The URL can be used to link to this page

16-102464CITY OF �4 Federal Way CRITICAL AREA DIRECT SERVICES REQUEST Date: May 26, 2016 Consultant: Ilon Logan ESA 5309 Shilshole Ave. NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 ilogaanesassoc.com Project: Jung, Wetland Review 30300 Pacific Hwy S Federal Way, WA 98003 Parcel #042104-9057 File No.: 16-102464-00-AD Applicant: David Jung 25714 Woodpath Trail Westlake, OH 44145 eistau en ahoo.corrl City Staff. Becky Chapin, Associate Planner Community Development Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 253-835-2641 becky.chapin@cityoffederalway.com cityoffederalway.com Scope of Work: The City received a request for use of the Critical Areas Direct Service Program. The project proponent has requested a cost estimate be provided for the delineation and rating of the wetland and stream on the subject property pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145, Environmentally Critical Areas. Specifically, FWRC Article III, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and Article IV, Wetlands. Documents Provided: Signed Application for Critical Area Direct Services Program Critical Areas Map Task Cost: Estimate $ . Costs to the applicant are pursuant to the fee schedule in the consultant's Professional Services Agreement with the City. Applicant shall pay consultant directly. The consultant may require pre -payment of estimated cost. Communication: A copy of any contract/agreement between the applicant and the consultant shall be provided to the city. The city staff representative noted above shall be copied on any communication moving forward. File # 16-102464-AD Page 1 Doc ID 73653 R8CEIVED MAY 2 0 2016 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF FEE)ERAL WAY 33325 81h Avenue South CDS Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 CITY OF 253-835-2607-1 Fax 253-835-2609 Federal Way www.cit offcderalwq . xa�l APPLICATION CRITICAL AREA DIRECT SERVICES PROGRAM Project Name: 300_0 ,f Project Description:s'"yi`"'"'� Project Address: '5 D J; 00 v Go5-% Parcel #: 0 �21 d Contact Name: v Phone: 91vo W5 �17.3'Email: Mailing Address (if different from above)'5 rd. I am the owner of the above referenced property and I authorize the city to obtain an estimate of project cost. I recognize the Direct Services Program is optional and that I may choose to utilize any qualified consultant of my choosing. I agree to indemnify and release the city from all liability associated with the program or the work/reports of the consultant. Signature: Date: City Use Only Consultant Name: Date Sent to Consultant: Materials Sent to Consultant: ❑ Site Plan ❑ Special Study(s) ❑ Landscape Plan iOther: FYb7rnr _kill �� El Other: Bulletin #078 — June 1, 2014 Page 1 of 1 Folder # Ito -I o L� (o `l Fee Estimate: ❑ Construction Drawings k:\Handouts\Critical Areas Optional Direct Services Application al V& school City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map, September 2012 File # 16-102464-AD Page 2 Doc ID 73653 Becky Chapin From: Becky Chapin Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 9:57 AM To: 'geistaugen@yahoo.com' Subject: FW: Direct Service Request - Federal Way Attachments: Jung Cost Estimate.pdf Mr. Jung, The City received your request for Critical Areas Direct Service at 30300 Pacific Hwy South, Federal Way. ESA is the stream and wetland consultant selected for the direct service request. Ilon Logan with ESA has prepared the cost estimate in the email below. I asked that ESA break down the cost based on two types of review. Initial "reconnaissance" investigation or a full delineation of the site. See emails below for the cost estimate. If you choose to move forward with the wetland/stream review; please work directly with ESA for payment options. The City must be copied on all communications between the applicant and ESA as well. If you have any questions regarding the process please feel free to contact me. Otherwise, please contact Ilon Logan (see attached cost estimate) if you wish to proceed with the Critical Areas review. Best, Becky Chapin Associate Planner 'Z. FederaI Way 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com From: Ilon Logan [mailto:ILogan@esassoc.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 9:34 AM To: Becky Chapin Subject: RE: Direct Service Request Hi Becky, The fee for the reconnaissance level investigation is $3,200. And no, the fee for a delineation would not be the full 6,610 if they did the reconnaissance first. We would wait to develop a new fee estimate until after the recon visit to know the level of effort that would be needed. It would probably range $3-5,000. Let me know if this doesn't answer all of your questions. Best, Ilon From: Becky Chapin [mailto:Becky.Chapin@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 4:34 PM To: Ilon Logan Subject: RE: Direct Service Request Hi Ilon, Thanks for getting this to me. Would you be able to do a break down for the two options; or verify that the fee for the Recon is $3,080.1 want to present both options for the applicant. If the applicant chooses to do the Recon now prior to purchasing the property, will they have to pay the full $6,160 if they purchase the property and provide the full report to the City? Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner � i, tr. - Federal Way 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.cityoffede ra Iway.com From: Ilon Logan fmailto:ILogan@esassoc.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 1:58 PM To: Becky Chapin Cc: Christina Hersum Subject: RE: Direct Service Request Hi Becky, We have developed a scope and fee estimate per your request below. At 4 acres, the parcel is a good deal larger than typical residential parcels so the level of effort is higher (two days in field as opposed to one). One thing to note, the services request form you sent used the term "delineation" specifically as opposed to a "reconnaissance" investigation. Recon investigations require less field time, can give an overview of where streams and wetlands generally occur on the property, and provide a preliminary rating and buffer determinations. Typically in a property buying situation a reconnaissance investigation would suffice and give the potential buyer enough information to understand the constraints and buildability. A full delineation would not be needed until the potential buyer actually bought the property (and was applying for permits). The scope outlined below is for a "delineation" investigation. A recon would require about half of the hours and be a little more than half the fee estimate. ESA will provide Wetland and Stream Delineation services for the Jung Property, located at 30300 Pacific Highway South (Parcel #042104-9057). Our scope includes: • Conduct field investigation by qualified wetland biologists to complete a wetland and stream delineation of the entire property. • Prepare brief memo summarizing results of site delineation. Memo will describe wetlands and streams on subject properties and associated buffer according to FWRC 19.145. • Prepare wetland rating forms and figures for wetlands on subject properties according to FWRC 19.145. The cost estimate to provide this scope of services is $6,160 pursuant to the fee schedule in our Professional Services Agreement the City. This includes two (2) 8-hr/day site visits by two (2) qualified wetland biologists (Day 1: two associates and one senior; Day 2: one associate and one senior), one (1) day to develop the memorandum and communication with City, one (1) day to complete the required wetland rating forms and figures, and one half (0.5) hour for administrative tasks. We have availability to conduct the field work in the month of June. We would need half of the total fee to be supplied up -front, prior to our first site visit. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, lion From: Becky Chapin [mailto:Becky.Chapin cityofFederalway_.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 3:29 PM To: Ilon Logan Subject: Direct Service Request Hi lion, The City of Federal Way received a request for Direct Services Program for geotechnical analysis and ESA is next on our consultant rotation list. I wanted to contact you to see if ESA is available to do the work. I've attached the Scope of Work/Cost Estimate form. The applicant is looking to purchase the property and would like an assessment of the critical areas on site. The City Critical Area Map depicts both a stream and wetland on the subject property. The address is 30300 Pacific Hwy South, parcel # 042104-9057. If you are available, please let me know if you would like the scope of work mail to you or if the attached PDF is sufficient. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner [ rr ni Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.cityoffedera Iway.co m CITY OF 40PAN*4%NM00e Federal 1t1Jay CRITICAL AREA DIRECT SERVICES REQUEST Date: May 26, 2016 Consultant: Ilon Logan ESA 5309 Shilshole Ave. NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 ilo anCibesassoc.com Project: Jung, Wetland Review 30300 Pacific Hwy S Federal Way, WA 98003 Parcel #042104-9057 File No.: 16-102464-00-AD Applicant: David Jung 25714 Woodpath Trail Westlake, OH 44145 6e i s tauge n Cf yahoo. cam City Staff: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner Community Development Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 253-835-2641 becky.chapin eci tyoffederatway.com Scope of Work: The City received a request for use of the Critical Areas Direct Service Program. The project proponent has requested a cost estimate be provided for the delineation and rating of the wetland and stream on the subject property pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145, Environmentally Critical Areas. Specifically, FWRC Article III, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and Article IV, Wetlands. Documents Provided: Signed Application for Critical Area Direct Services Program Critical Areas Map Task Cost: Estimate - the following options are available: ■ $3,200 — Reconnaissance Level Investigation • $6,160 — Wetland and Stream Delineation Costs to the applicant are pursuant to the fee schedule in the consultant's Professional Services Agreement with the City. Applicant shall pay consultant directly. The consultant may require pre -payment of estimated cost. Communication: A copy of any contract/agreement between the applicant and the consultant shall be provided to the city. The city staff representative noted above shall be copied on any communication moving forward. Pile # 16-102464-AD Page 1 Doc ID 73653 City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map, September 2012 Pile # 16-102464-AD Pave 2 Doc ID 73653 �r 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW www.esassoc.com L�� Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax memorandum date January 26, 2017 to David Jung from Christina Hersum and Ilon Logan subject Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment for Parcel 0421049057, Federal Way, WA attached References, Figures, Wetland Rating Forms, Data Plot Sheets This memorandum summarizes the results of a wetland and stream assessment conducted for the property located at 30300 Pacific Highway South, in Federal Way Washington (Tax Parcel 0421049057). The parcel is approximately 4.2 acres and is undeveloped. The findings of our wetland delineation and stream assessment are based on an analysis of existing background information, a field investigation conducted by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) biologists Christina Hersum and Michael Muscari on January 6, 2016, and a review of the current Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapters 15.10 Critical Areas and 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas. ESA identified and delineated one wetland and one seasonal stream on the property. The western boundary of the wetland was flagged in the field and the northeast boundary was estimated (based on mapped contour lines) due to restricted access. The flagged wetland boundary location was recorded using a Global Positioning System (GPS device). Due to tree canopy cover and variable satellite reception, the GPS location accuracy was poor; as such, the wetland boundary provided on the attached map is approximate. For an accurate map of the wetland boundary, we recommend the wetland flags be located by a professional surveyor. Methods Methods defined in Regional Supplements to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (Corps, 2010) were used to determine the presence and extent of wetlands in the study area. The methodology is based upon three essential characteristics of wetlands: (1) hydrophytic vegetation; (2) hydric soils; and (3) wetland hydrology. Field indicators of these three characteristics must all be present in order to determine that an area is a wetland (unless problem areas or atypical situations are encountered). The "routine on -site determination method" was used to determine the wetland boundaries. The routine method is used for areas equal to or less than 5 acres in size, or for larger areas with relatively homogeneous vegetative, soil, and hydrologic properties. Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment Memo January 2017 Formal data plots were established where information regarding each of the three wetland parameters (vegetation soils, and hydrology) was recorded. This information was used to distinguish wetlands from non -wetlands. Wetland boundaries were identified with sequentially -numbered colored flagging and data plot locations were also marked with colored flagging. Background Review Prior to our field investigation, ESA reviewed the following background materials for information pertaining to the subject parcel: City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map (City of Federal Way, 2016) • King County iMap (King County, 2016) • National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Mapper (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2016) • National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey (WSS) (NRCS and USDA, 2016) The City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map identifies a wetland and stream on the subject parcel, as well as an erosion hazard area (Figure 1). The King County iMap does not identify any wetlands or streams on the subject parcel. However, the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Mapper identified two wetlands on the subject parcel. A narrow riverine wetland and a palustrine emergent wetland are mapped within the eastern portion of the parcel, extending southeast to northwest from a larger mapped wetland system associated with Steel Lake (USFWS, 2016). Field Investigation ESA biologists identified one Category II wetland (Wetland 1) and a seasonal stream located in the eastern portion of the property. Wetland 1 continues off the property to the east and to the north narrowing into a channel approximately eight feet wide (Figure 2). According to GPS data and field notes, the onsite portion of Wetland 1 is approximately 1.0 acres (45,000 SF). The seasonal stream flows north to south and enters a culvert underneath South 304t' Street, eventually discharging to Steel Lake. Wetland 1 is depressional palustrine forested and scrub -shrub wetland (PFO/PSS) dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra — FAC), salmonberry (Rubus spectablis — FAC), and Himaayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus — FAC). Other species identified during the site visit included western red cedar (Thuja plicata — FAC), swordfern (Polystichum munitum — FACU), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea — FACW), and English ivy (Hedera Helix — FACU); reed canarygrass, English ivy, and Himalayan blackberry are non-native invasive species. Within Wetland 1, soils were saturated to the surface and a water table was 6 inches below the soil surface at the time of investigation. Soils examined within Wetland 1 met the hydric soil indicator F3 (Depleted Matrix). See attached data plot 2 for more information. At the time of the site visit, the on -site portion of Wetland 1 was inundated and a stream channel was not visible due to the extent of inundation. In addition, all surface water within the wetland was frozen. Based on field observations, the seasonal stream generally meanders through the center of Wetland 1 and flows off the property to the east. Page 2 of 6 Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment Memo January 2017 Data plot 1 and 3 characterize the adjacent upland areas, and primarily consist of a mature forest dominated by western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), red alder, salal (Gaultheria shallon), Himalayan blackberry, and English ivy. A culvert is located to the east of the property boundary under South 304'h Street. Water in the stream channel was frozen on either side of this culvert at the time of the site visit. The culvert appears to connect surface water discharge from Wetland 1 to a larger wetland system associated with Steel Lake (Figure 3). Regulatory Considerations Wetlands are regulated at the federal, state, and local levels. Agencies with jurisdiction include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the City of Federal Way. Development projects that impact wetlands or their buffers require permits and approvals from multiple agencies. Agencies typically require permit applicants to avoid and minimize wetland impacts before development approval is granted. Compensatory mitigation is usually required for any impacts that cannot be totally avoided. This section provides a brief overview of the main regulatory considerations that could affect the development potential of the subject parcels. Federal Regulations: The Corps regulates discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The purpose of the Clean Water Act is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." Proponents of development projects that involve filling or grading in wetland must obtain a federal permit prior to the development. The Corps requires permit applicants to avoid and minimize wetland impacts and to replace or compensate for unavoidable impacts so that there is no net loss of wetlands overall. State Regulations: Projects that impact wetlands also require a water quality certification from the Department of Ecology. The state certification process is usually triggered through the Section 404 permit application. The state must certify that proposed activities will not adversely affect water quality or violate state aquatic protection laws. Ecology may issue approval, approval with conditions, denial, or a request for delay due to lack of information. Any conditions attached to the 401 certification become part of the Section 404 permit. City of Federal Way Regulations: The wetland on the Jung property is considered an "associated wetland" of Steel Lake due to its hydrologic connection via the seasonal stream that flows under S 304t' Street to the lake. Steel make and its associated wetlands are regulated as shorelines areas under the Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) (Figure 4), which was updated and adopted in 2011. Wetlands are classified into Category I, II, III, or IV using the criteria provided in FWRC Chapter 15.10.250 (shoreline regulations). The code generally prohibits filling of wetlands except under limited circumstances such as stormwater conveyance. The City code also requires a protective buffer around each wetland and setback for each stream to insulate them from adverse effects of adjacent development. The size of the wetland buffer is based on the category of the wetland and the size of the setback is determined on whether the stream is a `minor' or `major' stream per FWRC 15.10.170. According to the criteria, Wetland 1 is a Category 11 wetland and has a standard wetland buffer of 100 feet. The seasonal stream meets the definition of a "minor stream" and has a standard stream buffer of 50 feet. Standard buffers for Wetland 1 and the seasonal stream are presented in Table 1. Page 3 of 6 Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment Memo January2017 Table 1. Summary of Wetland Ratings and Buffers City of Federal Way Wetland Standard Wetland/Stream ID Category/Stream Type Buffer/Setback Width (FWMC 15.10.250) (feet) Wetland 1 II 100 Seasonal stream Minor 50 ESA wetland biologists also rated Wetland 1 using the Washington State Department of Ecology Rating System for Western Washington — 2014 Update (Hruby, 2014). The Ecology rating system provides a functional assessment of the wetland and the rating form may be useful for future permitting or consultation with the City (see Wetland Rating Form 1, attached). Buffer reduction and allowances for buffer use: Wetland 1 and its associated buffer encompass a majority of the subject parcel. The City regulations allow up to a 50 percent reduction in buffer width for Category II wetlands. To qualify for a wetland buffer reduction, the proposal must include a buffer enhancement plan, with additional specific criteria that must be met (see FWRC 15.10.270.5). City of Federal Way standards also provide limited allowances for wetland and wetland buffer uses (FWMC 15.10.270.6). These allowances are generally applicable to specific site improvements associated with a development proposal (allowances for certain stormwater facilities within wetland buffers, or for site access). Given development constraints caused by Wetland 1 and its buffer, ESA recommends early consultation with City staff for any proposed vegetation removal or site development to ensure that any proposed wetland and/or buffer alterations are consistent with the intent of FWMC 15.10 and to determine what compensatory mitigation would be required. Limitations Within the limitations of schedule, budget, and scope -of -work, we warrant that this study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices, including the technical guidelines and criteria in effect at the time this study was performed. The results and conclusions of this report represent the author's best professional judgment, based upon information provided by the project proponent in addition to that obtained during the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this memorandum. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call ESA at (206) 789-9658. Page 4 of 6 Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment Memo January 2017 References Brinson, M. August 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Research Program. City of Federal Way. 2016. Critical Areas Map. h :1/www.ci offederalwa .com/sites/default/files/ma s/sensitive 2016. df. May 2016. Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Version 2. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. May 2010. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. h-ft://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/DocumenWcecwo/regLwest mt finalsupp.lLdf Federal Way Municipal Code. 2011. Chapter 15.10, Critical Areas, Shoreline Master Plan. Current through Ordinance 11-705, passed November 1, 2011. Available at: h!ip://www.codgpublishing.conVWA/FederalWgyl. Accessed: January 2017. Federal Way Municipal Code. 2015. Chapter 19.145, Environmentally Critical Areas. Current through Ordinance 15-797, passed June 16, 2015. Available at: bM:I/Www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWa 1. Accessed January 2017. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest: An Illustrated Manual. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Washington Department of Ecology (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Washington Department of Ecology (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA. King County, 2017. King County iMap: Interactive Mapping Tool. Available at: h :/1 sma s.kin egun ov/iMa / . Accessed: January 2017. Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. GretagMacbeth, New Windsor, New York. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1995. Hydric Soils List for Washington. Revised December 15, 1995. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States -A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils. Version 7.0, 2010. ftu:Hftp- fc.sc.egov.usda. ov/g NSSC/Hydric SQ.ils/FieldIndicators v7.pdf. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2017. Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/012fWebSoi]Survey.aspx. Accessed: January 2017. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). Biol. Rpt. 88(26.9). United States Department of Interior, Washington, DC. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1993. 1993 Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). Page 5 of 6 Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment Memo January 2017 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017. National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. Available at: b=:/lwww.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mgner.htrnl. Accessed: January 2017. Vepraskas, M.J. 1999. Redoximorphic Features for IdentifyingAquic Conditions. Technical Bulletin 301. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. Page 6 of 6 Figure 1 City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map (City of Federal Way, 2016) GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, Figure 2 Wetlands and Streams GeoEye,-EarthstarGeographics-CNESIAirbusDS, Figure 3 Wetland and Stream System Des �faz a t Federal Way Moir" Shoreline Management Plan � M Federal Way and -ed- - Its Potential Fetal 4� '"' Annexation Area Legend Aubi City of Federal Way I Potential Annexation Area Regulated Shoreline g - G 1 i�■�i. �C (wy� Puget Sound East ....�, I 0 Puget Sound - Dumas Bey RR Q Puget Sound West ©Steel Lake '� ... t �! js ©SsarLake Pogol Q Lake Depolr Lake Genova l.d. - t.ar r 0North Ukc O Lake Killamoy }`y / 0 FivB M w LAI* 0 0.5 1 Miles .•• •N Map D® :n11 4 4 ### Pac Federal Way IM map Is Becaff"MW by NO war"hn. Figure 4 City of Federal Way Regulated Shorelines Map (City of Federal Way, 2006) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Juno Properly City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date: 1/6/17 Applicant/Owner. David Juno State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1 Investigator(s): CH. MM Section, Township, Range: Sec 4. T21N. RAE Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.331427 Long:-122.311280 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwqod malarial, 0$ I NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) CI RARA AQV nC FINnINfPS.. Attach Tito man shnwinn aamnlina o❑int locations. transacts. imaortant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ H dric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Y Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') Absolule Cover Dominant Species' Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Alnus rubra 20 ves FAC Number of Dominant Species 2 (A) 2. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant (B) 4. Species Across All Strata: 50 % _ _, 20% _ _ 20 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 100 (A/B) a lin f h b (Plot size: 15' That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Ruhus snectablrs 65 ves FAC 2. Ruh s Armemiarus 15 no FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by'. 3. Polysfitchurn m 10 no FACU OBL species x1 = 4 FACW species x2 = 5 FAC species x3 = 50 % = 45, 20 % = 18 90 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = , Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10') UPL species x5 = 1. Column Totals: (A) (B) 2 Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3 4 ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting ❑ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8 g ❑ 5-Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50% _, 20%_ _ Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15' 1. _ — Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ 50 % _ _, 20% _ = Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Juno Property SOIL Samnlina Point, r]P-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Locz Texture Remarks 00=6 10 YR 2/2 100 to 6-17 10 YR 212 100 to grave! 1717=20 10 YR 2/1 100 1P nraval 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 46) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 17 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 1.0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Juno Prouefty City/County: Federal Wav/K[no Sampling Date: 1/6117 Applicant/Owner: David ,funs State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2 Investigator(s): CH, MM Section, Township, Range: 5 c 4c 4 T?E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0=1 Subregion (LRR): A Let: 47 331300 Long: -122,311023 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Atderwood material. 0-6% slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical forthis time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing samolinq point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ H dric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Yes ® No ❑ Y within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') Absolute vef Dominant S sties Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Alnus rubra 40 ves FAC Number of Dominant Species 3 (A) 2. Thuia n6�t� 5 no FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. _ Total Number of Dominant 3 (B) 4. � — Species Across All Strata: 50% = 22.5, 20% = 9 45 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 100 (A/B) Sspiin ! hrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus snectab/is 25 ves FAC 2. Rubus Armerniacus 10 veS FAC Total Cover oL MallIpPy. bS� 3 OBL species x1 = 4 FACW species x2 = 5 — FAC species x3 = 50% = 17.5, 20% = 7 35 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb SlratPlot size: 101 UPL species x5 = 1. Column Totals: (A) (B) 2 Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3 f 4 ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. — ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting ❑ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8 g ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. — ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50% _, 20 % _ _ Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15' 1. Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation Yes ® No O 50% _ _, 20% _ = Total Cover Present? Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: lung Pronrr,y SOIL Samnlinr. Pnint, PP-7 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 0,=9 10 YR 2/1 100 sa to 9-11 10 YR 411 95 10 YR 4/6 5 C M si to 1111=18 10 YR 3/1 50 5 YR 4/8 50 C M si to some oroanic materials in this laver 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ® Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (A1) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) ® High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 6 Saturation Present? Yes ® No (includes capillary fringe) ❑ Depth (inches): surface p ( ) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Y 9Y ® No Q Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Juno Property City/County: Federal Way/Kin Sampling Date: LEE Applicant/Owner: David Juno State: WA Sampling Point: DP-3 Investigator(s): CH. MM Section, Township, Range: c 45e . T21N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 22=3 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47 331328 Long: -122 3 11 _168 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderw od material 0-6slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) C11UU ARV nF FINnINGR _ Attach sits man ehnwinn samnlinn nnint locations. transacts. important features. etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ H dric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® y Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: \/0/`_0TATI/1W _ H-- nNF.r - of ., I--*. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') Absolute %Cover Dominant S eoCies? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Alnus rubra 40 ves FAQ Number of Dominant Species 4 (A) 2. Thum plLr3la 15 � FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant 4 (B) 4 Species Across All Strata: 50% = 27.5, 20% = 11 55 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 100 (A/B) SaplinolShrub Stralum (Plot size: 15' That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus sascfablis 20 ves FAC 2. Rubus Armern04cws 15 Ves FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. — FAC species x3 = — 50% = 17.5, 20% = 7 35 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = — Herb Slralum(Plot size: LOD UPL species x5 = — 1. Column Totals: (A) (B) 2, Prevalence Index= B/A =- Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3, 4, ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5, — ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. — ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 8 ❑ data In Remarks or on a separate sheet) g, ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50% _, 20% _ — = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ylroodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15' 1. — Hydrophytic 2 J — Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ 50% =—,20% _— =Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Junn Prnnerly SOIL Samnlinv Point: s7P-2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' I, ❑c' Texture Remarks 0-18 10 YR 3/2 100 sa to 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must e present, unless disturbed or roblematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (61) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dry soil US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2 0 Wetland name or number Welland 1 RATING SUMMARY —Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland 1 Rated by Christina Hersum HGM Class used for rating Depressional & Flats Date of site visit: 1/6/2017 Trained by Ecology? 0 Yes ❑ No Date of training 9/29/2016 Wetland has multiple HGM classes? ❑ Yes El No NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY II (based on functions Elor special characteristics ❑) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 X Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality List appropriate rating (H, M, L) Site Potential M M M Landscape Potential H H L Value H L H Total Score Based on 8 6 6 20 Ratings 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal Lagoon Interdunal None of the above x Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H, H, H 8 = H, H, M 7 = H, H, L 7=H,M,M 6=H,M,L 6 = M, M, M 5=H,L,L 5 = M, M, L 4 = M, L, L 3=L,L,L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Deoressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 1 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 3 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 4 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 5 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 6 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 7 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure) S 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) S 2.1. S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Weiland 1 HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 - 7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? 0 NO - go to 2 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? ❑ NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) ❑ YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. 0 NO - go to 3 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ❑ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). 121 NO - go to 4 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ❑ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. ❑ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. 0 NO - go to 5 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ❑ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. 0 NO-goto6 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ❑ NO - go to 7 21 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ❑ NO - go to 8 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 DEPRESSIQNAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site Functions to improve water quality D 1.0_ Does the site have the potential to riprove water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 1 0 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 ❑ Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface or duff laver) is true clay or true organic 0 (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 D 1.3. _Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, andior Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants >'/2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants >'/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ❑ondinc or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is >'Y2 total area of wetland points = 4 4 Area seasonally ponded is > '/ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally porided is <'/ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 10 Rating of Site Potential If score is: ❑ 12 -16 = H I 6 -11 = M v0 - 5 = L Hecord the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 - D 2.3? Source Yes = 1 No = 0 1 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes abovel 4 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: LJ 3 or 4 = H LJ 1 or 2 = M LJ o = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, 0 lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? 1 Yes=1 No=O D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in 2 which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes abovel 3 Rating of Value if score is: 212 - 4 = H LJ 1 = M J 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 3 0 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 ❑ The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of pondin2 less than 0.5 ft 6 in points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. 21 The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 ❑ Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 10 Rating of Site Potential If score is: ❑12 -16 = H E]6 - 11 = M ❑0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic function of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater dischar es? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 5.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes=1 No=O 1 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? 1 Yes=1 No=O Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes abovel 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 213 = H Ell or 2 = M ❑ 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down - gradient of unit. points = 2 0 ❑ Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down - gradient. points = 1 ❑ Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1 ❑ The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood 0 conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Value If score is: L] 2 - 4 = H J 1 = M J 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 These questions apply t4 wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - li dcvrc irr. ti r,it s'I rc:'inn I_r r r:: vd,_- h�if., I -A H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of '4 ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. ❑ Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 2 ❑ Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 0 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points - 1 El Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: 0 The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods ). p Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 p Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 3 ❑ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 p Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0 ❑ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland p Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ❑ Lake Fringe wetland 2 points ❑ Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 1 If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. (:!D 3 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3 points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. 0 Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long) 21 Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland ❑ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) 3 ❑ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) F,j At least'/ ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) ❑ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata ) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes abovel 12 Rating of Site Potential It Score is: ❑ 15 - 18 = H 7 - 14 = M ❑ 0 - 6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat function of the site? H 2.1 Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: 5 % undisturbed habitat + ( 10 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2) = 10% If total accessible habitat is: 1 > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: 20 % undisturbed habitat + ( 15 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2) = 27.5% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 1 Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3 Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (-2) -2 s 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If Score is: D 4 - 6 = H J 1 - 3 = M 0 < 1 = L Record the rating on Elie first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 21 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) ❑ It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) ❑ It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 2 ❑ It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources ED It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0_ Rating of Value If Score is: La 2 = H 1 = M Li 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. htto://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.gdf or access the list from here: htt :1/wdfw.wa.govlconservation/phsllis_t1 Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. ❑ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). ❑ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). ❑ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. 2 Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west of Cascade crest — Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests — Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. ❑ Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 — see web link above). F�, Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. ❑ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161— see web link above). 0 Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. ❑ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report — see web link on previous page). ❑ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. ❑ Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. ❑ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. [21 Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that.apply to the wetland. List the category when the ap ropriate criteria are inet. SC 1.0. Estuarine Wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? ❑ The dominant water regime is tidal, ❑ Vegetated, and ❑ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt ❑ Yes - Go to SC 1.1 21 No = Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? ❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No - Go to SC1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? ❑ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina , see page 25) ❑ At least 3/ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un- grazed or un-mowed grassland. ❑ The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? ❑Yes - Go to SC2.2 2No-Go to SC2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? ❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No = Not WHCV SC 2.3. Is the Wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://wwwl .dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasea rch/wnh pwetlands. f)df ❑ Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 No = Not WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? ❑ Yes = Categoa I ❑ No = Not WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? ❑ Yes - Go to SC 3.3 21 No - Go to SC3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? ❑ Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? ❑ Yes = Is a Category I bog ❑ No - Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? ❑ Yes = Is a Category I bog ❑ No = Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetiand 1 SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. ❑ Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. ❑ Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). U Yes = Cateaory I 1= No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? ❑ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks ❑ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) ❑ Yes - Go to SC 5.1 E No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? ❑ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). ❑ At least 3/ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or Un- grazed or un-mowed grassland. ❑ The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ftZ) 7 Yes = Category I ❑ No = Cateaory II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: ❑ Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 ❑ Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 ❑ Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 ❑ Yes - Go to SC 6.1 21 No = Not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? ❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? ❑ Yes = Category II ❑ No - Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? ❑ Yes = Cate o III ❑ N❑ = Cate o IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types. enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 A 40 t 6 Figure 6. Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin; from Ecology website (D 3.1, D 3.2) Water Quality Improvement Project ` Green River and Newaukum Creek Area: - Multi -parameter Introduction l] a Located in western Washington state, the Green River basin drains about 484 square codes of land area and includes portions of King County and the cities of Auburn, Black Diamond, Covington, Enumclaw, Kent, Maple Valley, Renton, Sea-Tac, and Tukwlla. It flows for ever 93 miles from the Cascade Mountains to Elliott Bay. Major streams draining to the Green River PROJECT INFO include Newaukum, Eoes Springbrook, and Mill Creeks. Newaukum Creek is one of two major subbaslns targeted for their own TMDL studies on temperature and dissolved oxygen Newaukum Creek Is a tributary to the Green River, Newaukum LM' tl-- Creek runs about 14 miles from Its headwaters (3,000 M above sea level) to the confluence with the Green River near river mile 40.7 (IW D, above sea level). (See Study Area mao) The WRiA: -9 (DuwamishGreen) Soos subbasln Is the other major basin- Work on the Sees watershed commenced In 2009. Information on the Soos may be found at: County: King Tm n.eM.wa. eviv![ro_ l�eshvtl 7mdVSou�[rttrDL.ntm... Walla -bogy Narrte5: Land use In the study area varies considerably from a mlx of residential, commercial forestry and agricultural land uses around the Middle Green River, to residential, Industrial, and Greert fiver commercial land uses near the Lower Green River, 11-1cum Creek t Water quality issues FeDissoramelvedeOxrs:ygen Temperature Portions of me Green River and Newaukum Creek exhibit unhealthy temperature and oxygen conditions that cause them to fall to meet Washington State water quality standards. Fish breathe oxygen 1n the water (dissolved oxygen). Cooler water holds more oxygen Warmer water results in less oxygen for fish and other aquatic organisms. When water has too little =dTNDL. oxygen r its temperature is too warm, local fish can face thermal stress and harm. These streams serve as important migration corridors and spawning and rearing a as for several Green River -16 salmon species, Including Puget Sound Chinook; bull trout; coho; chum; pink; sockeye; kokanee; steelhead/rainbow, and cutthroat trout. These species all need cold wafers for optimum Neweuklrm Creek - 1 heal. during various stages of their lives. Status of the projects New ukurn Crihak apprwee a, EPA; has an bnplemenbtion plan To address the water quality issues, In solve Ecology Initiated water qualify improvement (also known y, total maximum daily load, or TMDL) projects for temperature and odissolvedect oxygen In .e Green River and Newaukum Creek, Ecology, King County, and others 3oa �adlhfa cooperated In a summer field study to collect data for the temperature and dissolved oxygen TMDL studies, Phone: 42S6q9-4425 As part of the TMDL study, Ecology Identified the pollution problems and specified how much pollution needs to be reduced to achieve clean ford ]oan.Ndari@ery water. As a follow-up to the TMDL study, Ecology works with the local community to prepare a water quality Implementation plan (WQIP) Nurthtse AReal- that details the specific actions needed to improve water quality In the basin. The plan describes management roles, activities, and DepMrrNnt, of EcoleOy schedules for partners. 31W Hiifpt Ave. BE — - [ mr Ioc41 Itargtrr4 Am Invofv4d In tiva effort, faciudlnp Ow MuHclefhoat Incean Tribe. WN cannty, US. arm B ll—, WA 981111 2 y Cape of E p neera. 1. Yo 1., E-mcl—,DiqkiilW bl... ve, Te - 0 P., valitee, artd ift4 dties d Cd 4%1 f A a 1,11so d, 1`10 dins F ua, Menton. Lonrgtp Ha hw y41ky- Enumclew, and e.en VoWnlen greupa, w[h a. 131dd1e Greet A.rsr Caa'iLr.� and Mlelwlxtd Rsirrin Eniktw v914nt �eup. wn9nsftM rcsldenl5, end lefal pPaluteefes eMe prey IlnpeHadt t41re In Impee3drp rcafK Ifuadry. Green River Eco ogy developed a water qual ty improvement report (WQIR, also known as a TMDL) to address water temperature issues in the Green River. The WQIR consists of the results and recommendations of a TMDL study on the Green River and an Implemenation strategy to determine what needs to be done, and who will carry out the recommendations, to bring the Figure 7. Screen capture of TMDLs for WRIA 9; from Ecology website (D 3.3) Becky Chapin From: Ilon Logan <ILogan@esassoc.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 9:34 AM To: Becky Chapin Subject: RE: Direct Service Request Hi Becky, The fee for the reconnaissance level investigation is $3,200. And no, the fee for a delineation would not be the full 6,610 if they did the reconnaissance first. We would wait to develop a new fee estimate until after the recon visit to know the level of effort that would be needed. It would probably range $3-5,000. Let me know if this doesn't answer all of your questions. Best, Ilon From: Becky Chapin [mailto:Becky.Chapin @city ofFederalway.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 4:34 PM To: Ilon Logan Subject: RE: Direct Service Request Hi Ilon, Thanks for getting this to me. Would you be able to do a break down for the two options; or verify that the fee for the Recon is $3,080.1 want to present both options for the applicant. If the applicant chooses to do the Recon now prior to purchasing the property, will they have to pay the full $6,160 if they purchase the property and provide the full report to the City? Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner Federal way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.com From: Ilon Logan [mailto:ILogan@esassoc.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 1:58 PM To: Becky Chapin Cc: Christina Hersum Subject: RE: Direct Service Request Hi Becky, We have developed a scope and fee estimate per your request below. At 4 acres, the parcel is a good deal larger than typical residential parcels so the level of effort is higher (two days in field as opposed to one). One thing to note, the services request form you sent used the term "delineation" specifically as opposed to a "reconnaissance" investigation. Recon investigations require less field time, can give an overview of where streams and wetlands generally occur on the property, and provide a preliminary rating and buffer determinations. Typically in a property buying situation a reconnaissance investigation would suffice and give the potential buyer enough information to understand the constraints and buildability. A full delineation would not be needed until the potential buyer actually bought the property (and was applying for permits). The scope outlined below is for a "delineation" investigation. A recon would require about half of the hours and be a little more than half the fee estimate. ESA will provide Wetland and Stream Delineation services for the Jung Property, located at 30300 Pacific Highway South (Parcel #042104-9057). Our scope includes: • Conduct field investigation by qualified wetland biologists to complete a wetland and stream delineation of the entire property. • Prepare brief memo summarizing results of site delineation. Memo will describe wetlands and streams on subject properties and associated buffer according to FWRC 19.145. • Prepare wetland rating forms and figures for wetlands on subject properties according to FWRC 19.145. The cost estimate to provide this scope of services is $6,160 pursuant to the fee schedule in our Professional Services Agreement the City. This includes two (2) 8-hr/day site visits by two (2) qualified wetland biologists (Day 1: two associates and one senior; Day 2: one associate and one senior), one (1) day to develop the memorandum and communication with City, one (1) day to complete the required wetland rating forms and figures, and one half (0.5) hour for administrative tasks. We have availability to conduct the field work in the month of June. We would need half of the total fee to be supplied up -front, prior to our first site visit. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Ilon From: Becky Chapin fmailto:Becky.Chapin@cityoffederaiway.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 3:29 PM To: Ilon Logan Subject: Direct Service Request Hi Ilon, The City of Federal Way received a request for Direct Services Program for geotechnical analysis and ESA is next on our consultant rotation list. I wanted to contact you to see if ESA is available to do the work. I've attached the Scope of Work/Cost Estimate form. The applicant is looking to purchase the property and would like an assessment of the critical areas on site. The City Critical Area Map depicts both a stream and wetland on the subject property. The address is 30300 Pacific Hwy South, parcel # 042104-9057. If you are available, please let me know if you would like the scope of work mail to you or if the attached PDF is sufficient. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner