for further detail. • The associated DE Agreement must achieve a point of either Substantial Completion or Acceptance, as determined by Lakehaven, prior to activating any new domestic or irrigation water service connections. • Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven water service connection fees/charges/deposits (2017 schedule) will be as follows. Actual connection charges will be determined upon submittal of service connection application(s) to Lakehaven. Connection charges are separate from any DE fees/charges/deposits & are due at the time of application for service. All Lakehaven fees, charges and deposits are typically reviewed & adjusted (if necessary) annually, and are subject to change without notice. • Water Service/Meter Installation, per lot, 1" preliminary size: $4,230.00 deposit. Actual size TBD by Lakehaven based on UPC plumbing fixture count. • Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Water, per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU): $3,476.00. Sewer • A Sewer Certificate of Availability issued separately by Lakehaven may be required to be submitted with any land use and/or building permit applications (check with land use agency for requirement). Certificate is valid for one (1) year from date of issuance. If Certificate is needed, allow 1-2 work days to issue for typical. Current/2017 cost for a Sewer Certificate of Availability is $90.00. • A Lakehaven Developer Extension (DE) Agreement will be required to construct new sanitary sewer system facilities necessary for the proposed development. Additional detail and/or design requirements can be obtained from Lakehaven by completing & submitting a separate application to Lakehaven for either a Developer Pre -Design Meeting or a Developer Extension Agreement. Lakehaven encourages owners/developers/applicants to apply for Lakehaven processes separately to Lakehaven, and sufficiently early in the pre-design/planning phase to avoid delays in overall project development. • The associated DE Agreement must achieve a point of either Substantial Completion or Acceptance, as determined by Lakehaven prior to activating any new sewer service connection(s). • Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven sewer service connection fees/charges/deposits (2017 schedule) will be as follows. Actual connection charges will be determined upon submittal of service connection application(s) to Lakehaven. Charges -Payable -in - Lieu -of -Extension (CPILOE) are assessable against the property for sewer facilities previously constructed that provide direct benefit to the property. If a DE Agreement is required, CPILOE charges are due prior to & as a condition of scheduling the Lakehaven DE preconstruction meeting. Connection charges are separate from any DE fees/charges/deposits & are due at the time of application for service. All Lakehaven fees, charges and deposits are typically reviewed & adjusted (if necessary) annually, and are subject to change without notice. • Sewer Service Connection Permit, per lot: $210.00 fee. • Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Sewer, per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU): $3,325.00. • CPILOE: $1,678.95 (total). 17-104645-00-PC Doc, I.D. 76707 Mr. Singh November 17, 2017 Page 15 General All Lakehaven Development Engineering related application forms, and associated standards information, can be accessed at Lakehaven's Development Engineering web pages (http://www.lakehaven.org/204/Development-Engineering). • All comments herein are valid for one (1) year and are based on the proposal(s) submitted and Lakehaven's current regulations and policies. Any change to either the development proposal(s) or Lakehaven's regulations and policies may affect the above comments accordingly. SOUTH KING FIRE AND RESCUE (Chris Cahan, Deputy Fire Marshal, 253-946-7243, c h ris.ea ha nCcr7sa u th kinefi re. o r Water Supply: Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall be provided within 350' travel distance* of all building lots. Existing hydrant on Military Road South does not meet this requirement. *Hydrant(s) spacing along access roads shall be approved by Fire Marshal's Office. Fire hydrants shall be in service prior to and during the time of construction. Emergency Access: Fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all re uirements of Fire Access Policy 10.006 htt ://sotithkin Ftre.or DoctimentCenter/HomeNiew/24 The proposed road lacks an approved turn -around. Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Fire Sprinkler System: An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in residences without approved emergency access and/or water supply. As proposed, sprinklers may be required in lieu of approved access and water supply for lots 4, 5, 10 and 11. Sprinkler requirements, if any, will be determined at the time of building permit application. CLOSING This letter reflects the information provided at the preapplication meeting and is intended to assist you in preparing plans and materials for formal application. We hope you found the comments useful to your project. We have made every effort to identify major issues to eliminate surprises during the City's review of the formal application. The completion of the preapplication process in the content of this letter does not vest any future project application. Comments in this letter are only valid for one year as per FWRC 19.40.070 (4). Doc. I. D. 76707 17-104645-00-PC Mr. Singh November 17, 2017 Page 16 As you know, this is a preliminary review only and does not take the place of the full review that will follow submission of a formal application. Comments provided in this letter are based on preapplication materials submitted. Modifications and revisions to the project as presented for this preapplication may influence and modify information regarding development requirements outlined above. In addition to this preapplication letter, please examine the complete FWRC and other relevant codes carefully. Requirements that are found in the codes that are not addressed in this letter are still required for your project. If you have questions about an individual comment, please contact the appropriate department representative noted above. Any general questions can be directed towards the key project contact, Dave Van De Weghe, 253-835-2638, david.vandewe lie ci offederalwa .com. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, - v Dave Van De Weghe, AICP Senior Planner enc: Master Land Use Application Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements/Checklist Administrative Decision Application Mailing Labels Enclosure Lakehaven Enclosures SEPA Checklist School Access Analysis C: Stephen Griego (Agent), stenhen>?&adlerbarnard.cvm Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer Cole Elliott, Development Services Manager Erik Preston, Senior Traffic Engineer Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District Chris Cahan, SKFR 17-104645-00-PC Doc. I.D. 76707 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) Preapplication Conference Sign -In Sheet Singh flat Pre-Applical im Conference 17-10()A5-00-PC N w, i•niber ?. 2017 NAME WITH PHONE Dt3PJEF\Y `�5'3 -250 2059 9 5',3 -.775- 79T 31-(L-UKe-CS0�-J � AKCHAQFW � _ W-A73a 53 %Z � cS i.. �' r 112' 1 G 2S3 - L2J.�VC, (/,, c 25 3 ale-,5170 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL DATE: 10/12/2017 TO: Coie E-11iottf Development Services Manager Peter Lawrence, Plans Examiner Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District Chris Cahan, South King Fire & Rescue Tanya Noscimento, Federal Way School District Tina Vaslet, Pierce Transit Ben Han, KC Metro FROM: Dave Van De Weghe, Senior Planner FOR DRC MTG. ON: 10/26/2017 - Internal 11/2/2017, 9 a.m. - with applicant FILE NUMBER(s): 17-104645-00-PC RELATED FILE NOS.: None PROJECT NAME: S I N GH PROJECT ADDRESS: 29002 MILITARY RD S ZONING DISTRICT: RM 3600 (Laos d(UJ 4-o bs- �'vvo SF a4iN i+1 Z0�'� i PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposal to subdivide one parcel of land into 11 parcels of land. Wetlands are present. LAND USE PERMITS: Preliminary Plat PROJECT CONTACT: Stephen Griego, stepheng@sadlerbarnard.com c MATERIALS SUBMITTED: Preliminary Plat 'F WV0 K LSD D t' Qr—�rEa�� PP.. �- �/` ✓f.L QyLI` ���YJ L.Z/� \�'�i 1 4� utD'^� Nc�Yr'` �frrJ A 19K S i C- (..)4 Aw �- �r MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMuNITy DEVELOPMENT �75"`� 33325 8`h Avenue South CITY OF `�'' °��'' Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 Federal Way www cityofCederalway.com APPLICATION NO(S) I Date Project Name Property Address/Location Parcel Number(s) oqaj Qq _ 9 r 7g Project Description � C I W k Iyi PLEASE PRINT Type of Permit Required Annexation Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment _ Comp PlanfRezone Land Surface Modification _ Line Elimination Preapplication Conference _ Process I (Director's Approval) Process II (Site Plan Review) _ Process III (Project Approval) Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) Process V (Quasi -Judicial Rezone) _ Process VI SEPA w/Project SEPA Only _ Shoreline: Variance/Conditional Use _ Short Subdivision Subdivision Variance: CotnmerciaVResidential Required Information RM ylad Zoning Designation Comprehensive Plan Designation J� Value of Existing Improvements n 1 Value of Proposed Improvements International _Building Code (IBC): ����y)�k- Occupancy Type rti} _Constriction Type Applicant Name:6[oLn 5trih Cd&ess: a 9 S? 3 0 19 T h Zip: FELi fl Phone: r Q n 3 Fax: Email: 5 3- A-7 S—? 9 i S 53-1Sv�oSg Signature: YAI.PFR I ) r. K) • Agent (if different than Applicant) Name: Sf c_pbtx,n 6rr'1O Address: 7/7 vJ Si' 04eP Ciry/stale: POV.6arvp , w A Zip: V!S 71 Phone: (aW 06 -'S17D Fax: Email: 5rephe�� a�sacikrbarna2l. cork Siguamrr� I' Owner Address: Rare3 D Th' {t1U G s City/State Zip: Phone: `d53- q1S 253—Z5D' -�°S`i<' Fax: f Email: /NDSI_077. AC5]nJGM® CjtAPiZ_-Loly Signature: ��JG�- [C s'l,1%2. Bulletin #003 - January 1, 2011 Page I of I kAHandoutsWasterLand Use Application 4�kCITY OF Federal Way October 12, 2017 Inderjit K Singh 29830 18"' Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: File #17-104645-00-PC; PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED Singh Plat, 29002 Military Rd S, Federal Wav Dear Applicant: 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway, com Jim Ferrell, Mayor The Community Development Department is in receipt of your preapplication conference request. The application has been routed to members othe Developmuerlt Review Com11nnee and a meeting with the f project applicant has been scheduled as follows: 9:00 a.m. — Thursday, November 2, 2017 Hylebos Conference Room Federal Way City Hall, 2" `' Floor 33325 8"' Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 We look forward to meeting with you. Please coordinate directly with anyone else you tivould like to attend the meeting as this will be the only notice sent by the department. If you have any questions regarding the meeting, please contact me at dat id.vat7de►vet7he.cucit�ot edei�tlway.cgm, or 253-835-2638. Sincerely. Dave Van De We 1e Senior Planner e: Stephen Griego-ct� ltca'asa[II�1'harl�ard.enm 17- I IN c, J IFS RECEIVED SEP 2 8 2017 WATERSHED DYNAMICS- `4MUNnDEVE-ap"' Ni Post Office Boa 215, Enumclaw, Washington TEL 360.825.9253 FAX 360.825.9248 DATE: June 9, 2014 HARD COPY SENT: X YES NO -M�: FMr. patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov E-MAIL COPY SENT: YES X NO MITTAL TRnE PAGES SENT INCLUDING COVER PAGE: 15 plus 3 Attachments UBJECT: Summary Report —Critical Areas Review and Hydrology Study TO: Patrick R. McGraner, Wetland Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Northwest Regional Office, Washington State Department of Ecology 3190 — 160t' Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 FROM: Larry D. Burnstad, Senior Environmental Consultant PROJECT NAME: Singh/Williams Critical Areas Review PROJECT NUMBER: WD-2007026 — Critical Areas Review WD-2013002 — HydrologyHy4ology Study 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 loss regarding how to best present the information gathered over the past 6 years. By the close of meeting, we had agreed the best way to present the information was to "tell the story" from the beginning, relating each of the steps taken by Watershed Dynamics and others to reach the current conclusion regarding the location of the wetland boundary within the subject properties. 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 1 and Figure 2). BACKGROUND INFORMATION Projeel Location The project area is located on the east side of Military Road South between South 288th Street and South 196h 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 to the north and south was that which 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 Singh property would still be limited by critical areas that would prevent any viable development of the property. The four properties, which abut one another north to south, are bound on their west side by Military Road South and on their east side by Bingaman Creek, which is a tributary to the Green River (see Figure 2). Information 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 �. - — - -� —-rmHCTs - — • - - -- - «w�s S-aAV I11N' SJ,V 1,166 :r+ Sa = 0 V 11rA S'c lim SrIuns ; S'd 1+1e5 h Ac' r� c9 55CH FL5 �,'r' Y �3 � s s iu, S S171LLS � 3 0 - STe �tTS p S31-VziyCS --c ctz L� n o-` S7U'�tS v-.Av-RZS Y 4 .r -c 1S15 fo Aa? a p y ^ rF•7R4-IF.S� - �9lAI Ii1L5 S'e li1C5 N c9 S131Va5 Sr" IMS c) S7I.1+I,LF% c) ., 3AVILL� s c 1 16: � A9[hWS F 17 U _• S_AV IU7 �,.. .-c 1116 �N s e ILLS- s'e IrJr. iR S e I.l- N ILL' y' S=nv lfl- � ., SWIVIiJ57 t, N aaTH its n: _ ` � P n" S-mV312C7 M - .y ° sb - 41-11 SlSl> >0 R. s3Avislc r x nsrA+r•_s H 'Aaa1o� n1 Care, Illae `m SJ,v I:J07 - siG ILLI>: al 1 °j S-.r,VIUK SJ,V IilK i S3nv ILLa Uld iilK c) = cr rr+'rt v. Ssfv,flm M Xi S arr yJQ., d N �H p�ev V ti1�, c) ^J ^-NILL ,yi c) a.. Saatl Hli� 36�Itl PV7=5 S Us'' w e 3cr i CTS n SHnv Ie1K 3-T1111S U �", �9�! G +9AVIf1c 1 Sy& � � ) 53rN Sea I��, C/] R [) w m Sid GP2C S v51 lC N 53hy Cd 111Nyyy S.AV 1?JAC b s3nvlla SBAV IUR P,0; 79rk S ¢ Iliff H �'c IilR H AYE 5 ash 5 ASH rLs s3AV 1.117 C RD `:• c• . -c H1SL R+ILf•rYy1 Irz SJ+V b1.Z L SHrnr I11K ti S-a: ctcz GI 'C �AV�taa �) t - 3nv Ct[Z 1L sanV GRZZ s3nv SKZ c- +ram EEO �• s Williams Property ' j„ ' - l• - L * r r i Singh Propertyjf �• a.; Hart Property .. Sakai Property ei era ay r r= MidwaySamoan Assembly Properties 4 W4 -". X, L ` 1., t., •!. T irk fp"Cat Square z _ ome Park . FIGURE 2: Tax Parcel/Ownership Map — Study Area Outlined in Red Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner — June 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 —18'h 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 QM) website and Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS) website. Information regarding a wetland inventory was also collected from the City of Federal Way intemet site. August 26, 2007: Watershed 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 (Rubes discolor) and evergreen blackberry (Rubes 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 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 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. t 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 cast 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. ✓ The organic soil (peat) was, however, indicative of wetland habitat. ✓ Contradictory indicators, but based on hydrology Watershed Dynamics indicated the sample point was located within non -wetland habitat. ■ At the sample point SP-050708-01 located in the northeast portion of the property approximate 80 feet 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. ✓ The soil was organic and saturated between 3 inches and 8 inches below the ground surface. ✓ Soil and hydrologic indicators put this sample point in wetland habitat. ✓ The plant community indicated the sample point was in non -wetland habitat. ✓ 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-i-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 II 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 miiuniurn 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 sahnonid 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 46th Avenue South due to natural and human -made barriers to fish passage, including a "shotgun" culvert under 466' Avenue South. ✓ Additionally, Watershed Dynamics provided information indicating elector -shacking data showing no fish being captured upstream of approximately 50'b Avenue South (which does not cross the stream channel). Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner - June 9, 2014 - Page 6 ---- �tcr-Mh-ld-Dyaiff fet— gestui�ffe stream slna�ilti-berecWsiffe-das a -Mu r Suam upstream of --- Bingaman Creek. ■ The City indicated the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife had found salmonids 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 46'h 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 288'h Street. ■ That culvert, which is located in Bingaman Creek upstream of 1-5 and downstream of the Singh property, is a complete barrier 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 point, Watershed Dynamics indicated to the City that the probability of the culvert under South 28e Street being replaced to allow fish passage was extremely law 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 15, 35' Avenue South, 45�h Avenue South, and 46'h 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 46h Avenue South downstream to 55 h 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 sahnonids were observed approximately 800 feet to 1,000 feet upstream of 55'" 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'h 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 Road 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 100 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--050708-0-1—which-was-deemed to -be -located -in wetland-habitat-in,200-8 — 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 46'h 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 of soil pits excavated at sample points. ✓ NOTE 2: According to the 1987 Corps Manual and the 1997 WDOE 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 --NOTE2: rlddiliomrlly,-there-had,beensignifreantrainfall-the-nightprior-to-thisfeld-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. Burnstad 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. Burnstad 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. Burnstad 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 concern 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. Burnstad 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. Burnstad. Mr. Burnstad 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,-201-2: A-site-meeting-was-convened-to-r-eview-the-existing-conditioris-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 Burnstad, 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 indicatedprecipitation during the latter part of October 2012 and continuing through mid- Januwy 2013 was greater than 130% of normal. This means that the observed hydrology on November 2e occurred at a time when precipitation was well above normal. NOAA data revealed that 2.59" inches of precipitation was recorded between November 18`h 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. 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. ■ By the end of February 2013 all of the 28 monitorhig wells (see Figure 3) had been installed and 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. Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner - June 9, 2014 - Page 10 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 Q. ■ 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 #Ithrough 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". Freci italion 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 April 27, 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 PEM: 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. Graph 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 days (03/04/14 through 03/13/14), for 3 consecutive days (03/16/14 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, Graph 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 03/01/14 through 03/19/14 was above normal for 11 of the 18 days and 3 days of precipitation greater than 1 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 #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 #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 17 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 elevatkm was measured within the upper 12 inches of the soil column for 11 consecutive days (02/13/14 through 02/24/14), 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 (02/13/14 through 02/14/14), for 8 consecutive days (03/05/14 through 03/13/14), and 4 consecutive days (03/15/14 through 03/19/14). 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, Graph 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 soil 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 03/10/14), for 1 day (03/17/14), 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. 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 (03/16/14 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. 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 originally constructed to convey storniwater 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 Well #25 and Well 426, the ditch did not continue all the way to Bingaman Creek. As a result, the area where Well #23 through Well #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 of the wells having water surface elevations within the upper 12 inches of the soil column during nearly the entire study period. In 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 irrigation. • maintenance access to the buffer terrace. Memo to Mr. Patrick R. McGraner — June 9, 2014 — Page 15 F: �� FND 1/2" REBAR W/Gw 19635' 1.0' N. OF LINE /42 ;4 N88TPDI'W 647.3' 86' 12.3 157.7' tttttt� 16' HEMLOC ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,������I / f ..T .4.�. � yd / N Zt // 16"-taLOCK7:+� �41,6� w k eti 1p 20` CEDAR J \ 14- CEDAR- - \ ` ~ - ~ - SINGH PROPERTY r r CEOAR / �1 =• • I 76 CEAAR 1 � \ / I �f 24- NEAIL CIC 7=[y\♦ ~ ` J 42" FIR 3��2",,//F is- FIR �� I ® H , s }} l} ' i 264;R (' 22 FIR 22- FIR x'ati, �4jo� '[� ; :;i� t } I \\ 20' FIR 24- nR\\ { �•' '�t ' . I i I lyZ2" CEDAR 14" CEDa-7i \ � 4l4 � i tv J ( 5 :. . i j 1 i I �•' 2r FIR 1 ./ l 6' Y �-a1fiA I / 4 _asI / N88"ITor*452.3' fi CHAIN LINK •'s -. -. ::^ i:::. IrK 1/2 ��EBAR WJ P 11 _ 1 \ 501'E1.1 (1--------- �• II N � \ {{N •- N SP-05070B-030 A-02 Ay01� Si A-09 -<> r r 59-050706-0;0 SP-05070E-030 A-06 t / tiq'1' / A-w Sb f•� / ® t / I AND BOUNDARY .F ''t / O A-04 / A-03 O ® 070E-Od� Y / / o 6' WIRE FND 1/2" REM W/CAP 37540' S61'41' W 2.4' RIM - 411.00 I.E. = 401.70(MC)1B" I.E. = 402.40(8")E rJ a J WOOD BRIC.�c t I � l I I O J JJ p / WOOD / BRIDGE r SUM& — NORTH 1"= 50, ATTACHMENT B 2013 Study Results RECEIVED SEP 2 F 2917 COMMUN; 120 37 - 36 I 130°I of Normal 35 GRAPH 1: Acc lated Precipitation ata 10/01/12 throug 05/31/13 34 I 'r 33 ' N®AA Weather Station at SeaTac biternational Airport I I I 32 _ 31 1 I I I 1r l r 30 29f - I 28 , r 27 2� - 24 22 21 _r 20 J- ^r 5 19 — . AccumulateRecorded Precipitation I I i 130% of Normal ' I I 18-- 17 16 15 13 12 10 9 8• " 20-year Average Normal) Precipitation 7 6 I, 5 2 0 1 OCTOBER 311 NOVEMBER 301 DECEMBER 31 1 JANUARY 3111 FEBRUARY 2811 MARCH 3111 APR1L 3011 NiAY 37 36 35 34 ---33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 f 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 31 GRAPH 2 o Depth from Ground Surface to Water Surface in Monitoring Well # 1 through Well #7 (inches) 3 Well #1 6 Well #2 9 Well #3 12 Well #4 15 Well #5 18 Well #6 �- 21 Well #7�� 24 26 M N M O M N M O M N M O M -- O O M O O M O O M --� O M •-+ O M ,-� O M N O M N O M N O M M O M O kn O M r-+ wl O M .-� O M N kn O M M kn O MonTlori.ng 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 12 15 Well#12 18 Well #13 oil Well #14 24 ------I---------- ----- __-- ---- -�� 24 --�- 26 6 26 M M M O M M O M M O M O M O M ON O M Cq O M kn O M 00 O en N Cr O M N O M CF O M '� O M V'1 O M ail O M V� O M V1 O M O Monitoring Dates r� GRAPH 4: Depth from Ground Surface to Water Surface in Monitoring Well # 15 through Well #21 (inches) 0 3 Well#15 6 Well#16 N 12 15 W 21 24 26 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1�6-onitoring Dates Well # 17 Well #18 Well #19 Well #20 Well #21 -. r- GRAPH 5: Depth from Ground Surface to Water Surface in Monitoring Well #22 Tough Well #28 (inches) 0 3 Well #22 6 Well #23 9 12 15 21 24 26 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M kn 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Monitoring Dates Well #24 Well #25 Well #26 Well #27 *,' Well #28 a ■ NOTE: This symbol indicates the well ■ had been vandalized and was reset, but the reading may be inaccurate due Co ® subsurface alterations or plugged well slits. T liPF TO ATTACHMENT C 2014 Study Results einite Pr_ar�im �9n € -nm if)/011 /1 a2 thrn�rt ii�ji/1/i� ,�-IA-L7Qr =,ro9-o.rm i 38- - Data Source: NOAA Weather Station at SeaTac International Airport 37- ! 36- 35 ! ! I 34 ! � ] 3i�/o -of Normal 33- - 32- - 3P - ! 30- 29- 28- I l 27- I 26 - I ! � 25 - � I 24 23- I I 22- v 21- Normal Precipitation (20-year Average) 20- 19- ! ! I I 18- 17- 16- �? I 15- 14- 13- I 1 12- 11- 10- 9- 8- 7 6- 5- 3- I I I ! 1- - 0- i I ~38 i - 37 I - 36 -35 34 ! 33 1 32 I 31 i ! 30 j 29 28 1 27 - z6 � Accumulated Recorded Parecipitation 25 24 4 22 21 2Q � 0 - 19 l i • 18 I 1 17 I I 16 Ii } I a 15 1T 13 1 I ! - 12 11 10 ! 1 -9 -8 7 I I I ! 6 5 4 1 } 2 l I i I I 1 1 1R 1 � :H� ...• . �aiiu ac... �rrnmwgrPri i%rN.•,•,..+,..,.. _ ....,,n,ani tr,munn i+,�r,i 7iiiu I � I ii - - - --: - - - --.- - - -- --: --a r -�- — _ — — —— se8sl� i Tally ir'ir,sllai auu r�ccum>ka€ j�im:�a>i rrecipii�i.un-r'e�ruary t`urouru t�pni ivi4 _ _ _ _-_ _ — _ _ _ -_ — — — — I — — — — — --- — — Fes_ — — — — — — — — ^ 17 —�— --I 130%and 70% SeaTac Daily and Accumulated Normal Precipitation - February through Aprs12014 ~I ^ I 16 15 14 13 12 10 ri [1i 5 4 3 2 0 ' ---- -- �� -I .--- - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - I I �' I I fi_-------------i^----------�---1�--____I-_--_....__------.-_.___-_---fi-- rt------^_i-------^-- -__^-- l I I I -- � I 1 ' I -I-- ------------_- -�-- I — fi _ ---I--------- --------- ^—_I—_ —�- — — — �. — — — -� — — 1+� — — -- — — -- — — — — — 13B4io[ilanplAw�kMtdPtxryilmw� _ I I _ f -- ------ I -- I I ff Ac t�d,(masl P+ecipimoe(?A � A e) - I - ^ - - - - - ^ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ - _ ----------- I -^I -- _ - i r ^� I i' I �— I _ . — — ..____ ------ �^--- ^ I -------------^--I-----__-�=r---------^-1---- -- -rt- ---- r --------------------------------�_.__- -i- — ___--.-.__-__----4- I-----------------^ --------------^---- fi- -rt--_-__^—I— - r-.--------^---- -I-- -I^- - - I_--^--^-----------^ ------^--------^-- -----__---- AmrrYsldNormalPtaflPp�A,x+ge1-1 — —jl ' I I I I \ I�bRcee,ddlva{�ntim25Et — — °,$Ilaedeama — --- — — — — — — — — — --- — — — — — I —IE h5ttW ell7aeup�lei?tih'Ane�a�d�umlZG-1ra 7tl`EoTl�timv`I�Mp'=rMW+Am+tfl E �awm�eo ; I I l;anr,bnETMP Siupt I aliwStudy Site- We°DOC.&climSWD&"14 I I I _ I ___ ....... , .. n n n Thin n n n n n n n s i l l i i t l l 7 7 2 7 731a 0 0 0 010 0 0 0 3 l 1 I 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z 3 3j0 0 MARCH MAY XN JAN FEBRUARY ri i—I A -nTT A - TN— —�?: r �:-.—_ee ? r-r.Fe.� TBT pc rl x 1 XMI 0 5 li17- ��T��Tii � Jyl �� X�I'IK1I�/I h 411"�'�I�i - T icy, 7�—I�F7-T� I 1J �Ll-- �;—1 "al �� ~I /� 14-1 —1— r -T ---i 7 2 r- -r -T —I N kn cq en en m e N N N N N N M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O T— -r -T —I —I— 't 't 'T N* 'IT Monitoring Dates O O O O O O O Cl O C O O D Well #1 3 Well #2 6 Well #3 9 Well #4 12 Well #5 Well #6 15 Well #7 18 21 24 26 �T] A TIT t%Tt- T1_ _i1- 5, _ f"I. ......� :.= sir. ._ 'ryF. Vie: -rAr- - Y [C 3 7 12 W, W. T47 /1, /1 A A /I il�i�/Y -4 47/-4 414- 4- �iI �I ���i��!i li iiI �� ✓�I� C 1 �I r/Y�il i� � ���Y i�iT�yI���G�i �'�1-�i�Tlyl il /I 'I�'I�li�il �I �I A�14 7—f-7e �ii�il FF T -T I T 7 -1 F/T V/��I���� 7 7 Ab 7 -F --i -I- I 7 T 7 -1- F T -F -1 -1- 21 I 4---4 l i —4— --4 1 l i l I 7 26 M N N N N M N M M M M M M M M M M O M O O O kn kn O O O 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 M®r*t®ring Dates 'I Well #8 3 Well #9 6 Well #10 9 Well #11 12 Well #12 Well # 13 15 Well #14 18 21 24 26 !'"TM A T%YT e% t" - �� !`� a %"! - _ -<<� ,e r. YVT"-- _-__--_ 7 a �k�y�l'���I'o y 4/ �I� li Fl��'i �i�� ���'I �I i�7I�iT���I��TiTi�T1yr �G li r ,b 6 L� �, li�i�����y � i �� � k ✓�I��i ,I �I �Y X�1 �i'�Y it �I �I 9 4- -4� 4" 12 F— T iTzi—I-12 71I 18-�—I—` r.—II I— 7 —I — 7—r— �—I—�1K 21 24 24-j -r 7 —1 r 7 7 r T- -T 1 —1. r r- T -I It It ON N N N O O O N N 00 -- O N tn 00 M V7 N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M `� 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 O O Monitoring Dates Well #15 Well #16 Well #17 Well #18 Well#19 Well #20 Well #21 (;RAPH 7D' Den{h frn.__ f end C..h'aPo f n.. _-� Un rl lilil ��I� 7--'��l� I�A���i*�� 6�I r�T,'f��l�I���,T�yl� ��ili � I G, i� T�� r i T�y- V ' �-FT-TT 7 i I �11 �T7-1I i�-I � a V -1 � -I-! 4 ��� �-I-��-I-�-I-�-1=,-k�4 'P-I- I- T7 I7 I i TT I' I �77-7-1-FT z1l- ! - I - I I 4� I I��it wo �c cl�+ N N N O O O N kn N N N N N N KI M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 i O N N M 0 0 0 0 0 Monitoring Dates [FT7� T " 't It ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a C Well #22 3 Well #23 - 0 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 Military 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. T " 't It ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a C Well #22 3 Well #23 - 0 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 Military 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. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT for the Proposed Multi -family Residential Development of Tax Parcel No. 0421049172 located at 29XXX Military Road South, Federal Way, Washington 98003 prepared for Mr. Gian Singh, Owner 29830 —18t" Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003 prepared by Watershed Dynamics Mr. Larry D. Burnstad, Senior Environmental Scientist Post Office Box 215 Enumclaw, Washington 98022 TEL 360.825.9253 FAX 360.825.9248 April 10, 2009 Limitations and Warranties (1) During the course of its field investigations or site evaluations, neither Watershed Dynamics nor any of its subconsultants conducted any critical areas reconnaissance, identification, or delineation on any properties other than the property or properties that are the subject of the attached report. Any references to or discussions about any off -site wetlands, or other off - site critical areas, that is included in this critical areas report has been based on Watershed Dynamics' review of publicly available published and unpublished information and/or ocular observations made by Watershed Dynamics from within the subject property or properties. (2) Watershed Dynamics and/or its subconsultants physically evaluated or observed conditions only within those properties that the project proponent(s) or the property owner (or owner's) or the property owner's (or owners ) authorized agent (or agents) had provided, directly or indirectly, written or verbal authorization granting Watershed Dynamics permission to enter onto the subject property (or properties) and to examine surface and subsurface resources to a maximum depth of 24-inches below the ground surface elevation present at the time field investigation were undertaken. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by the project proponent(s) or the property owner (or owner's) or the property owner's (or owners ) agent (or agents) all subsurface excavations were filled with native soil that were adequately compacted and leveled after sampling was completed (3) In the case of shallow groundwater monitoring, Watershed Dynamics and/or its subconsultants installed piezometers (monitoring wells) solely for the purpose of monitoring near surface groundwater elevations. Shallow groundwater monitoring wells are installed only with permission granted and remain in service only for the time period authorized by the property owner (or owner's) or the property owner's (or owners) agent (or agents). Neither Watershed Dynamics nor its subconsultants extracted any water samples for purposes of water quality analysis unless specifically directed to do so by the project proponent(s) or the property owner (or owner's) or the property owner's (or owners ) agent (or agents). (4) Watershed Dynamics conducts, and its subconsultants conduct, all wetland reconnaissance, identification, and delineation efforts in accordance with the most current published Federal, state, and local regulations and guidelines. It is important, however, to note that wetland identification and/or delineation is not an exact science and there can be variations between qualified wetland scientists regarding the exact location of a wetland boundary. Any wetland delineations completed by Watershed Dynamics and/or its subconsultants must be reviewed by the Federal, state, or local agency representative responsible for final verification of a delineated wetland boundary. It is equally important to note that regulatory agencies can modem their regulations, policies, and procedures without providing non -agency personal with advanced notification regardi.�g such changes. As a result between wetland reconnaissance, identification, and delineations completed by Watershed Dynamics and/or its subconsultants and an agency verification of those efforts. Changes in agency regulations can affect wetland reconnaissance, identification, and delineation results provided by Watershed Dynamics and/or its subconsultants if a significant period of time (more than 6 months) has past between the date a Critical Areas Report was prepared and the agency representative's review of the project site. Property owners should be aware that wetland or critical areas reports that are more than 3 years old may be rejected by an agency representative, or the representative can require that the owner have the report "refreshed" (checked to determine if the conditions at the time of the report are consistent with site conditions 3 or more years later) before it is accepted by the agency. (5) Watershed Dynamics warrants the attached work product was conducted in accordance with current professional, scientific, and ethical standards and practices as allowed within the limits of the owner's or client's authorized schedule, scope -of -work, and budget. The results and conclusions presented in this document are based on the evaluation of data: (a) collected by Watershed Dynamics or provided to Watershed Dynamics by the owner, owner's representative, client, or client's consultants or staff, (b) evaluated by Watershed Dynamics professional staff (and/or subconsultants) in accordance with current professional training and practices, and (c) as often as practicable and necessary, has been reviewed by peer professionals. No other warranties, expressed or implied, are made by Watershed Dynamics. No other entity is authorized to warranty professional products prepared by Watershed Dynamics without written authorization from Watershed Dynamics. (6) OWNERSHIP: This product is the sole property of Watershed Dynamics until such time as all outstanding fees invoiced by Watershed Dynamics and/or its subconsultants to project proponents) or the property owner (or owner's) or the property owner's (or owners) agent (or agents) or the client (client's) for authorized professional services (labor costs) and reimbursable expenses incurred during the production and delivery of this product have been paid in full by the project proponent(s) or the owner, owner's representative, client, client's consultants or staff, or the owner's or client's assigns. Unless otherwise authorized by Watershed Dynamics (in writing), this product may not be used by any entity in the pursuit or acquisition of any permits or other required approvals or conveyances necessary for initiating or implementing any proposed land use modifications, land improvements, value increasing activities, or land use activities within the subject property until all invoiced fees have been paid in full. Asprii 10, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Purpose Subject Property Description Property Located Immediately North of Proposed Project Site Property Located Immediately East of Proposed Project Site Property Located Immediately South of Proposed Project Site Property Located Immediatey' West of Proposed Project Site FINDINGS Background Data Search Results of Background Data Search Field Reconnaissance Field Assessment of Potential Wetlands Field Survey of Stream Channel CONCLUSIONS FIGURES Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2A: Site Map (Aerial) Figure 2B: Site Map (Survey) Figure 3: Pertinent portion of NWI Map Figure 4A: Pertinent portion of NRCS Soils Map Figure 413: Pertinent portion of City of Federal Way Soils Map Figure 5: Stream Ratings Map, City of Federal Way Figure 6: Bingaman Creek Aerial Photo ATTACIIMENTS Attachment 1: Pertinent Sections - City of Federal Way Municipal Code (FWMC) Attachment 2: Field Data Forms Attachment 3: Stream Survey Results Page 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 10 15 23 Critical Areas Report — Table of Contents Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property ry r�•I/Ori r nrinfsrn YN '!rrn i r`la f prll L U, Z UU3F CRITICAL AREAS REPORT For Proposed Multi -family Residential Development Project Report Prepared for: Mr. Gian Singh 29830 —18"' Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Contact Phone: 253.250.2059 Project Proponent: Mr. Gian Singh Property Location: 29002 Military Road South (may not be correct address) Federal Way, Washington 98003 (see Figure 1) Current Land Use: 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. Proposed Project: 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 areas as well as installation of utilities such as electricity, natural gas, water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management facilities, telephone, and cable (intemet/digital TV). Project Size: 2.32 acres or 10 1,05 9 square feet (see Figure 2A and Figure 2B) Property Information: 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: 360.825.9253 Field Review Date: December 17, 2007 and January 4, 2008 INTRODUCTION 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 Areas that are regulated within the City. Based on 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) Critical Areas Report —Page I Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property .. ..oa...iFsc:i is_r •..•..••.....• : �. �.:iiiii. i.. 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). 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 II,M.a.%•...-w .� e..wY/iL�.0 • r � L�I�I. ..LU zlprii 1v", iuvy 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 1 above) is located 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 1 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 inventor3r data base, which contains information regarding soil series classification and mapping throughout the United States (see Figure 4A). 3. A Catalogue of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, 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 5). Critical Areas Report — Page 3 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property 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. MRCS 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 Alderwood 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 (if the channel downstream of 55u' 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 Projeer — Gian Singh Property "" --• - _-_—.. ai �%::uiiisi..J a .. �IY.r r if�f1 Watershed Dynamics completed an initial site review and a basin reconnaissance on April 28, 20QJ. 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. 272na 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 — Gian Singh Property I/14%.1-,.&-.-* Fit 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 .7). 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. 288a' Street within the Interstate 5 rigbt-of way is typical of the six --am 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. Crilical Areas Report — Page 6 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property •• .r .•ry .l.N �'I!L•ldLLLJ l l � J'V:::::. Li Aprii 1 u, 2009 Bingaman Creek enters a culvert on the south side of S. 288h 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. 280' Street to determine the culvert outlet location north of the S. 288" 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. 2880 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. 288'h 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. 288t' 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 — Gian Singh Property .. ..w:,►iiCu . Jii��is...�•.. FN hail 7ii io �iyril i v_V V7 Watershed Dynamics continued its reconnaissance in a downstream direction looking at the channel where it leaves Bingaman Pond, the 45'h Avenue South crossing, and the 46`h Avenue South crossing. Although it was not confirmed during the reconnaissance, Watershed Dynamics noted that the crossing at 46 h 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 55 h Avenue South (see Photo 5, Photo 6, and Photo 7 below). PHOTO 5: View of the downstream (outlet) end of the culvert under 55`h 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 55t' Avenue South. The channel configuration at the time of the reconnaissance was a ditch immediately adjacent to 55t' 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 (Oncorhynchus clarkii) or juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), both of which should be in this stream at the time the reconnaissance was completed. Critical Areas Report — Page 8 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property April 10, 2009 PHOTO 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 Areas Report — Page 9 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property W .r r.+rvJrnn i .. VAI ^I/�/r9A n! 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 46t` 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 55t' Avenue South and 46th 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 55th Avenue South and S.E. 272,d 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 Corps of En ' eers 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 (WDOE 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 (FWS/OBS 79/31) 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 covered by a combination of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), and spirea (Spiraea douglasii). 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 15 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 rather 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 �___4 in 'MOO 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 with spirea. This distinct change in the vegetation appeared to indicate a variation in the 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 vegetation 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 conditions of the spirea 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 w/`/4ra•noi/ //�1H nst�.nn � i/1 /ice%/I'lL April 10, 200 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 -11 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. (SAT), 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 (FACE) plants. Critical Areas Report — Page 12 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property 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 1 OYR 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 IOYR 2/1 silt loam w/o mottles (-4" to -14"), and a 5YR 3/3 silt loam w/o mottles (-14" to -2011). 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 _.—. .._.....Y ..iiu:i.:w i i rvaii vL�li Apra 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 (-14" 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 (upland). 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 III 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 menziesii), 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 Developinent Project — Gian Singh Property Apiir 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. 288th 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 15 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property ►Ts — AV, —Vv 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 55th Avenue South. PHOTO 7A (left) is a view of the outlet end of the culvert under 46`a Avenue South. Photo 711 (right) is a view of the steep channel below the culvert outlet The first 50 feet of channel downstream of the culvert outlet had 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 April l U, .6U09 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 45t' Avenue South to Station 37+72 (inlet of culvert under 55 b 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 Multifamil3� Residential DnWopment Project — Gian Singh Property _ F'I 7A FU -F +nn.. 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 - "IF All I �: _ . i t1w. /I YiGI.�/lCU /Ilr././../Ir'.r �.r ///1• /.. /h fijf+iG iV, bVV7 PHOTO 16A (left) is a view of some of the human -caused channel slope failures in the stream corridor. Roof and yard drains are routed over 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 h Avenue 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 Development Project — Gian Singh Property A...-07 1.9 ?one CONCLUSIONS Watershed Dynamics determined that there was regulated wetland in the eastern portion of the subject property. The onsite wetland was part of a larger scrub -shrub wetland that extended off site to the north and south. The wetland was determined to be a Category II Wetland, which would require a 100-foot buffer. 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 46t' 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 451' Avenue South. It is feasible that the culvert under 45u' 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. 2$$'h Street would ever be replaced to allow fish passage since anadromous salmon and trout cannot migrate any further upstream than below 46th Avenue South. Critical Areas Report — Page 23 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Glan Singh Property FIGURES E2 ii cz LL LL 0 �� "' r. E,y. ji L r.�f -f `-•_4.. �F R •i �v.l i f: �'-� - .:-- r' I �-, i .� i•_• I i"r,;_ r- `4 1 --�'� j �] F- _✓!=''t��s p �°r *«}cF - �6 .. ... i __ y �J.. r • • 'h 1 ! - f C 71 4 , �'i _ ` 'I,.; ` %•Yae�.C'.'{. ,r i^ f �Ii ' -' • 7, - �ki� i �i '.. ---- Jil M1•"+ S_ �� _ •t �• r f �'-r� • � Y � `•� :: F �•-r'.rr, i�. y' �-3 +.. -� � ..w-- i i t _"' n r , a 2 �L �! H 'i j r A �_ _ ..,:. a ' ; . r ' , d •J��' � n l I ' � , : 1 r R. •- fFi n..w � '':iy�.... - _-rt. � .r• - � '.....,e Eiil� _ _-.. i• "J l 7A k: ']J� ...,,�-e.. '-_ _ 3 - !;It • tir f ...• �. '--,« ! P !••'+�i ldE, 4f-a YF• �l�el.�� 1 ry'S� «r. f�"- y.. - li� • h]. .. "' •y •�.r� ,r y � 1 r-F.-. i -F,•:- � i r i �'i t.- ~ r �t�"'j ;T -i-.. �,� L i.. `:t�a'ch -� - ,-,- ! L •�+' 1 —� ! E. � � � r• � r �' -• •..-., : �rry, ,• s i "u �` ± - _ rl _ ... _n .. 1 � � a. k�. F x" ► i 1 L - S i �• - �' :ar "+i��.i�' ._ '$ _ .ra X • �'' i ; 4a.r A •h' l�-. +f~ ,ji _wI'°.iIFRo�i-'....•' S- �}T - '.•.'�y.i" l' • .�^ . L £� M %�µ� Tr i ` ~ a F L•- . •,'y4 M1 e .'•., •r�.�. '�' �•,. 'R} : _.: �I r +,= �* -i - r,- .r,r• - F�. •i - a i 1 i p6 'k efsy. '1! i•�,. ,i • ii +'� r. « r � r'+' i Y `, <s r�'+ r X' �. ' y ' - -- - � t � I ti- - . ti%r�^ itE . ,,.,, � �`�; '!. 1 • - •- .. - ,'� . �; i SL eL••�• 'fir, 1T Y '� rY � y'r. • '�-�•. T�i - »I ,_ i �' "•.t ,�-r +'i�r �'�' � ',7, � �3 � � A' -ate •4, L � .... - � i .. ^_ �' - :1+ry i `'� i. �q4 '%- .� r .�" � a t's� i ,�R 'i. ,i �• i ,,� �"-�,�: L - - •-r. `-"' i. F - _ ; ! ,. F !. ,"�fje '` _ ` ra..-..ry -y` .y. _�„ •tea+=-.-r: - E + .i i.' �� ! _ ice. s +.€' �� E,� i-�'. �•'��, .: + fl*! .�..; - �i ! "' �' gs�„�1. u ? y try_. ik R1 . ~� ■ a 4 g 1• ._. ��S- • _ t�" • ..+!__� .� • .� -- w 1 � ..�_ �1•, i• ~ r �� • � r ''•A I �I�rz---• i Ma L,� G; �r'+r.r•._ lk II 1: x. i :. '� 3 ~.tier la' jk t. �. '' .••• _.. �[' _a�� -1 ,�'' .-y lE .?:n +� 1 �� " rr.F-G �j•�' ;. 1 - I - '"war.eFak ! }, i •. � � .1`a..: `= � a5tt� it i a ?�!-' "' r'-•� - � a s• y, - C' �'�'``i "�-. •'rE 'i_ �. ,y�, r1YR }7 " r ':J i 'w4t - j R�• Kr ''� � � G� r'� � -. � ';'� r � _ l ie �E '�'•�1 ~JL k' r 'L'�' �•! ! {..rT' _-•_""'• t .� LI. t6 - r •- -� ..ate '" ` 1 -r . r - ji 41 r• .IrYIf iE �f ,]�C_. �-`; ti;�� ni rn{ ••i r. n r` i• rf!' °-{ • ;SqF �_ R' t �i A YLL' IL7� 11 F �� 'y LX ♦ Ll 3%it • �� � • ■' �` aF:� � � �� f 'S?�_ � �i z+° v' - , • •-Flamm �. IC �''-: L Y- ''1r - 'r'T' � _ _ Pit • '�' S 'w�f_ _ �,�,_ � - a { i� _ � i '� - { #"' a Cw } ii • �' rw-. � F �_,� � . �w..A� - . - � `0 �i '�- TSB•+ F� '-f5x4' a -.+.. E%[�f""''!:- ►� "1Sy, .,� Twr P •!r ._ air C. f qer � 7 2 ''�: •w ti � i c. K rP�t s' t r 'y I 47-20-3 o c o 'U D m o Y , m m m N a° 0 3i L m C (D x'o a c c 2 a A m m c 10 m m m� Y N m O V Gi o v A W ILL a > o Y Q E W m 3 m om ;az 'o � o2t0 L cr'T q m m =:= C C m N m m C d c 3- m Q Q ix r— t R d O O O .- O ,� r 12 N O �N7 O y 0 R' U 7 J q m t > W WLL LLLL-'AO C O O 0 .�. O O J 20 2 N Z U U7 f0 2 !❑■ L� FR" 9-._ ❑❑ 5 N 47-20-30 N 47-20-25 N 47-20-9n N A7-9n-lr n IN `JDZI6-LV N UE-/6-LD N 9Z-OZ-LV N OZ-OZ-Lti N 9L-OZ-Lb O m om Mam C ar 9MZ U) in a C1 �d a EJ 'Occ E mo 31 E G � � EEm M Pzm moo❑ aMF F G q� N L` Ql y � ro m O C arx m m � Q N m O of � N 4 GS G� N U Vml E�5 yam o 0 11 L4 d L oa L .S .B L .ZU N O R � oSZEpZS o0S is 041 i49 OMPM osolem Oo®E:Z$ Al40 . } ■ 12 � �• Y 9, ti � i IRV Al e Ell n k, r 1 YyYY , r . • "� 4k- • _ L oSZ£pi5 INiZ£>Z5 6 ors 0[,Q£ti7S pppCpZlg 01� ow .LL eZM N 0 M N N � M IL m 0 L O O N � X cd N .y Q � 0 C a O O O N m m d O n O E03 N a co O O Nfa O ld �(D N Z� 2U „s.eL ezzL � Z)C O) co O — p O G G O C 0 0 N 04 C7 N N N N O N N N m > ° .W+ N 3 c N d U y Q N fn fm !F O O C 01 E Y �O _— W E N L O 0 x N Z >,� U .—to � www 10 N fLA CD a)D Q' Z N O W N L 7 p ap 3 a C� Q - V N CQ N O E U Z Cc,N N W C C •N ¢ L W O y N 0 _ d> ¢ EL3 W °' Cp N N N a v O Q ° N �� 7 W W ?. Z ° W :° N W LL . w O m aN E o r a y� E �o W C n t w 0 U N d O N R IL O rUir N C W N n ai , Q d U N f0 J W N => N L S C N wZ E CD° �N-- ° `m co N .L-. T w and W +W CCO .01 W C (V y C N 0'a)�+ N m OO.T O GI 3 >' E Cn N j C N N a CC6 W .. f6 N N W 0— f6 r 2 Q W - 7 coW 1=/J co U M N CDO a)U .Q CL W G Cc CD W W 7 L O N> — 2 N H a E tq U F LW. in U) c 0 E o T (D Z _Cf) CV O N co Z i cn f0 O d co O L O �U W N °0 o 0 rx UJ PA 0 L O] 0 W Z C 0-L m d N = N d 13 o W a m 0 0 n m m N n m E m W 5 > 3 C (:) Cn U O w O C O O W J G N a m W a .. 0CL fn c w a° to 3 m ? \ W J a O m n W ?� ° to v E _ O c m _ m 3 a n °n O a n 3 W o o c m m o 5 m m 0 a a m to n m °n cWf a° �_ a o m a�i m m _ � `o c r m c O m m ° o N¢ O m to C1 N ¢ O rn C O O o m m W O v v m (9 N C7 C W W C g N N a O m N W rn m N rn C = O a °� in m CO m m IL e 0 - i G ® X /V li' ,` 5C tiJ O > + �I� 45 .'h )i� i7 AlN ...- N m a W R O Z C1 t A I 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 percent slopes 6.8 23.4% AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 1.5 5.1 % AmB Arents, Alderwood material, 0 to 6 percent slopes 13.6 46.8% Or Orcas peat 7.2 24 7% Totals for Area of Interest 29.0 100.0% USDA Natural Resources ;1-M Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2.1 National Cooperative Soil Survey 1 /29/2009 Page 3 of 3 O h. LV d � Ui W co co 1 A 19 sa .. �4P /1 tad 5a Milita v CO d 0-4 N W UD Cq (~ ao co co co a zz s AIV Lj9 w W T � _ 7 W WO T7 oo co 00 1 tf) U AV �IVC � N 4 p � i. •�/�/ military- V1 G �O s. a CD co co CI, S AMH JIPOud C%j- B OD , GIAV r fills. oO - A ;r` ter- _ w.•- a;ti. � GS 21 7;,: ■ _ ►=z:f: �} � tit-' - i� � r� s,_ _ •y�' qr,aD S'`r, � �. � CV S- �.:,, � r •ram. f/y �� VfA ST tau 1 �., rt.-;. � Il � � +• = `� �� Yerc+r wf ^',Nt,. 41{ w •,• ? ��•` �#. .a.' { fir. ;_r..�. i.`�L1. F�- � Wit. �xin f�sn "'3e�'. �:. +�•,•.e it iL rM FtiWAvrN co 4.rt�x �+f��� ���R-r a .l•; VQ L � ��-�d�^`��L! w r " `'F- ` S•i ��y = �S ��t►' 4�' S ' �-,�:-_ ��'"'• w� � ,K, =s ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1: Pertinent Sections of the City of Federal Way Municipal Code Vi a- ersrea Dynamics riv 2uu7o26 January 12, 2009 ATTACHMENT 1: Pertinent Sections of the City of Federal Way Municipal Code Chapter 22 Zoning, Article I - Definitions SeMon 22-1 De anidons Major stream means any stream, and the tributaries to any stream, which contains or supports, or under normal circumstances contains or supports, resident or migratory fish. If there exists a natural permanent blockage on the stream course which precludes the upstream movement of anadromous salmonid fish, then that portion of the stream which is downstream of the natural permanent blockage shall be regulated as a major stream. Minor stream means any stream that does not meet the definition of "major stream." Ordinary high water mark means, on lakes, streams and tidal waters, that mark that will be found by examining the bed, banks or shore and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil or land a character distinct from that of the abutting uplands; provided, that any tidal area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found based on the previous text of this definition, the ordinary high water mark shall be the line of mean high tide. Wetlands means 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. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. The March 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Department of Ecology publication No. 96-94) as set forth in WAC 173-22-080, as it exists as of November 1, 1999, or as subsequently amended, will be used for identification and delineation of wetlands within the city. Although a site -specific wetland may not meet the criteria described above, it will be considered a regulated wetland if it is functionally related to another wetland that meets the criteria. Regulated wetlands means: (1) Those wetlands, as described below, which fall into one or more of the following categories: a. Category I wetlands meet one of the following criteria: 1. Contain the presence of species or documented habitat recognized by state or federal agencies as endangered, threatened or. potentially extirpated plant, fish or animal species; or 2. Contain the presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence, irreplaceable ecological functions, or exceptional local significance including but not limited to estuarine systems, peat bogs and fens, mature forested wetlands, groundwater exchange areas, significant habitat or unique educational sites; or 3. Have three or more wetland classes, one of which is open water. b. Category II wetlands are greater than 2,500 square feet in area, do not exhibit the characteristics of Category I wetlands, and meet one of the following criteria: 1. Are contiguous with water bodies or tributaries to water bodies which under normal circumstances contain or support a fish population, including streams where flow is intermittent; or 2. Are greater than one acre in size in its entirety; or 3. Are less than or equal to one acre in size in its entirety and have two or more wetland classes, with neither class dominated by non-native invasive species. c. Category III wetlands are greater than 2,500 square feet in area and do not exhibit those characteristics of Category I or II wetlands. (2) See definition of "regulated lakes." Critical Areas Report —Attachment 1- Page I Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property v�iiirr.@ienri i7vr:urn•.-•• vry 7iii.�iiid ✓[[fLKfEfJ� 1L, GVVr Chapter 22 Zoning, Article XIV, Division 5 — Streams Section 22-1306 Setbacks. (a) No land surface modification or improvements may take place or be located in a stream or within the following setback areas except as allowed within this article: (1) The setback area for a major stream includes all areas within 100 feet outward from the ordinary high water mark of a major stream. (2) The setback area for a minor stream includes all areas within 50 feet outward from the ordinary high water mark of a minor stream. (b) The setback areas established by this section do not apply to any segment of a stream that is presently within a culvert, unless that stream will be taken out of the culvert as part of development of the subject property. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.75), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 90-79, § 4, 12-18-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.75), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.75), 12-17-91; Ord. No. 99-353, § 3, 11-16-99; Ord. No. 04-468, § 3, 11-16-04; Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Exh. A(10)), 5-15-07) Chapter 22 Zoning, Article XIV, Division 7 - Regulated Wetlands Section 22-1356 Determination of wetland and regulated wetland (a) Generally. This section contains procedures and criteria for determining whether an area is defined as a regulated wetland under this chapter. (b) Evaluation. If the city determines that a wetland may exist on or within 200 feet of the subject property, the director of community development shall require the applicant to submit a wetland report, prepared by a qualified professional approved by the city, that includes the infonnation set forth in subsections (b)(1) through (b)(7) and (c) of this section. The director of community development shall use the information required by subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) to determine if the area is a regulated wetland and, if so, shall use the information required by subsections (b)(3) through (b)(7) and (c) to determine the category and the precise boundaries of that regulated wetland. (1) An evaluation of whether the area in question is a regulated wetland, based on the definition of "regulated wetland" in FWCC 22-1. (2) An overview of the methodology used to conduct the study. (3) A description of the wetland and plant communities found therein, a map delineating the edge of the wetland and location of plant communities, and a detailed description of the method used to identify the wetland edge. (4) The wetland classification, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats in the U.S." (5) A list of observed plant and wildlife species, using both scientific and common names, and a description of their relative abundance. (6) A list of potential plant or animal species based on signs or other observation. (7) An evaluation and assessment of the existing or potential functions and values of the wetland based on the following factors: surface water control; wildlife habitat; pollution and erosion control; groundwater exchange; open space and recreation; and educational and cultural opportunities. (c) Drainage facilities. Surface water ponds, drainage ditches, and other such facilities which were designed to impound or convey water for an engineered purpose are not considered regulated wetlands under this article provided they meet all of the following criteria: (1) The drainage facility must have been intentionally human created. This is to differentiate from those wetland sites that are accidental consequences of development actions, such as road construction or culvert placement. Such sites may be considered regulated wetlands Critical Areas Report —Attachment I - Page 2 Proposed Muld fandly Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property :: uierinv i .iui/iFuiJ%ii, L4IlVY by the director upon a review, under subsection (b)(7) of this section, of the ecological functions and values of the site. (2) The drainage facility must have been originally constructed on uplands (nonwetland areas). If the drainage facility is located within a straightened, channelized, or otherwise disturbed natural watercourse, it may be considered a regulated wetland by the director upon a review, under subsection (b)(7) of this section, of the ecological functions and values of the site. (3) The facility must be actively operated as a surface water drainage facility. Abandoned drainage facilities may be considered regulated wetlands by the director upon a review, under subsection (b)(7) of this section, of the ecological functions and values of the site. (4) Wetland conditions have not expanded beyond the originally constructed drainage facility boundary. In such a case, the expanded area may be considered a regulated wetland by the director upon review, under subsection (b)(7) of this section, of the ecological functions and values of the site. (5) The drainage facility was not designed or constructed as a requirement to mitigate previous wetland impacts. (6) The director finds that limited ecological functions and values do not warrant application of the city's wetland regulations. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.145), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.145), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.145), 12-17-91; Ord. No. 99-353, § 3, 11- 16-99; Ord. No. 04-468, § 3, 11-16-04; Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Exh. A(10)), 5-15-07) 22-1357 Wetland sate cries and standard bu ers. (a) Regulated wetlands are classified into the following categories: (1) Category I wetlands meet one of the following criteria: a. Contain the presence of species or documented habitat recognized by state or federal agencies as endangered, threatened or potentially extirpated plant, fish or animal species; or b. Contain the presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence, irreplaceable ecological functions, or exceptional local significance including but not limited to estuarine systems, peat bogs and fens, mature forested wetlands, groundwater exchange areas, significant habitat or unique educational sites; or c. Have three or more wetland classes, one of which is open water. (2) Category H wetlands are greater than 2,500 square feet in area, do not exhibit the characteristics of Category I wetlands, and meet one of the following criteria: a. Are contiguous with water bodies or tributaries to water bodies which under normal circumstances contain or support a fish population, including streams where flow is intermittent; or b. Are greater than one acre in size in its entirety; or c. Are less than or equal to one acre in size in its entirety and have two or more wetland classes, with neither class dominated by non-native invasive species. (3) Category M wetlands are greater than 2,500 square feet in area and do not exhibit those characteristics of Category I or 11 wetlands. (b) Standard buffer widths for regulated wetlands are established as follows: (1) Category I wetlands shall have a standard buffer width of 200 feet. (2) Category H wetlands shall have a standard buffer width of 100 feet. (3) Category III wetlands shall have a standard buffer width of 50 feet for wetlands that are greater than 10,000 square feet in area, and shall have a standard buffer width of 25 feet for wetlands that are between 2,500 to 10,000 square feet in area. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.150), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.150), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.150), 12-17-91; Ord. No. 99-353, § 3, 11-16-99; Ord. No. 04-468, § 3, 11-16-04; Ord. No. 07- 554, § 5(Exh. A(10)), 5-15-07) Critical Areas Report —Attachment I - Page 3 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property ATTACHMENT 2: Field Data Sheets (see following 10 pages) Critical Areas Report —Attachment I - Page I Proposed Multi family Residential Develop►rrent Project — Gian Singh Property iw air•r�•irori :innnm:�o vni % •iu `�F .iiciivary 12, 2UU' 9 SAMPLE PLOT NUMBER: SP-050708-01 DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (Washington State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 COE Wetland Delineation Manual) Pro'ect/Site: Gian Singh Property — Tax Parcel 0421049172 Date: 05/07/08 Applicant/Owner: Gian Singh County: King Investi ator(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: (If needed, ex lain on site condition on the reverse side of this sheet) Plot ID: VIEGETATIM (Note those s ecies observed to have mor holy ical adaptations to wetlands with an Dominant Plant Species % Stratum IS Sub -dominant Species % Stratum IS S iraea douglasii 95 S FACW Ilex aguifolium 5 S NI Rubus laciniatus 5 S FACU Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include species noted * as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands: >50 HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS Check all indicators that apply and explain below: Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation: Physiological/reproductive adaptations: 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 Water marks (P): Sediment Deposits (P): Determination based on soil Temperature: no I YES I X I NO 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: -21 inches X YES NO Depth to saturated soil: -3 to -8 inches; -16 to -21 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 I NO YES I X NO Aerial photographs: YES X NO Other pertinent information: The soil was saturated starting at -3 inches but was dry between -8 inches and -16 inches. Other (explain): 1 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. Criticat Areas Report —Attachment 2 - Page I Proposed Multi family Residential Developm ent Project — Gian Singh Property ii nivr.n•.•i ii.rn•r�i�c riJ:iiii r•. �� Juntgaiy l 6, LVVY CONTINUATION SHEET for SAMPLE PLOT NUMBER: som — — SP-050708-01 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: Depth in ches) Horizon Matrix Color * Mottle Color * Mottle Abundance/ Contrast Texture, Concretions, Rhizospheres, etc. 0 to -3 O na na na wood chips and 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 Gleyed 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 Project — Gian Singh Property IT�-•--^I-nrr lennary 12, 20-0y SAMPLE PLOT NUMBER: SP-050708-02 DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (%U-16;,..,+nn c*afa Wetland nPlineatinn Manual nr 19R7 COE Wetland Delineation Manual) Pro'ect/Site. Gian Singh Property — Tax Parcel 0421049172 Date: 05/07/08 Applicant/Owner: I Gian Singh County: King investigator(s) : I Larry D. Burnstad, Watershed D amics 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: needed, explain on site condition on the reverse side of this sheet Plot ID: ■TVr`V'reTinW lNntP thneP crnpriPc nheerved to have morphological adantations to wetlands with an ") Dominant Plant Species % Stratum IS Sub -dominant S ecies % Stratum IS Betula sp (escaped cultivar) 25 T NI Rubus discolor 25 S FACU Prunus emar inata 25 T FACU S iraea dou lash 25 S FACW Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Includespecies noted * as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands: <50 HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS Check all indicators that apply and explain below: Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation: Physiolo 'cal/re roductive adaptations. Wetland Database: Morphological Adaptations: Knowledge of regional plant communities: Technical Literature: Other ez plain). Is Hydrophytic Vegetation dominant? No Rationale for Decision/Remarks: - Majority of plants were FACU. uv M nr .nr--v Is this the growing season? Yes Water marks (P): Sediment Deposits (P): Determination based on soil Temperature: no YES I X 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): I YES I X NO 1. YES I 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 YES I X NO Recorded Data (check all that apply): FAC Neutral Test (S): Water -stained leaves (S): Stream or Lake gage data: YES X I NO YES I X NO 7 YES I X I 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 3 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property ✓"anuary 12, 2009 CONTINUATION SHEET for SAMPLE PLOT NUMBER: SAHLY 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: Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color* ---Color* Mottle Mottle Abundance/ Contrast Texture, Concretions, Rhizospheres, etc. O na Ina 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 I 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 DE'JUERN HvATION 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 :rriiacvi/aii //Ili/ninYY•�r•�///�///Y /�• Junuafy .12, 2vvy SAMPLE PLOT NUMBER: SP-050708-03 DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (Washington State Wetland Delineation Manual or 19R7 COO, Wetland delineation Mnnunl) Project/Site: Gian Singh Property — Tax Parcel 0421049172 Date: 05/07/08 Applicant/Owner: Gian Singh County: King Investi ator(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 NO Transect ID: (If needed, ex lain on site condition on the reverse side of this sheet) Plot ID: VEUE+ i A! LIM (Note those species observed to have mornhola¢ieal adantation% to wetland% with nn *1 Dominant Plant Species % Stratum L IS Sub -dominant Species-- % Stratum IS Spiraea dog lasii 100 S FACU Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Include s ecies noted * as showing mor holo ical adaptations to wetlands: >50 HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS_ Check all indicators that apply and explain below: Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation: Physioio ical/reproductive adaptations: Wetland Database: Morphological Adaptations: _ Knowledge of regional plant communities: Technical Literature: Other (explain): ^T Is Hydrophytic Vegetation dominant? Yes, but only marginally. Rationale for Decision/Remarks: Apprax ins ately 50% of the spirea was dead and there was Himalayan and evergreen blackberry within <1 foot of all sides of the sample plot. HYDROLOGY Is this the growing season? yes Water marks (P): Sediment Deposits (P): Determination based on soil Temperature: na YES 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 each year as defined by USACE guidance. Drift lines (P): Drainage Patterns (P): YES X NO YES X I 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 YES NO Depth to saturated soil: -13 inches YES X NO Recorded Data (check all that apply): FAC Neutral Test (S): YES1. X NO Water -stained leaves (S): YES I X I NO Stream or Lake gage data: 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 S Proposed Mufti family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property Janua^,I2 20n1) CONTINUATION SHEET for SAMPLE PLOT NUMBED • SQII�F SP-050708-03 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 -2.5 O na na na wood chips and bark -2.5 to -11 A 1 OYR 2/1 na na silt loam -11 to -20 B 5YR 2.5/2 na na silty cla 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 YES 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: 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 aarruary 12, 2009 SAMPLE PLOT NUMBER: SP-050708-04 DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (Washington State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 COE Wetland Delineation klannail Project/Site: Gian Singh Pro erty—TaxParcel0421049172 Date: )5/07/08 Applicant/Owner: Gian Singh County: Kin Investi ator(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 NO Transect ID: (If needed, explain on site condition on the reverse side of this sheet) Plot ID: VEGETATI N (Note those species observed to have morphological adantation¢ to wetlands with An *1 Dominant Plant Species % Stratum IS Sub -dominant Species % Stratum IS Rubus discolor 90 S FACU S iraea dou lasii 5 S FACW Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). Includespecies noted * as showin mot hole ical adaptations to wetlands: <50 HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS Check all indicators that applyapp!y and explain below: Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation: Physiological/reproductive adaptations: 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.. j HYDROLOGY Is this the growing season? yes Water marks (P): Sediment Deposits P (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 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: -21 inches X I YES NO Depth to saturated soil: -3 to -8 inches; -16 to -21 inches YES I 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 I X I NO YES T7X 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 i1 4LC./J/LG4 ■JVIe1/.//I L!'.\' f /V Anua:y 12, 2009 CONTINUATION SHEET for SAMPLE PLOT NUMBER: SP-050708-04 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 * I Contrast 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 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? Rationale for Decision/Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? ©I=" -w mom Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? X YES I 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 SAMPLE PLOT NUMBER: SP-050708-05 DATA FORM — ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (Washingtott State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 COE Wetland Delineation Manual Pro' ecttSite: Gian Sin Pro e — Tax Parcel 0421049172 Date: 05/07/08 Applicant/Owner: Gian Sin County. King Investi ator s : LM D. Bums tad, Watershed Dynamics State: Washington 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: (If needed, eg lain on site condition on the reverse side of this sheet) Plot ID: VEGEIATIO (Note those species observed to have mor ological adaptations to wetlands with an - Dominant Plant Species % Stratum IS Sub -dominant Species % Stratum IS Rubus discolor 15 S FACU Percent of Dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (except FAC-). <50 Includespecies noted * as showing mar bola ical adaptations to wetlands: HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS Check all indicators that apply and explain below: Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of Physiolo Database: duetive ada tations: prolonged inundation/saturation: Wetland Technical Literature: Other eg lain : Is Hydrophytic Vegetation dominant? 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 sample point. 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 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 I X I 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 YES NO Depth to saturated soil: -11 inches YES I 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 I YES X I NO YES X NO Aerial photographs: YES X I NO Other pertinent information: Other (explain): Is Wetland Hydrology present? Yes Rationale for Decision/Remarks: Critical Areas Report —Attachment 2 - Page 9 Proposed Multi family Residential Development Project — Gian Singh Property iv KiW �i{GK L/Yi{K//ELE.J J / f LVI/f VG !/ .iurzuury ia, �vay CDNTINY]ATIDNSHEET or SIMPLE PLOT AVMBER: saris Map Unit Name: Or (Orcas peat) Taxonomy (Subgroup): na Confirm Mapped Type: YES X NO SP-OS070"5 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/ Rhixospheres, etc. 0 to -1 O Contrast -1 to -11 A na IOYR 2/1 na na wood chi sand bark -11 to -20 B 5YR 2.5/2 na silt loam na na silty clay loam * MunsellCalor of Moist So11; 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 Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Agiuic Moisture Regime X Reducing Conditions X X Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Are Hydric Soil indicators present? Rationale for Decision/Remarks: WETLAND DETERAIUNATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking 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 Rationale for DecisionlRem�arks: The plant indicators within the sample plot were indicative of Z wetland habitat, butO there were ]tydrophytic plants all around and within ] to 2 feet of the plot. Watershed Dynamics elected to in this ample point in the wetland because it appeared to be close to the wetland edge. Proposed Multi fomily Residential Development proje� ttGmn S&gl, Page pew ATTACHMENT 3: Stream Survey Results REVIEW AND VERIFICATION AFFIDAVIT The field data collected by Watershed Dynamics for the Stream Channel Survey and presented in Attachment 3 of the Critical Areas Report (dated January 12, 2009) is correctly represented on the plan sheets included in Attachment 3 (see Plan Sheets 1 through 13). Approved this Paul E. Morrow, P.L.S. Certificate No. 22962 day of , 2009. li. 71 •�nnn �•u%ev�r� SLy LC/4'7 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 46`h 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 46t' 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 photolnaphed 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. o 0 a) 4 - o u 0 W o v w p c b o b a u U) 2 0 a Z Con c c, .o o O 3 dri) h U O rn O .o U �. 3 0 W O OA o Inc 0 > v' o cn c -4 T U o .L. 1-50-00-0— �0-0 0N O O o . O O Z= U 'C bA .tg Q cn 0 G � +�•' � a�i •� a a> O C� y N U W Er c�V •� r} U kn ti '� N �C o0 00 O l� M N h N O O •--� M N O y G t'i _ N l� 1D l� vl l� 00 \D �1 �D M00 �D Q� 00 oo va, z !� .•�., bD w M O H QI O C 00 ON 00 V•) 00 \.O p1 N 00 00 00 M 00 cf) •-+ Q 3 ° N N N O N N -- N o m O U w Op kn N M O O\ M O M O .--� �--i Cl)N O c� O cd U t Fy z° -- N -- N N M M N N -- N M N N M in N N N bpA O p" w U O a�i n b o F 0 > p 0 ° o o o �, c voi N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oo N �o o O o ,s� � •¢, '� N N � vi O N cn 'n O N "0 [— V'! [h T V'1 l� llD M N O O .--� M M N N N N N -- - N ~ O O O O O 001 m :� -V ti a� (� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N cal N N Cl W) O O O\ W W W W W a1 o M Wn I- O, O�\ to o N -t 1.0 [.r + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + O O O O O O — — .--i N N N N N M M � � ch ,t O O O O O 0 O O O O O O C. O O O O O O O 4 z zz zz °z 0 0 0 E-� U O II C s�. m z 0 O ,r; o II o o U F p b 3 a + 00 c z U O O O O Q O O O O II N N N N �• � � N N Cd cd p c� +� c0 b M M uJ y U `b c� U3 U 'G � •yam., %1y � � i�-� � �+ 0 v N M W zras a\ et 00 'n DO d j •--� 00 O� h � 00 l� vl ,Nr 'r; vi N 'ct h N ,_, •--� •--� U W � a d C� IC! h h O C O C N N --� N O "i M ti --i .--i .--i O •-+ N --i •--� �A U w 'n O h -- N h N h cn -- N M N M 00 N V1 N N N dr m ^ 't (V N m � a m M 'n m M 'n N M A H ° In O O 'n O O O N O O to O 'n O 'n 'n �O O 01 O h O 00 'n M O to 'n O v M rn h V'1 M 00 M M 01 M h [� ,may .--i ,� .--i N 1p M 00 cc! 01 00 h 'n 'n 'n 'n M m O 00 00 h h N \O 'n m Q: a 00 'n O h m 00 --+ 00 h h [� h h h [� %0 %lD 'n 'n 'n 'n 'n 'n 'n N 00 00 M M [� 'n �O oo M -+ O N M M 'n [� h 00 'n \O Do .-� -+ O I m m `D 00 M M �O F + + . + + .- + M + + + + + + + + + + O + O\ + O O + O + — + — + — + — + ^-' + N + N + N 'n O 'n O 'n O O O O O O h O 00 O 00 O 00 O 00 O 00 O m 0 O O a� I4 w 0 a� m � N Nt � � h U N o In U m z to73 b � o �" UU Ui yam,, ' y :• "Ly ° �- 1 13 a H M � : .--� p N � � N N 01 M w O\ O� O --� N r•+ N M � --� N U G7 w v U HPy N V i M -- 00 O O cF N •--i O --� 00 --� V 1 �y �O --� N --� C --� •--� C�j •--i .--i C•j 5^A W z� � F1 A x �n v, O O .n h 4n Cl O O O f` N m oo M O O 00 00 O M N O 01 i %O \O N 00 W N N N .--+ v �--� .� N C O .--i .--i �--� �--� •--� .-ti — .--i — .-i ,..� — — ,.., CD � O 01 N [� � 01 O 'ct O V•� � O m --� oo N 01 m V'1 O N to 1 .Nr ti ti .mi .w)-� .. ti ."o-. b o0 o0 00 M N H O N O O O CA a� Cd :O N rq •� � rn 00 O O cC � to r al cn M bA y N N O (mil O t` 0 0 n n N �O [� M t, N N vi 0i vi �o to N d' O', m to - �o M U C7 w U O C -- O N - O M O O N N C l� O A w yy E y N to M en N 00 N lr- N V- V- N tn m o0 O m l oo O\ m to a0 A o 5 OOi kn o � N� O o N O O G V in O Cl 000 kn W CD Ol � 01 00 00 �p �n � N � l� .--i 00 O � ~ Cl O� 1n O W7 00 C1 N � M �--i DD � W. V'1 V'1 M 1p W O O O O O O O O� kt� 01 O1 N— ON 01 O\ 0) O 01 O� n 00 00 r` 00 �.0 00 to 00 in 00 N 00 — w O O o0 w t` �i .r kn m m �O O�O T m 01 O O\ V1 O to — kn N \O " 00 kn CDN M M � �o M O M o0 �D o0 [� + 01 + O� + O O + O + O + + + + + N + + + + + + + + + vl + ON + N + �O + O + M + + N N N N N N N N N M N M N cn N M N M M N N It N N N N N tn N kn N kn N 1.0 N \O N 1.0 N Nt N a b 0 U b c o w 0 o do d o O N m m N o�p O a� �" ( ca +� a� O a� /1 a v Zz, O O t' "l: O cn O M ',I: m O� O lO M 00 O 0i 00 00 t� V1 N N Iq U C7 F py %O �.O O M t m �D \D It to h 4n \�D W m N N N W 00 M N'+ A dw 4y N kn V7 O 00 �D 1.0 O O O V'1 vl M V7 M 00 N \D \O �D M W� O o0 In m F m N N - m m N •+ N -- 't m N m -+ - N N — N N to �s 0 A ,n O o o to O wn o kn kn Wn W) o 0 0 0 to to \10 kn kn W) 00 00 00 W rN,y 00 tl- m t� 00 �10 M t- �O t- h 00 00 .Nti M N d Wto O\ m m o m O 1* 00 Nr ON 7 01 m to N O 00 �O 00 in O O% W o N (O1 a �D V1 V7 4 M r+ 01 t-z t- O \6 V1 4 4 K1 .-• O c\ 01 00 O D D D 4-1 c+1 W W) W) V) v) to to O to O O 00 "d- O O O O v1 �D �--� v1 00 rn I.D 't � N 00 mT t- N N o V') 00 �D o m W)\,O oo O d' 00 O m \O O\ — N to t-- ON �--� m vl o + + + + + + + . + . . + + + + + . . + + F + + + + + + + O (o o ") cn N N N N N N N N N N N N m m M M M M M C4 M m m C m a aD 60 cc a fl Q 00 t � op g0 m p r � 3 o t`� 85° N0Wn4 Q` !�7' = DISTAriGE 5ra, oo+-Oo To 5T'.a, 02t9E5 ^zia►ur" c� 1 E ca F-OAVWo.Y R.t lme = Z %.0 Z;;— 230 2.L0 OF s � �- ,•, ......-� �� �� �iTw -� ..� o�,'Ro � o�Hoo O�+lyo o2�ce 024'00 oyt40 b2+tod oZ.}QO 4f o3po c3 1V VI IQDo...1} 32� ... 90� Ilk 6' o 02k95 H 21S_4i 3.Fi% EEC W0.6' ZLO 0 L90 E B® oZ�95 Q - .�6 r Za o o ,cc" �L ?E.,#,A V levq - 15INCAA MA 4 OIL. 5TA 024-95 -M STp. a5+94 pp-vr 4LF-- V iF-W - Pj%nc-ANKNK CXR j STA OLk- 9 5 TO STAk 0"Ar I409 " L�� = 20 20$ 3 - 6ir18 03 +-W EL104: c' �o F'LZ,DS.o' o4tol ti. sL 1Pl•0� 04+21 9.3% 9L Ic9.I 6L t99.6� 04 r43 � •'+% 05+02 9.9% EE_ E°F.4' D5�•'J6 EL es*q4 o3e-15 034t-55 oyr55` 03r3l� o'>Ty4 a —L) — '-rr,-" . �,. bS� i 0s4-G)5 SF4E� Z of L3 c�1t �yo ar 190 00 1b0 Ito 160 0 +9a 0- 190•�s r w ok Yl w 241 0� 5 / ... b � s i If/a a N O PLAN V%BW - 6i kGtWB.W C?-. 5TA 054- . Tb 8TA 08+IAI- PRoPIL.E vie-W - HAtlGk tAAWCIL. 5rra LK4910r To sr#,. oB+:�"+ EL. 1 Fi3.Br Of°rL8 �r f 50 06t-61, EL..181.1' El. "-b, Olt l3 $.%% I * rel- lam. 32, r E L 11 } *' 2� 71 EL oii-8(o 57�.� EL1}4a FL Id9.A, j 11 •}% 0(oi-s4 o6k- ocn*5-or 66+44 06),'!4 U++-14 0-+r34 6-+4.5dk0}+}4 p}t9+ o6F-1¢ 0604 o8}54- 08+-+4 o84-9,6f. S!4GEr 3 or- 13 11> 1iD EL. 160 fl ram..: g roo b Q a 09 s 1 � a l g73-/-- D9tl l V-- 1"=10, Ft. 1"=20, r � r fib. ey o a 0 0 V PLAN V iEW - ?f mc4 A vAA N GR-. 5TA 08 r}+ lb 6Tp, ► % t bi No ICrK l„ �,W. PRapF►LV-- YtEvd - T:*WGAA VA PIN GR. EIM obk}+ To STA i ► +-8► 44 eL IbriS, , EL 165.1, 4 4- o9+Q/o .e Z9 , LOr1 t Ii.44A 140 ' 1 ' - ' _ 1 1 1- }_ 08t79- 0"+ k--0 - 09+:4-7— 09*9-1- Ei.16O.3 , EL to r4a 1044.1 110 }33 10+'1-t 4.,t , EL l5i i 2.5 i6 34 '-15b.2 fi-M-5 4.4% lli4� 1�, E1-15p V EL04.5' l�+bk Z-9�� 11t81 low}} lot 9? 61'i li 11+3+- "+s} WR S KFE.T 4 6F:- 13 IV I 1� 0 40 W llf zn� NO R-T H p1.-'0'44 V I eW -131 I46 AMAN CA- STD. 1 I t-S 1 TO 5T/s. 14. }(p4 PRC»FLLE VtBW - T;* yAMLA 4 Ce, STA JA -v-gl TfJ 51-A 14,(64- 1 bo fl +81 I I f I I t I i I I I i v: Irl ; IOf r yzyo ' I I , f EL1 47. I la.l% f1t36'L ii-[-�D f ' � � IEL14°j-6' ¢.SYs 12t4'j I I EL 14-J. , I 1��.�-• 1b. 4d.ff]o 1%l�'L , I , r 146.2' ' V. 1,3 1 4o f 1 I I I 1 f , 1 I , It l3o I I!f$6 l2too l2+ZA 12 {40 12+ GO 1Zi-SQ 13}GCS I3+2,a GbL Lp P�BD GOWC.V-MTM WL-AR...e STA 14+35 # 1r 41 a �Oo IN 0 I I e E F 1 I I I I I 1 I i I I 1 50 I � f I 1 I I I I t I f t IF-4r� l3t�9 r I I r I f e I f 1 I 1 ' 1b'9rlitao ELl39.V` 1 : 1 14.2% l3F94 I r i I 1 I 140 y I E1...1'9�. V• F ' �0.9% ' 14- Zv I I ' F-L 135.0' ; 1 'EL 133.1 I r 1 I I f + 1 14-k- 1 £tr 13QG 13+40 1.3g6p a3fF� E 4 } Q d 14 { Zo [ 4 #- 4a 130 144-60 14+ 80 sHMT 5 aF- IS ma C3o W.15 1 p ''• �3 ' _ � � IN 11pa J1 /!ge • to U m 44' T I�aa 'kl N W N��TH I„ zr MAN Yf W 51 NC-tAN1/=.iJ CiR. 5`f A 1.4 E'0 l� b3 MOO L.E v LF-W - SN N. GGA 4AAf4 ce. STA. to 1 , V. ! ! 09i6 ►5 rlxi E r � I ; ` i � 8 .3%a I�i ti•31 � r 1 I r ! i r r ire u I I E r r ! 1 EL 1239' 1 f ■ I 1 6.$ % I6 r53 I' ! 5_i9+ tioF92 1 I I r I ELI7-0.0) � r r ! I I ! 1 1 I 1 r r f E I r I r {gk po 1r3+20 l�St40 l5f6o 1rr f $0 lcot o0 1(a{-20 3 lam+-�L-a f lb L � o ►6 f �O 1l-tOn I , I f I I e I 1 I I I r I r I ! I r I I f I I r I } # r I 1�2q I , I I � � i-4-12-0 I 56•�1F�T (.� � 13 LIP43' w �� 9y p 9h� � 1 � S Iy .9 : •�G�� � f goo 6 ao � s v' R 4b, i a MOK-TR 430 t- M+1-bo PLAN V I EW - tM NGA.K O, J C ZZ V-4, To STA Zo v-&!', PIZOFII.IG VIEW,1- enMC%AM.A EA CZ STA «+�O3 To STA 2�tIeF'� 3 �e �A i 23• b 4a�i 10p" s F 1.9.% F Ibtnb ! I l F 1 1 I 1 I Z.O%I 16t2b I I 1 ] i I of-bl I I s 1 19to9 14> I 1 I EL1l3. � EL ll2.to I I l.to % � 1 2.� 19fG�- � 19+bra 19i$1 EL-1 10.2L 1 ! I I 1 1 F Idg-8 I EL 109. (e t Ell Ice). I I f I I I r I l 1 1• I I I ! I 1 I I r t r ! I ! I [ [ I 1 1 I F I I I { I r F I { r F I I I t I I I I I 1 t I F I I It 14}60 1f*40 ►bt7A Iak4•® Ifb+(ao I6f8o 1q+oa 19+2A 19"0 VC)1- 0 l f8O 5KSET $ cv-- 13 8.2 � 2At�3 t=L Io4.S 2-l7t40 20 6b So ,- 20+60 CA Z7• 0 c? \ti H 1V fig` rsZ' PL.C►N 14tEW — 131NGsAMAN CAL 5TA ZO4-b3 Tb 6TA 2.1*61 F'IZDFI L-6 VI F—W - IMM&A MAW CX— 5TA Z•O+4-;3 TO STA Vb*(ol I I j i I + i i v� l•=to• ! ! � I k I i I I F}: 1•• : TA 1 N! LDt90 I k I I I I � I � r3rL E F1104.Z 2.3% I 1I+42- I I I ! k r ! I E ; i Et,soo.� i �9sfi` I f 9.oyo i I I I ! I I � I 3 I I ! I I I T I I 1 ! I I r f I I I 1 k k E T ! I I k I k k ! I 1 I _•� e I � - 2O:8o 21 ado 21 20 ZI 4410 ZI + Sri M-00 ZZr110 ZZ+- 40 ?Z4- co I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 k I I I I I r I I I k I I I I r I I I I I 19i9"0 �2504[P61 5I F2S EL� �!a I 23�410 I k I 1 I I I I 3 1 IT I 2Zt to Z3;-4-0 23�co® A7 �4 g� ti 0 90` 2l N ;7* 19� s S ,s Ah 26• N r 95 SCIP ` 14. N PILAW VIEW - 8tN4AMAN CF. STA. MO `5r^ 2(erf�8 PROrrILP. VlEthf - ®INAOhMAN CI- 5TA 217+&1 TO --,TA, _ 2-7 61 go Z3b8Z 3,o°I I 24ra5 ' ' � E L 199. 5 I 4 Jr I EL8}•i i II24E4- L2-57.e/a -r ' 3l3: 2*t,5bl u- S.I I I I I I $b I I I 1 r I I I 1 r I I I i I ! � I ! I I I � F e Z$4160 2b+8o 2t-4.ba Z4..Zo %4+40 24+(,,C t V= I 10' I I 1 1 r I [ ! i .3% 2r7i 63 I 4:4 % I I r I I eL38.�s• I EL.?a.3' ! I I i r [ I I r 1 I 1 I I [ ! I f 25+fe0 Z5+60 L(e f-M 210+20 2.(7+40 SW=FE -r 9 ®F 1.5 2.2 % 26 l-68 Z + 400 Ir as wv y� tvv zo' 04 95 MULTIFLS atN W M E LS-a--�—�f r N 3'° \b 4p• t p !!5 c 00 tJaQTN 80 ' I 1 z`j" 8 I r ' 3.4 /. ° z+oo 2.4°,6 2}z5 4�10 2�+a0 •!. Z*moo r r I I EL.ao BLS 5 ! -40 I r r I r I tor I I I r Gas f I I f I I r I ! I ! I r I I { I 50 2$+DD 2}E40 26+.C)fl 2$f 20 I I I I r eo bo o� I I , I , I 294-00 w ,b� �6 a Ir N 3� 10 � 4 03 �� �o 0 44 �v ?9 � I'LAtN V I EvJ - l�,1 N G A MAN �• SSA 29 (05 TO OMN 3 2+ 54 FIZOF I LE VI" - FBI N C►Pa hA A W CV— . ST A Z9 +(4es T'O ST4. 3 2 ¢'S4 SKEET 1 ► OF 1aj �0 29{b5 2 I%I L9+gC I I ( # ! I 3a�o1 I I I # t r 13pr 45 f i.4•lb 1.9% i 30 I I l # I I EL 66.9 EL rb.4' r 1 e-66 z.� � 31 l-a3 I I I I 5L 31 i31e r I I I I tl 165.3' i EL b4.5' EL 64 2' 1 ( I I I I I EL63.0 1 3.8% 31+ 9(e 5.6% 3Lt-IZ 1.'3a/e 32F26 ELbi•e, ELba.ro' I 5B k 32f54 OL gg.8' �L�6.U' r 4 I 1 I• � I I I I ! ! I I I •� ' � I ! I I I i 7gF(po 2S+-64 3c+OQ 3biZO 110 40 30{-io0 16 tbb 31 i'00 3lfLo 314-CPO 1�So 271-4-00 '�2t46 32�(00 60 EI, ft 190 40 30 32.+40 N f F_I 5rc•9 ! ELSfv5' eL56.4' EL5b•O' I ! ! I I I ! f I f I I I I I � I I ! I f f f I I I I ! r I I I i I I I I I I r I r I I 3� g6m Yj2�S0 33; 00 3!20 NOILTH I" = Leo PLAN V I F-W - Di m i 1p.K O, m c,2. s-rp. 32.-r 5k To sTA 35 t 55 MOPALS VIEW - 6p N GANG AN GR Sim 541- To STPe �5 35 $.2% 33+g1� I 1 I I I I I 2?5% E34tOS ' 34r3O I 1.95.2' [ I I I I I I V. I";.10' � f 26 I t I ! I 1 I f i I I r I I I ! I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I r j 4- 40 4- sb 34 }CIO 34- 7.0 SKF-F-T IZ. of LS �SS 4- 20 35+40 w s+ 42' � ... � 19' � '►� 3 � � : `v 55}� Ave 5. 90° 0 950 2/ yr ��° a �• IOsa ee u► by NoPIT N I" = 20 PLAN V I E V.I - eel N G A M, A M CAL 5-rp%. 3 5 f- 3 5 -To 5TA. 3� 4.12 PIZoFILE VIEW - 451NC-4^Msk" OIL STA,'A>51-35 TO STA !-�t-;-2. IEL48.4' • ) I �s.5,/o 1 '364a5 a 136r24 e I I I '56t68 33 t34 I Et- 41.9 3.2/0 1 2.4/o I 'fir 0 36+�3 3i+aB j I 2 •?L% 3. V% 1 +-3 3� B 1.9`k I r EC 45.(e' I �.t 4-�•0 EL 44.5 ; �-44.1% EL43•'}, EL d3.1 ' 18•ox, ! g§*r+/tiyc5. I I I I I r I -- r 4o I � [ I I � j I 1 •I I � I I I I I r ZO I 35r2o 3�s+4m 35+bo 3g �.eo 3�t®® 3�r� �-4c� 3(Q'o 3w�>�� 3T+-00 3 +za 4� �6® 3�{So 56�00 6"C-F -r E 3 OF V-30 SHEe-- t of l3 c� 00 110 ry4 j a 00 So M � b0 n7 zZ� 3 Sra� 85° o � 5° k C� I�7 � = DSSTAI�GE� � '}5°-e*zianuret 2*+j0 2---W Zu 21 ODhOU E @ V-OAV Wo.K = L56. o :7 a� NOP:n4 a. lN_z, ft4(AA4APN GV.EXK - pL.6.rt V teV4 6rA, 00+-00 To 5rp. 02fi9r,5 00 f7 10 pot }p Uor Gov .... ,NO 4� sQo m ur 2 3 M. ow 5L ..a 90. goo a' o o2-F 95 z10 M Lgo E 8A 6L}99 OR Z,3 14 /7�- 90' 36� zo , o Q o ems, N pL,& t TO STp. 05+94 j7p c %66.E 5TA MA- 9 5 TO STAG. O"A 03t-15 o3r35 D'W55 oar'S o17T71 ems, ., 20 51-te�71' Z or IS 3�1 S ��o s EL 19G•�i 19 t'+ 16 05+g4 0 s r v� S ljoa 8 74° • 0� � 32� 60° v 0 w 241 o o N 0 PLAN V 1eW - B I AQAMAW GR.. SIP, 05*- 4 Tb STA O$ +''i- PR+otm.s via=vd - VAtl kMAANGPL. 50, DS&910c TO srA of+1-'+ Otn "4 Oro r'l¢ Ot,+5A O'a+44 06kl k- 0'•- 3,4 Oirt}lk� 0}tyy- CID vul7T SHOT 3 0 t= t 3 94, F Fl >r�g.4 160 m 1,401 054-T - �r i - ' 80e tiVA o ' ?9r i1oo `t4 2S_ •. • goo G9 b �a a 09 l' 'PLAN Vl?W - BIAN C.C-. STA D$+-�� TO Si"A l�t8t N0 r-TK 1" -7A 34r 9 3% I,- -t1 V , PROrtLl—r- Vlt'—W -1--4WGAA-.V 1,At4 GR... cjrrA TO STA It t-V 4if eL� 1 2,6 EL 165.1 I4 2�' E.I.. 1 tc3.9� S I4"!n a9tQlo Zg r toll t 160.3 16r4o �A • eL t5i� , 9.2"l0 34 Fit 5tn.2 r lo+fe9 2.5�i q}13 4% IT El EL154.5r ui4:F *.1 la}� 2.9�� I1t81 I o to+'3'I< lay}�- IoF9� tA+13 11+3i- r/%4 11� L +3z-- 5 l E,v M 13c y ��` ❑ 42' _�14 a s tj GoLL,&rsF-D cosJaLr--iia V eAe o SCA 14+35 N 'N ip 5d WO N 13 t� pT.L Ut-C7 ) W ��+ 356�' �� !�o❑ M N O P a4,1 V 1 EW - 1 ArAAW%AN GR. GTN t I +-8 t -s'o sTn. I + PRCUFILE� VlrvJ -B1N%cRA.tMAN. CC 5TQ.JA+'St "m 51-A 14+-!64 ■Km 1,50 14.0 E30 11+bO 12+0O Is+-Z) 114-4-40 12+(00 I7-1-80 134-00 13+20 13}40 13+GO V->*6O 14+-40 14i-Zo t4+-40 144- 60 t4+80 1 1� ! 5 Z'/O ' 12 t�i Y• I 1 1 t I I ' ' I I r + I>:L14.9J.1,' �-5Ye I r � ! Et.14�•.�° ' vrtl�i*i'/ fb• 1o.4'Je 1'�t� 1 f � ; I ! ' I ELti43.0 it-4ye 13+9 I s ' i r { r I r ! , I I i I i EL 139.Q 14 2% r tt.l'��-.b ►4-t I 'ELMS.% { I I ! 1 < ; EL 135•U ; i 3.'L% j 14He�F s I I 1 5HEEZ 5 or- 13 O Z3' - /go N Ln � 4g� a 3fl a �' ye w w let %z+ nl At4 view - 1?,1 tAGLAt-Va C.P- STF. 144-(04 -'o L:�-IIAO3 r ZDFi L.E V LE.V4 - f1 N GA R A.I4 (=— 554P� 1* t(64 TO E� t-lc3 E I 1 I 1 I 1 i r I I I 7 t I t I I I r I I t I 1 rJ•c�o/n I [ ELIZ (7.5r f �ieW2. I I , p f r t 1 6.i 1 ! Eli22.5 1 5e�j I4dF82 I t I r R I I I I r EL t28.°)t I 19.2' fa o% l 24 ft- I r o i t I i I T 1 I r + f }�.f...l t d �• EL ET, r t Iti+CIO 1e5{20 1'SAr4o $$0 lccr00 1(sr+2A l+o�-�O 1C�!-(a0 lfaf$O ��-tOfl 1�t1- 14a-(no c�e FAT Cf C'k' 1 � EL1W9 IIo too gd t�— 1q+&O 9y. 2-o o0 O 9r° E q, 90` gO V �3 bG} k 3 R Oo 48 \ �C6 • ZLa MDr-TR v"W PLAN Y1EW - I1N&AMA.M CV— 5'CA 11-}I0n To ST-N 20'-ro3 PRO F11� YI EVE - 131N6tAMAA GQ, STD. V+ +-(03 TO 5T/k 2,0 t-b3 e d. a � 23 b s°y 100 a s t i 1 I 1.9_ a/c 1 ] f Ibl•ob 2.0 � I t8t2b I I I I I I I I I ] I I I i � 3•i � of -fat k I ( I ELMA' I ll4.1 t E� u3.� I i � EL 112 .(o I i9+o9 �`/ ►4� 3q I ` 2. by+b 194� q•' 19+bra t9�'bl , o.o m-tto.2 k I I ' I I I Et 117pj.8 Wit_ l 09. b I Et. lag . I i I I I i [ t t I I I I [ I I I t I I [ I I I k I [ I { I I [ I I I k I t I t I ! t I E ] I ] I t l 14+80 %ehLOD 1"20 18+40 lb+(oo 18+So 19+2.0 19#A0 1C)+-60 ! +50 20+C50 I t i I � I t I 3 i 234,1 I 1 r 9.1% 20 r35 15HSE7 -�- CZ-- IS 8.2 1=L ID4-.S ' 704-6 7 v w ZZ7. D n� Im EL I(A-15 t,o0 S6 �-- 20" 4�. \ti No RnT^Fl. I� N O �- a q N o il;L14? � gab w Pl.Nt4 kiIFW �2TA. 5TA2-SW41 �o rS_ f w +n PROR L.B VI EN - 61NGA MAW CF- 5TA 7-0+43 TO 5TA 23+O � I r I � Iry I9D i t I l I t f t I I b.o•� � i 1 f ! F110+7- , 21 r'1L ! r 1 2.3% f f I I � r I i I I I Ut4io I i i I r i t I t �L9't i I 22FJ4 t I r I 1 I t I 4t'S03Hr7rE2s fn 1f f ! ! , I I ! I EL9i9' 1 e y.Gye 2.410 I 23~4In+T�-?94 let .S' ft.'s ' f I I I t I I ! 1 t I ! I I I 1 f , ! I 1 I 1 1 ! ! I f I ! 201ri30 21 �Fb� 21 s 20 ZI 441D 21 }Cob 21 + $m 22t00 ZZ+- 40 2.7, (60 2Lt to 4 2a�ro0 514EET & OF 1zj m �4 g� a 4k NO r 6 N VF w e IOb �xSl A 28 �o qSO i Zoe tv Na��tia a+ ' c 7A pI,AK VIE%/ - 51;N4AMAN C;L STA.. 23•w61 -M '5rk I?IZDIFII.I✓ VIEW - eXHAAMAN CV- 5TA, 2-3+v1 TO !Irlk 2tv r- S 23+ bl — 90 ZiF�Z I r ! I EL 89.5 3.0 / 2'irQS 4 4% 24*25 ! 1 { Ti•5'/a GLOB•`%' I EL B .t' r 24r43139:2*+.3bl r ELQ(a.4r'' I I I I F1.S�i•3' 6L65.1' I I I { 1 r I l { I I I i 1 4 I I I I l 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I j f I [ I ! I I + ! f I I r I I I I I I Z3� �0 Zb+Bo 24 �c�o 7-4 Z.d Z4-I. 4o 24 +(A r V: l°- 1o, I I I I 1 14 % 1 = ZV' ! � I f I EL Ems, I I I I I I E I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I i f r I e 25 b0 25 + 6a Z(b f- ft Z10 + 20 26+ (0m wv )vv ZO 0 95 MULTI PLS cKAwN€.L.5 N Q 1b S[p beu �O v� OK 20" N fY, bo 80 1I 1 "j•6}rg I I I I I 1 I j I I 1 3.4 O I I 4.4- I2$+24 , I I I £L�3.i 'Z9tbO I I 4.0'/0 -40 = i I I I ] r ZLT•O I 1 i ! I 6f5 I I € I f t I I ! I t [ [ t I 71,tbb 2lv4'VO 40D FbO Z�1-bo 22420 a$�40 2$fr60 26}SD r I ! I f I ! I ! ! I I I I I 5.i'/°f 2°1t�jp Z.o'l 29r5o 29F401- ELla�.1�` I F-L b..4� I I %Lle(e•�1� I I I I I r r 1 ' I I I r ! I f I ' ! r 29+lt> 29440 2gtG� S"E��T to or- ! e t� ♦ry 0 $3► o Ia o � A4 �Y, p IM}� =s �o A4 v'6 � n lu Fig' N �+ o NO¢TN PLAN %/I eve! - S I N G A N,%AkW c e° • 15TA Z9 } Po5 TO lrrA. 31{-54 PEE I L.F. vl SW - F,I4 GA IAX N CV-,. STAG Z9 +, 65 To STb. '12. ,r 54 51 {EET (I of Ily �o 29i'b5 2.4y 1 L913ot45 I I ! I f I I ! I EL 66.9 i 1.9% I 2.4e 311-63 �I;�1 � r r I ELI65,3' iL64.5' EL 64 2 ` i 4_3 % 31 a- 64 + I 5.D% 3I I I I ! I �11 31+ 96 �4 I I I L}12 1.9a/e 3 I 15 `8 32t54 61 I >:c bo.►a i EL 59 8' el- ,9.5 ` I 1 i I I I 1 I I i 5� I I I I I I I I I I 1 t I I I I I ! 1 I f Z.g+Co* 29;-go 3� �o0 3a1 Zo 3ot 3m+ �0 3e + b °J1 +-00 31 }-0 40 3t4-60 14 50 0 40 32�IoO 36 I- 3Z,�- 40 i" { 4.9 °% '32.+7; 32+ 9L o 33 + 122 } 30 I r e�56.4' EL51°-a' I r I r I I I ! t f ! ! I I I ! ! 1 I t I r I ?s2 Eb0 �s'ia $CE 3�� 00 3�+ zo � 9�• ap' o �W bw NORTH I" = 2.0i p4.AM V1 EW - 81t`1��ty!A�N c,;L S'('A 3Z+5'rk TO PgOF11..E VIEW - F , N Gp.NR,C.N CgR STA. 52. } 54 io S)T^ �T� + 55 !�+40 -354--(00 ' . vo-v I E s r I r I I r 1 I i I r ! I I r t r I { I r I I 34- f Ta j+s: *O 0 st 00 1595:r 20 35+40 StFr--ET 12 OF E3 4 di 20• �y o ds //Sd i+ 30' �6 v 90 ply'•' i6. s 42' 19' s 6• qo° 0 9co 21 0 a.„ K NoWTK 1" ti0 35� 1_80� 35t63 � I S.SJ/o EL %A" i E,- 41.9' I I r I I 4b I I r I I r I I ! � I i ! 50 I I I I t � r 1 � � I I I I ! ZO 35*10 35�-4m 315+bo +-80 PLp.N V!,W - 6IKLGAI.4AM UjL 5T^35t35 TO 5TA 3a; 2 MOMS VIEW - 1!51NUP.I4P,N Gib, Y54-35 TO STA I I I 36{05 3.2'/0 136t24 1 3b t 00 3(v t 2d 2.4% t 36 -45 q 36#e 3 I 3}+u6 1 2.7% ! f ! I # r V: i"=1o' I I r ! 1 I I ! ! I ! I i I I I I Not40 3(e4-$O 3T*Cc I I r 1ONA 1 I I � I i 3-1-+ZO 3}t440 1$8-60 'e44EE -F' 13 OF t s 31{ 80 501-00