19-100329CITY OF
Federal Way
Centered on Opportunity
March 19, 2019
Mr. John Mulkey, P.E.
City of Federal Way
Public Works Capital Projects Division
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003
'oiin.mi.akevci Ffe ralway.co
Re: File #19-100329-00-AD; PARTIAL EXEMPTION APPROVAL
Brook Lake Center Connector, 850 South 356th Street, Federal Way
Dear Mr. Mulkey:
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www. cityofiederalway.. com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
FILE
The Community Development Department is in receipt of your January 17, 2019, partial exemption request
for work in a critical area at Pacific Highway South and South 356th Street. The City of Federal Way Public
Works Department proposes to construct a 500-foot long elevated boardwalk segment in the West Hylebos
Wetlands Park in order to connect existing park boardwalk to the Brook Lake Center.
The director may permit public improvements within critical areas pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code
(FWRC) 19.145.120(1) if there is no practical alternative with less impact. It appears the proposal does not
remove trees or vegetation. The chosen siting constitutes the minimum necessary encroachment and
disturbance to implement the public pathway for the city's public outreach and education programs, including
the annual "Storming the Sound" salmon release. The applicant has submitted supporting documentation and
studies with this request.
The department hereby grants conditional partial exemption approval of the Brook Lake Center Connector.
This decision corresponds to the following submittal documents:
1. Brook Lake Center Connector Design Plans Sheets C01- C07 prepared by the City of Federal
Way Public Works Department.
2. Geotechnical Data Letter prepared by Landau Associates (May 16, 2018), date -stamped received
January 17, 2019.
3. Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report Brook Lake Center Connector prepared by Landau
Associates (November 17, 2017), date -stamped received January 17, 2019.
4. July 30, 2018, response letter from the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers.
19-100329-00-AD
Doc. I.D. 78716
Mr. John Mulkey, P.E.
Page 2 of 2
March 19, 2019
EXTERNAL AGENCY REVIEW
The Federal Way Public Works Department submitted a Department of the Army PA) permit on July 24,
2018. The Army Corps of Engineers responded with written findings that a DA permit would not be required
for the public improvement on July 30, 2018. The proposed boardwalk does not propose the discharge of
dredged or fill material and therefore, a Section 404 permit is not required.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) issued a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) with
conditions on June 11, 2018.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The applicant shall comply with WDFW HPA Conditions #1-12.
2. The applicant may not use heavy machinery within the wetland and wetland buffer. The
applicant may use hand -tools or hand powered tools per FWRC 19.145.120(7)(c).
CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
The City of Federal Way Building Division has stated no building permits are required for this proposal.
Should you have any questions about this decision please contact Associate Planner Leila Willoughby -Oakes
at 253-835-2644, or leila.willlougliby--oakes@cityoffederalwgy-coz .
Sincerely,
Brian Davis
Community Development Director
enc: Approved Wetland Delineation Report (prepared by Landau Associates, November 2017)
Approved Plan Set, stamped approved March 20, 2019
c: Scott Sproul, Building Official
Kevin Peterson, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer
Sarah Hamel, Capital Projects Engineering Manager
19-100329-00-AD Doc. I.D. 78716
I
A�
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report
Brook Lake Center Connector
Federal Way, Washington
D
PLANNING
City of Federal Way
Dept. of Community Development
Permit #�
-
Date
November 17, 2017
Prepared for
City of Federal Way
RECEIVED
JAN 17 2019
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
COMMUNFfY DEVELOPMENT
14 LANDAU
ASSOCIATES
2107 South C Street
Tacoma, WA 98402
(253) 926-2493
J
'Up heave( vKaCA: "Al Li +1AAd P
t,7e�nd h * =
Landau Associates
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report
Brook Lake Center Connector
Federal Way, Washington
This document was prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, the technical professionals noted
below.
Document prepared by: C-,_ Jamie Sloan
Author, Senior Staff Scientist
Document reviewed by: V Bruce Stirling
Project Manager
Date: November 17, 2017
Project No.: 0238078.010.011
File path: Y:\238\078.010\R
Project Coordinator: Juliann Cooley
I/V
A
it M4, E)q
7,
1 �-L(kNDAU
4, 'ASSOCIATES
I r-k
Landau Associates
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Federal Way (City) Surface Water Management Division is proposing to create a
boardwalk/trail extension from the existing terminus of the West Hylebos Wetlands Boardwalk Trail at
Brook Lake to the Brook Lake Community Center. Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI) conducted a
wetland/waterway investigation to support the City's proposal.
This report presents LAI's investigation of the extent of wetlands, waterways, and regulated buffers
that occur within the project and study areas. The results of the wetland/waterway investigation are
presented herein, including the identification of one wetland (Wetland A) and one waterbody (Brook
Lake) that occur within the project and study areas.
One wetland (Wetland A) was partially delineated within the project area. Wetland A was rated as a
Category I wetland and assigned a regulated buffer of 190 feet (ft). One waterway was identified
(Brook Lake) and the ordinary high watermark boundary was estimated within the study area using
on -site observations and the City's Sensitive Areas Map. Brook Lake is regulated according to the
City's Environmentally Critical Areas code; Brook Lake was assigned a regulated buffer of 25 ft.
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report 0238078.010.011
Brook Lake Center Connector hi November 17, 2017
Landau Associates
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Site Conditions....................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Regulatory Background ............... ::.....................................................................................
1-1
2.0
METHODOLOGY ................... ..........................................................................................................
2-1
2.1 Background Information Review........................................................................................2-1
2.2 Wetland Delineation..........................................................................................................2-2
2.2.1 Wetland Classification, Rating, and Buffers.....................................................2-2
2.3 Waterway Delineation........................................................................................................2-3
2.3.1 Waterway Classification, Designation, and Buffers
..........................................2-3
3.0
WETLAND AND WATERWAY INVESTIGATION RESULTS.................................................................3-1
3.1 Background Information Review........................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Wetlands.......................................................................................................3-1
3.1.2 Waterways.....................................................................................................3-1
3.1.3 Soils...............................................................................................................3-1
3.1.4 Floodplain......................................................................................................3-2
3.1.5 Land Use........................................................................................................3-2
3.1.6 Precipitation . ......................... .................... ....................................................
3-2
3.2 Field Investigation..............................................................................................................3-2
3.2.1 Wetland A ............................................ .................
......................................... 3-2
3.2.1.1 Vegetation...............................................................................................3-2
3.2.1.2 Soil...........................................................................................................3-3
3.2.1.3 Hydrology ........................ ............... .........................................................
3-3
3.2.1.4 Wetland Classification, Rating, and Buffer.................................................3-3
3.2.1.5 Upland Characterization...........................................................................3-3
3.2.2 Waterways.....................................................................................................3-4
4.0
CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................4-1
5.0
USE OF THIS REPORT......................................................................................................................5-1
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report 0238078.010.011
Brook Lake Center Connector v November 17, 2017
FIGURES
Figure Title
1 Vicinity Map
2 Site Features
TABLE
Table Title
1 Methods for Wetland Delineation
APPENDICES
Appendix Title
A Background Information Review Figures
B Soil Profile Reports
C Precipitation Data
D Wetland Determination Data Forms
E Selected Site Photographs
F Wetland Ratings Forms
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report
Brook Lake Center Connector
w
Landau Associates
0238078.010.011
November 17, 2017
Landau Associates
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
bgs................................................................................................. below ground surface
City.................................................. I ................................................. City of Federal Way
CWA.......................................................................................................
Clean Water Act
Ecology...........................................................
Washington State Department of Ecology
FAC..................................................................................................................
facultative
FACU...................................................................................................facultative
upland
ft........................................................................................................................
foot/feet
FWRC..........................................................................
City of Federal Way Revised Code
HGM....................................................................................................
Hydrogeomorphic
HPA........................................................................................
hydraulic project approval
LAI...............................................................................................
Landau Associates, Inc.
NRCS................................................................
National Resources Conservation Service
NWI ....................................................................................National
Wetlands Inventory
OHWM....................................................................................
ordinary high water mark
PFOA.................................................................temporarily
flooded palustrine forested
PHS..............................................................................................Priority
Habitat Species
PUBH........................................................
permanently flooded unconsolidated bottom
RCW...................................................................................
Revised Code of Washington
SP.............................................................................................................
sampling point
USACE..................................................................................
US Army Corps of Engineers
USDA................................................................................ US Department of Agriculture
USFWS.................................................................................. US Fish and Wildlife Service
WAC............................................................................ Washington Administrative Code
WDFW.......................................................... Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
WDNR............................................
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report 0238078.010.011
Brook Lake Center Connector vii November 17, 2017
Landau Associates
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Federal Way (City) is proposing to create a boardwalk/trail extension from the existing
terminus of the West Hylebos Wetlands Boardwalk Trail at Brook Lake to the Brook Lake Community
Center located at 726 South 356th Street in Federal Way, Washington (Figure 1). Landau Associates,
Inc. (LAI) conducted an investigation to assist the City in determining the extent of wetlands, other
waters of the US, and other critical areas regulated by the City in the project area. In order to assess
the potential impacts to wetlands, other waters of the US, and other critical areas, LAI investigated
the proposed trail extension footprint over an approximate 4-feet (ft) wide and 510-ft long alignment
as shown in Figure 2. LAI identified one wetland (Wetland A) in the project area. The general project
location is shown on Figure 1. The location of the wetland boundary, buffer, and other pertinent site
features are presented on Figure 2.
1.1 Site Conditions
The project area, which extends approximately 510 ft between the existing terminus of the West
Hylebos Wetlands Boardwalk Trail at Brook Lake and the Brook Lake Community Center, is located
west of Pacific Highway South (State Route 99) and north of South 356th Street in Federal Way,
Washington (Figure 2). The project area is located in Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Section 29 and
the Puyallup -White Water Resource Inventory Area 10.
The study area extends 225 ft beyond the project area (as shown in Figure 2). Current land use in the
study area is primarily undeveloped (forest) and institutional (Brook Lake Community Center). The
topography in the vicinity of the study area gradually slopes toward Brook Lake (Appendix A, Figure A-
1).
1.2 Regulatory Background
Wetlands and certain waterways are regulated by federal, state, and local government agencies, and
compliance with one agency does not necessarily fulfill the permitting requirements of the other
agencies. Wetland buffers are regulated by local governmental agencies.
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires authorization by US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US. Washington
State Department of Ecology (Ecology) requires compliance with the State Water Pollution Control Act
(Revised Code of Washington [RCW] Chapter 90.48). Ecology has administrative oversight of CWA
Section 401 for state water quality certification in the case of impacts to USACE jurisdictional "waters
of the US". Any work that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the bed or flow of state waters including
streams and rivers, must do so under the terms of a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), issued by
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW). The WDFW HPA is administered under RCW
Chapter 77.55 and rules set forth in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-220-110. Chapter
19.145 of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) has requirements for establishing wetland and
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report 0238078.010.011
Brook Lake Center Connector 1-1 November 17, 2017
J
J
J
Landau Associates
stream buffer widths and building setbacks as well as requirements for alterations, including fill of
wetlands, streams, and their buffers.
Delineated portions of wetlands described in this report are subject to verification by the USACE. The
USACE determines the jurisdiction of a wetland based on its connection, more commonly referred to
as "adjacency", to other "waters of the US". Those wetlands determined to be "isolated" do not fall
under the jurisdiction of the USACE (USACE 2008). If delineated wetlands are determined to be
adjacent rather than isolated, any filling or dredging of on -site wetlands would require compliance
with CWA Sections 404 and 401. Only the USACE can determine if a wetland is adjacent or isolated. If
the wetlands are found to be isolated, they may still be subject to regulation by Ecology under the
State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW Chapter 90.48) and the City under the critical areas
regulations.
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report
Brook Lake Center Connector
1-2
0238078.010.011
November 17, 2017
Landau Associates
2.0 METHODOLOGY
LAI conducted the wetland/waterway investigation in accordance with the USACE Regional
Supplement to the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast
Region (USAGE 2010) and the general principles presented in Ecology's Determining the Ordinary High
Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Ecology 2016) and WAC
173-22-030. USACE and Ecology recommend preliminary data gathering and a synthesis of available
background information, followed by a field investigation.
The field investigation was limited to an examination of vegetation, soils, and hydrology within
approximately 20 ft on either side of the proposed trail alignment. Wetland habitat that extended
beyond the project area, but within 225 ft, was estimated by visual assessment and with public
domain resources to determine their extent. Review of the remaining study area was limited to
observations from public rights -of -way and information from public data sources.
2.1 Background Information Review
LAI reviewed the following public domain resources to evaluate historical and existing conditions,
potential wetlands, and other "waters of the U.S." within the study area:
a U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Map (Appendix A, Figure A-1).
e Aerial imagery (Figure 2).
a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map (USFWS 2017;
Appendix A, Figure A-2).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web
Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2017e; Appendix A, Figure A-3).
Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodplain Map (Appendix A, Figure A-4). USDA,
NRCS Official Soil Series Descriptions (USDA NRCS 2017b; Appendix B).
e National Hydric Soils List (USDA NRCS 2017a).
Precipitation data (USDA NRCS 2017c; Appendix C).
City of Federal Way Sensitive Areas Map (City of Federal Way 2016).
City of Federal Way Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (City of Federal Way 2015).
City of Federal Way Shoreline Management Plan, Chapter 11 (City of Federal Way 2015).
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
website (WDFW 2017).
• Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practices Application
Mapping Tool (WDNR 2017a).
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report 0238078.010.011
Brook Lake Center Connector 2-1 November 17, 2017
Landau Associates
2.2 Wetland Delineation
Both the USACE and Ecology outline a three -parameter approach to determine the presence or
absence of wetlands that requires evaluating vegetation, soil, and hydrology. An LAI biologist
completed a delineation using the routine on -site method outlined in the Regional Supplement to the
USACE Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2010),
where data are collected at locations representative of typical wetlands and/or uplands of the study
area. Following this method, an area is determined to be a wetland if the following three criteria are
met (see also Table 1):
I The dominant vegetation is hydrophytic
• Soils are hydric
• Wetland hydrology is present.
The wetland boundaries were delineated using numbered flagging where accessible. Sampling points
and wetland boundary flagging locations were recorded with handheld Trimble° GPS, which typically
has sub -meter accuracy.
2.2.1 Wetland Classification, Rating, and Buffers
Wetlands identified as part of this project were classified according to the USFWS Cowardin
classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) and the USACE hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification
- system (Brinson 1993). FWRC Section 19.145.420 classifies wetlands based on the following criteria:
■ Category I. Category I wetlands represent a unique or rare wetland type; are more sensitive to
_ disturbance than most wetlands; are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes
that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or provide a high level of function. The
following types of wetlands are Category I:
— Wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the
Washington Natural Heritage Program/WDNR;
= Bogs;
Wetlands with mature and old growth forests larger than one acre; and
— Wetlands that perform functions at high levels (wetlands that score 23 points or more
j based on functions).
J
■ Category 11. Category II wetlands are difficult, though not impossible, to replace and provide
high levels of some functions. Category II wetlands are those wetlands that score between 20
and 22 points based on functions.
■ Category III. Category III wetlands are wetlands with a moderate level of functions that score
between 16 and 19 points based on functions.
■ Category IV. Category IV wetlands are wetlands with the lowest level of functions (scoring less
than 16 points based on functions) and are often heavily disturbed.
FWRC Section 19.145.420 states, "wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington Department of
Ecology Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, 2014 update (Ecology
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report
Brook Lake Center Connector
2-2
0238078.010.011
November 17, 2017
Landau Associates
Publication No. 14-06-029), or as revised and approved by Ecology." Furthermore, wetland buffers
shall be measured perpendicular from the wetland boundary as delineated and marked in the field.
FWRC Subsection 19.145.420(2) provides the following wetland buffer widths based on habitat scores:
Wetland Category
Category I: Bogs and wetlands of high
conservation value
Category I: Forested and based on function score
Category II
Category III
Category IV
(a) Wetland scores 3 to 4 habitat points.
(b) Wetland scores 5 habitat points.
(c) Wetland scores 6 to 7 points.
(d) Wetland scores 8 to 9 points.
Minimum Buffer
Buffer Width
Buffer Width
Buffer Width
Width (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
190 ft
190 ft
190 ft
225 ft
75 ft
105 ft
165 ft
225 ft
75 ft
105 ft
165 ft
225 ft
60 ft
105 ft
165 ft
225 ft
40 ft
40 ft
40 ft
40 ft
2.3 Waterway Delineation
The methodology developed by Ecology (Ecology 2016) was used to determine if waterways were
present within the project area. The methodology focuses on existing hydrologic data and field
indicators, including hydrology, soils and sediments, vegetation, marks of scouring, etc.
2.3.1 Waterway Classification, Designation, and Buffers
Stream typing was based on FWRC Section 19.145.260 where streams are classified in accordance
with the WDNR water typing system (WAC 222-16-030). Stream classifications from the WDNR
include:
• Type S: Waters inventoried as "shorelines of the state" under RCW Title 90.58 and the rules
promulgated pursuant to RCW Title 90.58.
Type F: Waters that contain fish habitat.
• Type Np: Perennial non -fish habitat streams.
■ Type Ns: Seasonal non -fish habitat streams.
WAC 222-16-030 identifies fish habitat as "...habitat which is used by any fish at any life stage at any
time of the year, including potential habitat likely to be used by fish which could be recovered by
restoration or management and includes off -channel habitat."
According to WAC 222-16-030, the Interim Water Typing System established in WAC 222-16-031 is to
be used until the "fish habitat water typing maps" are adopted by the State's Forest Practices Board.
Water type descriptions summarized from the Interim Water Typing System are as follows:
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report 0238078.010.011
Brook Lake Center Connector 2-3 November 17, 2017
j Landau Associates
• Type 1 Water means all waters, within their ordinary high water mark (OHWM), inventoried
as "shorelines of the state" under Title 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to Title
90.58 RCW, but not including those waters associated with wetlands as defined in Title 90.58
RCW.
I
I
-J
J
• Type 2 Water means segments of natural waters that are not classified as Type 1 Water and
have a high fish, wildlife, or human use. These are segments of natural waters and periodically
inundated areas of their associated wetlands.
■ Type 3 Water means segments of natural waters that are not classified as Type 1 or 2 Waters
and have a moderate to slight fish, wildlife, or human use. These are segments of natural
waters and periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands.
• Type 4 Water means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of defined
channels that are perennial non -fish habitat streams. Perennial streams are flowing waters
that do not go dry at any time of a year with normal rainfall. They include the intermittent dry
portions of the perennial channel below the uppermost point of perennial flow.
• Type 5 Water means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of the defined
channels that are not Type 1, 2, 3, or 4 Waters. These are seasonal, non -fish habitat streams in
which surface flow is not present for at least a portion of the year; they are not located
downstream from any stream reach that is a Type 4 Water. Type 5 Waters must be physically
connected by an aboveground channel system to Type 1, 2, 3, or 4 Waters.
Conversion of the interim water typing system to the permanent water typing system, as provided in
WAC 222-16-031, is as follows:
Water Type Conversion
Current (Permanent) Water Typing Previous (Interim) Water Typing
Type S Type 1 Water
Type F Types 2 and 3 Water
Type Np� _Type 4 Water
I Type Ns Type 5 Water
Note: The conversion listed above was used in applying the state typing system to the FWRC.
Following the WAC and conversion table above, FWRC Title 19.145.270 prescribes the following
standard buffer widths for each water type:
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report
Brook Lake Center Connector
Federal Way Waterway Buffers
Water Type Buffer Width
S 200 ft
F 100 ft
Np 50 ft
Ns 35 ft
2-4
0238078.010.011
November 17, 2017
11
Landau Associates
3.0 WETLAND AND WATERWAY INVESTIGATION RESULTS
This section provides a summary of the background information review and field investigations of
wetlands and waterways within the study area.
3.1 Background Information Review
The following provides a summary of information derived from topographic mapping, City maps, soil
survey information, NWI mapping, and other sources documenting conditions and critical areas in and
adjacent to the study area.
3.1.1 Wetlands
The USFWS NWI (Appendix A, Figure A-2) identifies two palustrine habitats in the study area:
■ Temporarily flooded forested (PFOA).
o Permanently flooded unconsolidated bottom (PUBH).
The PFOA wetland is part of a larger wetland complex with seasonally flooded shrub -scrub inclusions
known as the West Hylebos Wetlands Park (City of Federal Way 2016, USFWS 2017). The PUBH
habitat is Brook Lake (USFWS 2017). WDFW's PHS data (WDFW 2017) show a slightly larger wetland
complex than NWI. The City's Sensitive Areas Map (City of Federal Way 2016) West Hylebos Wetlands
Park outline, which differs slightly from NWI and WDFW data, was used to estimate Wetland A's
boundary outside of the project area.
3.1.2 Waterways
The City's Sensitive Areas Map (City of Federal Way 2016), NWI mapping (USFWS 2017), USGS
topographic mapping (Appendix A, Figure A-1), USDA soil mapping (USDA NRCS 2017e), and WDNR
mapping (WDNR 2017b) show a waterway (Brook Lake) intersecting the study area. Brook Lake was
not identified in the City's Shoreline Inventory and Characterization and not a "Shoreline of the State"
according to the Shoreline Management Plan, Chapter 11 (City of Federal Way 2015).
West Hylebos Creek is located approximately 0.15 miles west of the project area (USFWS 2017,
WDFW 2017, WDNR 2017b).
3.1.3 Soils
The soils map (USDA NRCS 2017d; Appendix A, Figure A-1) identifies two soil series within the study
area (complete soil profile reports are provided in Appendix B). These are described as follows (USDA
NRCS 2017e):
The Everett series (EwC) consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that
formed in gravelly and sandy glacial outwash. These soils occupy kames, moraines, and eskers
on glacial outwash plains and glacial drift plains. In depressions, EwC is listed as hydric on the
National Hydric Soils List (USDA NRCS 2017a).
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report 0238078.010.011
Brook Lake Center Connector 3-1 November 17, 2017
Landau Associates
The Seattle series (Sk) consists of very deep, very poorly drained organic soils formed in
herbaceous and woody deposits in depressions in river valleys and glacial till plains. In
depressions, Sk is listed as hydric on the National Hydric Soils List (USDA NRCS 2017a).
3.1.4 Floodplain
The Floodplain Map (Appendix A, Figure A-4) does not identify 100-year floodplains within the study
-� area. The nearest 100-year floodplain is associated with the Hylebos and West Hylebos Creeks located
approximately 1.85 miles to the south.
3.1.5 Land Use
A review of aerial photography shows land use in the study area to be undeveloped (forest) and
institutional (Figure 2).
�I
3.1.6 Precipitation
Precipitation data for the 3-month period prior to the field investigations indicate recorded
precipitation levels were drier than normal (USDA NRCS 2017c; Appendix C).
3.2 Field Investigation
LAI biologist, Jamie Sloan, conducted a wetland and waterway investigation on October 10, 2017. The
weather during the investigation was cloudy with the temperature in the high 50s. One wetland
(Wetland A) and one waterway (Brook Lake) were identified within the study area (Figure 2). Sampling
points (SPs) were completed to characterize hydrology, vegetation, and soil characteristics in upland
areas and areas likely to feature wetlands based on observed conditions (e.g., depressions,
hydrophytic vegetation, observed standing water). Wetland determination data forms were used to
record the SP field observations and are provided in Appendix D; select site photographs are
presented in Appendix E; and wetland rating forms are presented in Appendix F.
3.2.1 Wetland A
Wetland A is approximately 6,556,313 square feet (150.51 acres) and extends north, west, and south
of the project area. Along the proposed trail alignment, approximately 350 ft of Wetland A's boundary
I was delineated, as shown of Figure 2. The remainder of the boundary for Wetland A was estimated
using the City's Sensitive Area Map (City of Federal Way 2016). SP-1 was recorded to characterize the
vegetation, hydrology, and soils of Wetland A; the upland area adjacent to Wetland A was
] characterized by SP-2.
3.2.1.1 Vegetation
Wetland A is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. The dominant plant species at SP-1 are:
Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla, facultative upland [FACU))
• Cascara (Frangula purshiana, facultative [FAC))
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report 0238078.010.011
J Brook Lake Center Connector 3-2 November 17, 2017
Landau Associates
G Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC)
• False lily of the valley (Maianthemum dilatatum, FAC)
• Skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus, obligate [OBL]).
Non -dominant vegetation noted at SP-1 includes red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC).
3.2.1.2 Soil
The soil at SP-1 is characterized by indicators Histosol (Al) and Hydrogen Sulfide (A4), which satisfy
the hydric soils parameter. From 0 to 4 inches below ground surface (bgs), the soil matrix was a black
(7.5YR 2.5/1) fibrous root layer. From 4 to 14 inches bgs, the soil matrix was a black (10YR 2/1) peat.
The assessment of the soil as organic material (i.e., peat) was determined following field procedures
provided by the USACE; however, determination of organic soil material is difficult to distinguish
without laboratory testing (USACE 2010). At 14 inches bgs, root refusal prohibited further digging.
3.2.1.3 Hydrology
The primary indicators of wetland hydrology observed at SP-1 were High Water Table (A2), Saturation
(A3), and Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl); a secondary indicator includes Geomorphic Position (D2).
Wetland A is situated in a topographical depression where hydrology is predominantly supplied by a
high groundwater table, along with hydrology provided by Brook Lake, Marlake, and West Hylebos
Creek.
3.2.1.4 Wetland Classification, Rating, and Buffer
All three mandatory wetland criteria are satisfied for Wetland A, and LAI classified it as a palustrine
forested scrub -shrub (PFO/SS; Cowardin)/depressional (HGM) wetland.
LAI rated Wetland A as a Category I wetland based on functions, with a total score of 23. Wetland A
scored highest for water quality function with a score of 9; hydrologic and habitat functions both
scored 7 points. Wetland A was also rated as a Category I wetland due to special characteristics,
including being a peat bog and a wetland of high conservation value as determined by WDNR (WDNR
2017b). In accordance with FWRC Subsection 19.145.420(2), buffers for Category I bog and high
conservation value wetlands associated with habitat scores of 6 to 7 are prescribed a 190 ft buffer.
3.2.1.5 Upland Characterization
An upland inclusion within Wetland A, characterized by SP-2, satisfied only one of the three
mandatory wetland parameters. Dominant vegetation within SP-2 did not meet hydrophytic
vegetation criteria, including Western hemlock (FACLI), English holly (Ilex aquifolium, FACLI), and false
lily of the valley (FAC). Other non -dominant vegetation identified at SP-2 included red alder (FAC).
From 0 to 4 inches bgs, the soil profile at SP-2 was a black (7.5YR 2.5/1) fibrous root layer. From 4 to
14 inches bgs, the soil was a very dark brown (10YR 2/2) peat, which satisfies the Histosol (Al) hydric
soil criteria. The assessment of the soil as organic material (i.e., peat) was determined following field
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report 0238078.010.011
Brook Lake Center Connector 3-3 November 17, 2017
1
J
J
Landau Associates
procedures provided by the USACE; however, determination of organic soil material is difficult to
distinguish without laboratory testing (USACE 2010). Peat normally forms under acidic or anaerobic
conditions; however, no indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at the time of the field
investigation. The field investigation took place immediately following the dry season, with preceding
climatic conditions that were drier than normal. Therefore, wetland hydrology may be present during
the rainy season. Regardless of the soil and hydrologic conditions, the upland inclusion lacks wetland
vegetation, and therefore, does not meet all three criteria necessary to classify the area as wetland.
3.2.2 Waterways
During the field investigation of the study area, we identified Brook Lake as a waterbody. Brook Lake
was located outside of the project area. Therefore, the OHWM boundary was estimated using the
City's Sensitive Areas Map (City of Federal Way 2016). Brook Lake is not regulated as a "Shoreline of
the State" and is less than 20 acres in size. Therefore, Brook Lake is regulated by the City as a critical
area and assigned a 25-ft buffer in accordance with FWRC 19.145.260 (2), Article III, Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Areas, of Chapter 19.145, Environmentally Critical Areas.
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report 0238078.010.011
Brook Lake Center Connector 3-4 November 17, 2017
J
Landau Associates
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
LAI staff conducted wetland and waterway investigations in the project area to support the City's
proposal to create a boardwalk/trail extension from the existing terminus of the West Hylebos
Wetlands Boardwalk Trail at Brook Lake to the Brook Lake Community Center. One wetland (Wetland
A) was partially delineated within the project area. Wetland A was rated as a Category I wetland and
assigned a regulated buffer of 190 ft. One waterway, Brook Lake, was identified and the OHWM
boundary estimated within the study area using the City's Sensitive Areas Map. Brook Lake is
regulated according to the City's Environmentally Critical Areas code and assigned a regulated buffer
of 25 ft.
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report 0238078.010.011
Brook Lake Center Connector 4-1 November 17, 2017
�j Landau Associates
S.0 USE OF THIS REPORT
The findings presented herein are based on our understanding of the FWRC and USACE and Ecology
wetland delineation methodology; our interpretation of the vegetative, soil, and hydrological
conditions observed during our October 10, 2017 field investigation; and our review of background
data within the study area. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, the findings
presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted sensitive area
investigation principles and practices in this locality at the time the report was prepared. We make no
other warranty, either express or implied.
This report was prepared by LAI for use by the City. No other party is entitled to rely on the
information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express
l written consent of LAI. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations
J provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review and
authorization by LAI, shall be at the user's sole risk.
Wetlands delineated by LAI are considered preliminary until the USACE and/or local jurisdictional
agencies validate the boundaries. Because wetlands and streams are dynamic communities,
boundaries may change over time. The agencies typically recognize wetland delineations for a period
J of 5 years following an approved jurisdictional determination. In addition, changes in government
1 code, regulations, and/or laws may occur.
J J LS/SJ Q/BAS/j rc
]Y:\238\078.030\R\BR00K LAKE WL-W W DELI NEATION.DOCX]
I
I
I
I
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report 0238078.010.011
Brook Lake Center Connector 5-1 November 17, 2017
J
Landau Associates
6.0 REFERENCES
Brinson, M. 1993. Final Report: A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. East Carolina
University. August.
City of Federal Way. 2015. "City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan."
ilttp:Ilv�v�:..rityoffederalway.��norJe 2i$.
City of Federal Way. 2016. "City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map."
http:j/www;cityoffedeialway.cam/sites/default/files/mapss/sen%itive 2016.Ddf.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. La Roe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. Publication No. FWS/OBS-79-31. US Fish & Wildlife Service, US
Department of the Interior. December.
Ecology. 2016. Final Review: Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management
Act Compliance in Washington State. Publication No. 16-06-029. Washington State Department of
Ecology. October.
USAGE. 2008. Regulatory Guidance Letter. Publication No. No. 08-02. US Army Corps of Engineers.
June 26.
USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western
Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Technical Report ERDC/EL TR-10-3. US Army Corps of
Engineers.
USDA NRCS. 2017a. "National List of Hydric Soils." US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service. �://www.nrcs.tisda-goylwps/por aijnrcsLmainjsoijs/use/hjjLL.
USDA NRCS. 2017b. "Official Soil Series Descriptions (OSDs)."
htt❑s://soiiseries.sc.egoy.usdaov/os nam2.aspx.
USDA NRCS. 2017c. "Retrieving Climate Data and Summary Reports from AgACIS." US Department of
Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service.
htt :' wvdw.wcc.nrL:s.usda puvl c!imate/ nav gate vveus.htrni.
USDA NRCS. 2017d. "Soil Geography." US Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Conservation Service. htt S: " WWW.nres.usda. ov w s/ortal'nres /air /Sails `.SurX>ev �-eo/.'.
USDA NRCS. 2017e. "Web Soil Survey." US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Ott websa�lsiirue .st.e ov.usaa, ov A FiorneF"�E-E.l,trrr.
USFWS. 2017. "National Wetlands Inventory." US Fish & Wildlife Service.
h Lq)s://www-fws.gov/wetlands/Dataliylapper,htm 1.
WDFW. 2017. "Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) on the Web." Washington Department of Fish &
Wildlife.i)ttp://wdtw.wa.gov/irnappinR/phs/.
WDNR. 2017a. "Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool." Washington State Department of Natural
Resources. htt s:/'fc)rtress.wa. ov dnr protection is foam! index.htmi.
WDNR. 2017b. "Natural Heritage Program." Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
http:liwww.diir,wa.gov/natural-lieritage-progran).
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Report 0238078.010.011
Brook Lake Center Connector 6-1 November 17, 2017
Palither
'lake
Park
5 348th
Marlake--
Project Location
Brook Lake
-- 5 356th St
Fife H fights
yL
C- m
� n
F �
0 0.5 1
N
Miles
Data Source: Esri 2012
Wetland/Waterway Delineation
LANDAU Brook Lake Center Connector
AssociAri:s Federal Way, Washington
Celebration
Park
r�chanted
Park
(a
Lakbland
South
A
Federal WayACl ,IT.
)Ivmpt.
Washington
Vicinity Map
Figure
1
1
t �w
1
r
r+
.
�
.r
it
'r
e
�
I
l
r
�
►f
BraakLake %
'6
�
t
C Mlterway Buffer t25-ffl
I
r
L
r
_ _.
— — ^' Wetland A Suffer (190-ft)`
•'�
ti.
r
. '
rL r
,� srvv late
rn riity • rater
II rr
• .
r
i
r
f.
IF
F�
I
� I
r
I
ON- W�-
�
r
r
r
I
►
r
Leeend
Note
1. Project Area was determined
during site 2. Black and white reproduction of this color
• Sampling Point
Project Area (Approximate)
Waterways visit with Tony Doucette,
City of Federal original may reduce Its effectiveness and
Wetland Boundary (Delineated) 0 Study Area (Approximate)
Way Surface Water Management
Project lead to Incorrect Interpretation.
Wetland Boundary (Estimated) L:�JI Wetland/Waterway Buffer
Engineer.
Data Sources: Clty of Fedeal Way„ Esrl WwId Imawy.
- Existing Boardwalk
o
Bo 160
Wetland/Waterway Dellneatlon
Figure
■
LANDAU
Brook Lake Center Connector
Site Features
ASSOCIATES
Scale In Feet
Federal Way, Washington
i
s a
w 0 0
d
c 5• m
a
c
Sor
-
EqQ �t5
Em�wt�
u
asc
o W
aEt
Ll 3sv o Z
- w �-v'
ovt N
a
t
Z.
a
E
m N «
E
WdZ
y d d m
3 E r a
.lo o.mc c
E �
u
nd` avo
o «=9a
mmy N
-ma
W
O d- O
d
W _
C a W
_ —
IS
�n d W
s
�' a
p
o u
c 0 E a_
o 'cam
u
iEo3ns ?i
¢o ma N.°.v
an o oo
-12
a d
'" u c «•'
m
�a Y"a m
c o
1 m
o u$ .-,
3 c c
V u
,a
�
AN-
c
.0 'E m
o `- W o
a.
0 0
x - m v`
Eo
L `cow
a s
o=?E
'°wt_
� W
''-n•Nwm
33o.�E3
o
a o°
75
° `w
Z d �
o
`o
E ° S.fo
c
c
c
F V
V
°
y 6
`m
a o m --0
n
« o
o
N w m
o
n Y
c y
d m°—
r c m
N «
o ad c _`m
V m
q a
m i m
`o v
"
ca . o
mw-
.t w
y
3
a � 3
? o
__
d d m
W
W
-
�
7
c
=
v°i
C
2
C
APPENDIX A
Background Information Review Figures
[A
S7
El
Legend
— Project Area (Approximate)
0 Study Area (Approximate)
Data Sources: USGS/National Geographi
Wetland/Waterway Delineation
LANDAU IBrook Lake Center Connector
ASSOCIATES I Federal Way, Washington
c
f
Note
1. Black and white reproduction of this color
original may reduce its effectiveness and
lead to incorrect interpretation.
0 400 800
Society. Scale in Feet
Figure
Topographic Map A-1
r
PSS/FOA
PSSA
Legend Note
1. Black and white reproduction of this color
Project Area (Approximate) PFOA, PSS/FOA, PSSA, PSSC - original may reduce its effectiveness and
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
0 Study Area (Approximate) lead to incorrect interpretation.
PUBH - Freshwater Pond 0 200 400
Data Sources: USFW; Esri World Imagery. Scale in Feet
Wetland/Waterway Delineation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Bernice Figure
LANDAU Brook Lake Center Connector /�
ASSOCIATES Federal Way, Washington National Wetlands Inventory MapA®2
J
5
.I
Legend
Project Area (Approximate) EwC - Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0-15% Slopes
0 Study Area (Approximate) No - Norma Sanday Loam
Sk -Seattle Muck
W -Water
Data Sources: U5G5; Esri World Imagery,
Wetland/Waterway Delineation
LANDAU Brook Lake Center Connector
ASSOCIATES Federal Way, Washington
Note
1. Black and white reproduction of this color
original may reduce its effectiveness and
lead to incorrect interpretation.
0 200 400
Scale in Feet
Soils Map
Figure
A-3
Legend
— Project Area (Approximate) ® 100-Year Floodplain
Q Study Area (Approximate)
Data Sources: FEMA; Esri World imagery
Wetland/Waterway Delineation
LANDAU Brook Lake Center Connector
ASSOCIATES Federal Way, Washington
Note
1. Black and white reproduction of this color
original may reduce its effectiveness and
lead to incorrect interpretation.
0 3,000 6,000
Scale in Feet
Figure
100-Year Floodplain Map A-4
APPENDIX B
Soil Profile Reports
Official Series Description - F, .ZETT Series
Page 1 of 3
LOCATION EVERETT WA
Established Series
Rev. CABBAL/KMS
11/2014
EVERETT SERIES
The Everett -series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils -that formed in gravelly
and sandy glacial outwash. Slopes are 0 to 65 percent. They occur on kames, moraines, and eskers on
glacial outwash plains and glacial drift plains. The mean annual precipitation is about 1,050
millimeters and the mean annual temperature is about 10 degrees C.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Sandy -skeletal, isotic, mesic Humic Dystroxerepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Everett very gravelly sandy loam - on a north -facing slope of 3 percent at 150
meters elevation in forest. When described on October 21, 2009, the soil was slightly moist
throughout. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted.)
Oi --0 to 3 centimeters; slightly decomposed plant material consisting of leaves, needles, and twigs.
A--3 to 8 centimeters; very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) very gravelly sandy loam, brown (7.5YR 4/3)
dry; weak fine subangular blocky structure; soft, very friable, nonsticky and nonplastic; many very
fine and fine roots; common medium and fine tubular pores; 35 percent gravel, 10 percent cobbles-,
strongly acid (pH 5.3); clear smooth boundary. (3 to 15 centimeters thick)
Bw--8 to 60 centimeters; dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) very gravelly sandy loam, brown (7.5YR 5/4) dry;
weak fine subangular blocky structure; soft, very friable, nonsticky and nonplastic; many very fine
through medium roots; common fine tubular pores; 35 percent gravel, 10 percent cobbles; strongly
acid (pH 5.5); clear wavy boundary. (15 to 55 centimeters thick)
C1--60 to 90 centimeters; dark yellowish brown (I OYR 4/4) very gravelly loamy sand, yellowish
brown (1 OYR 5/4) dry; single grain; loose, nonsticky and nonplastic, common medium and few
coarse roots; many very fine interstitial pores; 40 percent gravel, 10 percent cobbles; strongly acid
(pH 5.5); gradual wavy boundary. (15 to 50 centimeters thick)
C2--90 to 152 centimeters; dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4) extremely cobbly sand, yellowish
brown (I OYR 5/4) dry; single grain; loose, nonsticky and nonplastic; few coarse; roots; many very
fine interstitial; 40 percent gravel, 35 percent cobbles; moderately acid (pH 5.6)
TYPE LOCATION: Thurston County, Washington; Joint Base Lewis-McChord; 629 meters east
and 566 meters south of NW corner of sec.3, T. 17 N., R. 1 E. USGS Tenalquot Prairie Quadrangle;
Latitude - 46 degrees, 59 minutes, 28 seconds N and Longitude - 122 degrees, 40 minutes, 1 second
W, NAD 83.
Lattitude: 46.99097
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/E/EVERETT.html 10/18/2017
I. Official Series Description "_�7ERETT Series I-) Page 2 of 3
1
11
I
Longitude:-122.66686
Datum: WGS84
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS:
Mean annual soil temperature: 9 to 12 degrees C.
Moisture control section: dry 60 to 75 days following the summer solstice
Reaction: moderately acid to very strongly acid
Particle size control section:
> Clay content: 2 to 10 percent
> Rock fragments:
>> Total: 35 to 85 percent
>> Gravel: 35 to 85 percent
>> Cobble: 0 to 40 percent
>> Stone: 0 to 5 percent
A horizon
Hue: 1 OYR, 7.5YR, or 5YR
-� Value: 2 or 3 moist, 4 or 5 dry
Chroma: 1 to 3, moist or dry.
Total fragments: 0 to 65 percent
Gravel content: 0 to 45 percent
Cobble content: 0 to 15 percent
Stone content: 0 to 5 percent
I
d
I
I
J
I
j
Bw horizons
Hue: IOYR or 7.5YR
Value: 3 to 6, moist or dry
Chroma: 2 to 6, moist or dry
Fine -earth texture: silt loam in the upper part ranging to coarse sand, loamy sand, or loamy coarse
sand in the lower part
Total fragments: 35 to 55 percent
Gravel content: 35 to 85 percent
Cobble content: 0 to 40 percent
Stone content: 0 to 5 percent
C horizons
Hue: 7.5YR to 5Y
Value: 3 or 6 moist, 4 to 6 dry
Chroma: 1 to 6, moist or dry
Fine -earth texture: coarse sandy loam, loamy sand, or loamy coarse sand in the lower part
Total fragments: 35 to 55 percent
Gravel'content: 35 to 85 percent
Cobble content: 0 to 40 percent
Stone content: 0 to 5 percent
COMPETING SERIES: There are no competing series in this family.
jhttps://soilseries.se.egov.usda.gov/OSD__Docs/E/BVERETT.html 10/18/2017
Official Series Description - E , _AETT Series
Page 3 of I
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: The Everett soils occur on kames, eskers and moraines on glacial
outwash plains and drift plains with at elevations of 10 to 275 meters. Slopes are 0 to 65 percent. The
climate consists of cool and dry summers and mild and wet winters. Mean annual precipitation is
generally 900 to 1800 millimeters, but ranges as high as 2300 millimeters in Mason County, WA.
Mean January temperature is 2 degrees C; mean July temperature is 17 degrees C; and the mean
annual temperature is 10 degrees C. The frost -free season is 180 to 240 days.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are the Alderwood, Baldhill, Indianola, and
Kgowsin soils. Alderwood soils have a densic contact at a depth of 50 to 100 cm and are on drift
plains and moraines. Indianola soils are sandy throughout on hills, terrace escarpments, eskers, and
kames. Kapowsin soils are coarse -loamy and on glacial drift plains. Baldhill soils are loamy -skeletal
and on terminal moraines.
DRAINAGE AND SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY: Somewhat excessively
drained; high to very high saturated hydraulic conductivity.
USE AND VEGETATION: Everett soils are mainly used for pasture, timber production, urban
development, and a source of sand and gravel. Potential natural vegetation includes bigleaf maple, red
alder, Douglas -fir, western redcedar, western hemlock, salal, hairy brackenfern, red huckleberry,
Nootka rose, oceanspray, and Cascade Oregongrape and orange honeysuckle
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Northwest Washington MLRA 2, Puget Sound Area. Series is of
large extent.
MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: Portland, Oregon
SERIES ESTABLISHED: 1910 Reconnaissance Survey of Eastern Puget Sound Basin, Washington.
REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this soil:
Ochric epipedon - 0 to 18 cm
Cambic horizon - 8 to 60 cm (Bw horizon)
In 1974 Everett was classified as a Dytric Xerochrepts. In 1994 it was changed to Vitrandic
Dystrochrept but lab analyses did not support the Vitrandic sub group so it was changed to Typic
Dystroxerpts in 2010. The Everett series does contain some volcanic ash but not enough to meet the
Vitrandic subgroup criteria. In 2011 it was changed to Humic Dystroxerepts. In 2014 Everett was
harmonized with the SDJR initiative and minor edits were made to the OSD.
ADDITIONAL DATA: Laboratory data is available for this series. National Soil Survey Laboratory
S09WA067069, S09WA053124, S09WA-053-001
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
https:Hsoilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/E/EVERETT.html 10/18/2017
Official Series Description' �')�ATTLE Series
Page 1 of 3
-1 LOCATION SEATTLE WA
Established Series
Rev. RFP/DES/RJE
01/2000
SEATTLE SERIES
The Seattle series consists of very deep, very poorly drained organic soils formed in herbaceous and
woody deposits in depressions in river valleys and glacial till plains. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent.
Average annual precipitation is about 40 inches. Mean annual temperature is about 50 degrees F.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Euic, mesic Hemic Haplosaprists
TYPICAL PEDON: Seattle muck, pasture. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted.)
Oap--O to 11 inches; black (5YR 2/1) muck, black (10YR 2/1) dry; about 10 percent fibers, less than
1 percent rubbed; strong fine granular structure; hard, very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; many roots;
strongly acid (pH 5.4); clear smooth boundary. (10 to 13 inches thick)
1 Oe--11 to 17 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 2/2) mucky peat, black (1OYR 2/1) and dark brown
(10YR 4/3) dry; about 60 percent fibers, 25 percent rubbed; laminar structure; very hard, very friable,
1 nonsticky, nonplastic; common roots; strongly acid (pH 5.1); clear smooth boundary. (3 to 12 inches
thick)
Oat--17 to 21 inches; black (5YR 2/1) muck, black (5YR 2/1) dry; about 5 percent fibers, less than 1
percent rubbed; massive; very hard, very friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; few roots; very
strongly acid (pH 4.8); clear wavy boundary. (0 to 6 inches thick)
Oa2--21 to 35 inches; very dark brown (7.5YR 2/2) muck, very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) and
pale brown (IOYR 6/3) dry; about 45 percent fibers, 15 percent rubbed; massive, very hard, very
friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; few roots; moderately acid (pH 6.0); clear smooth boundary. (12 to 17
inches thick)
O'e--35 to 60 inches; dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) mucky peat, very dark brown (1 OYR 2/2) and brown
(10YR 5/3) dry; about 70 percent fibers, 35 percent rubbed; massive; very hard, very friable,
nonsticky, nonplastic; few roots; moderately acid (pH 5.8 water).
TYPE LOCATION: King County, Washington; 200 feet east, 500 feet north of center sec. 2,
T.24N., R.5E.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: The organic deposits range in depth from 51 inches to more
than 40 feet. Mean annual soil temperature is 47 to 52 degrees F. The difference between mean winter
and mean summer soil temperature is 15 to 30 degrees F. Fibers are mostly from sedges but some
pedons are up to 25 percent wood fragments. The subsurface and bottom tiers (12 to 51 inches)
contain 10 to 25 inches of heroic material. The soils are very strongly acid or moderately acid._
J
Ihttps://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD Docs/S/SEATTLE.html 10/18/2017
Official Series Description - SI_ _'TLE Series Page 2 of 3"
The surface tier (0 to 12 inches) has hue of 1 OYR, 7.5YR, or SYR, value of 1 to 4 moist, 2 to 6 dry,
and chroma of 1 to 4 moist or dry. It is sapric material, with 5 to 40 percent fibers, unrubbed, and less
than 10 percent rubbed. This tier has moderate or strong granular structure.
The subsurface tier (12 to 36 inches) has hue of 1OYR, 7.5YR, or 1OYR, value of 2 or 3 moist, 2 to 7
dry, and chroma of 1 to 5 moist or dry. It is more than one-half sapric material. It is sapric and hemic
material with thin layers of sedge peat. The fiber content ranges from 30 to 70 percent, 10 to 35
percent rubbed.
The bottom tier (36 to 51 inches) is similar in color to the subsurface tier and fiber content is
generally higher than the subsurface tier.
COMPETING SERIES: This is the Piauebop- series and the.similar McMurray series. Pinnebog
soils have a difference between mean winter and mean summer temperature of more than 30 degrees
F and the soil reaction of Pinnebog soils are typically slightly alkaline. McMurray soils are
dominantly hemic material in the subsurface tier.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: The Seattle soils are in depressions on glacial till plains and river
terraces at elevations ranging from near sea level to 1,000 feet. Seattle soils formed in organic
materials. These soils occur in a mild marine climate having cool dry summers and mild wet winters.
The average annual precipitation is 25 to 50 inches. The average January temperature is 38 degrees F,
the average July temperature is 64 degrees F, and the mean,annual temperature is 50 degrees F. The
average frost free season is 150 to 250 days.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are the Alderwood, Buckley, Everett, and
Shalcar soils. Alderwood, Buckley, and Everett soils are all mineral soils. In addition, Alderwood
soils are loamy -skeletal. Everett soils are sandy -skeletal. Buckley soils are fine -loamy. Shalcar soils
have a loamy substratum within 51 inches.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Very poorly drained; very slow to ponded runoff; moderate
permeability.
USE AND VEGETATION: Most Seattle soils have been cleared and drained for use as cropland or
pasture. Hay, com silage, blueberries, and truck crops are common crops. In the natural state the
vegetation consists of red alder, western red cedar, black cottonwood and Sitka spruce with an
understory of sedge, rush, cattail, hardhack, trailing blackberry, red elderberry, devilsclub, Siberian
miners lettuce, trillium, salmonberry, and ladyfem.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: This series is of moderate extent in the Puget Sound Basin of
Western Washington.
MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: Portland, Oregon
SERIES ESTABLISHED: King County, Washington, 1970.
REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are a surface tier from the
surface to 12 inches that is sapric material from 0 to 11 inches and hemic from 11 to 12 inches, a
subsurface tier from 12 to 36 inches that is sapric for 18 inches and hemic for 6 inches, and a bottom
tier from 36 to 51 inches that is hemic throughout.
https://soilseries.se.egov.usda.gov/OSD—Does/S/SEATTLE.html 10/18/2017
Official Series Description TILE Series
Page 3 of 3
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U. S.A.
https://soilseiies.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD—Docs/S/SEATTLE.hbnl 10/18/2017
APPENDIX C
Precipitation Data
WETS Table
WETS Station: SEATTLE
TACOMA INTL AP, WA
Requested years: 1971 - 2000
Month
Avg Max
Avg Min
Avg
Avg
30%
30%chance
Avg number
Avg
Temp
Temp
Mean
Precip
chance
precip more
days precip 0.
Snowfall
Temp
precip less
than
10 or more
than
Jan
45.8
35.9
40.9
5.13
3.58
6.10
12
2.4
Feb
49.5
37.2
43.3
4.18
2.73
5.02
10
1.3
Mar
53.2
39.1
46.2
3.75
2.77
4.40
11
0.6
Apr
58.2
42.1
50.1
2.59
1.71
3.11
7
0.1
May
64.3
47.2
55.7
1.77
1.16
2.13
6
0.0
Jun
69.5
51.7
60.6
1.49
0.96
1.79
4
0.0
Jul
75.2
55.3
65.3
0.79
0.43
0.97
3
0.0
Aug
75.5
55.7
65.6
1.02
0.38
1.24
3
0.0
Sep
70.1
51.9
61.0
1.63
0.69
1.90
5
0.0
Oct
59.7
45.7
52.7
3.19
1.96
3.86
8
0.1
Nov
50.5
39.9
45.2
5.90
4.10
7.02
13
1.1
Dec
45.4
35.9
40.7
5.62
3.94
6.68
12
1.9
Annual:
33.52
40.09
Average
59.7
44.8
52.3
Total
37.07
92
7.5
GROWING SEASON DATES
Years with missing data:
24 deg =
28 deg =
32 deg =
0
0
0
Years with no occurrence:
24 deg =
28 deg =
32 deg =
8
2
0
Data years used:
24 deg =
28 deg =
32 deg =
30
30
30
Probability
24 F or
28 For
32 F or
higher
higher
higher
50 percent*
1 /20 to
2/7 to 12/
3/9 to
12/30:
10:306
11/16:
344 days
days
252 days
70 percent *
1 /2 to 1 /
1 /31 to
3/3 to
18:381
12/17:
11/22:
days
320 days
264 days
* Percent chance of the
growing season occurring
between the Beginning and
Ending dates.
STATS TABLE -total
precipitation (inches)
Yr
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annl
1945
4.62
6.14
4.33
3.34
2.62
0.62
0.11
0.31
3.
2.
6.
6.
40.
51
32
31
31
54
1946
5.29
5.83
3.71
2.46
0.41
3.90
0.56
0.33
2.
3.
5.
6.
40.
58
22
53
47
29
1947
4.20
4.02
2.40
2.17
0.35
2.15
1.04
0.49
1.
8.
3.
6.
37.
84
95
62
02
25
1948
4.49
5.25
3.68
3.75
4.76
2.09
1.53
1.87
3.
2.
6.
6.
45.
85
33
06
13
79
1949
0.77
6.89
3.54
1.18
1.30
0.93
1.04
0.45
1.
3.
6.
5.
32.
43
85
78
30
46
1950
8.91
5.74
8.40
2.92
0.78
0.59
1.00
2.17
2.
7.
7.
7.
55.
30
21
98
14
14
1951
6.80
8.76
3.76
0.65
1.61
0.13
0.31
1.02
2.
5.
5.
3.
40.
03
87
4U
92
30
1952
4.89
2.46
3.52
2.03
0.99
1.04
0.41
0.70
0.
1.
1.
5.
23.
32
29
11
02
78
1953
12.92
3.70
3.72
2.10
2.51
1.85
0.66
1.11
3.
4.
7.
5.
49.
28
43
22
92
42
1954
8.36
4.38
2.07
2.64
1.89
2.44
1.46
1.57
1.
1.
7.
5.
41.
68
91
67
20
27
1955
3.35
4.30
3.25
3.64
1.95
1.27
2.10
0.17
1.
6.
8.
9.
46.
52
60
96
50
61
1956
8.67
2.17
4.95
0.33
0.83
2.47
0.33
0.76
2.
6.
1.
5.
36.
42
71
59
62
85
1957
2.41
5.57
6.26
2.23
1.17
1.18
1.10
1.64
0.
3.
3.
5.
34.
76
79
00
52
63
1958
8.72
5.36
2.26
3.51
0.94
0.90
T
0.31
1.
3.
8.
7.
42.
42
99
07
15
63
1959
7.98
3.64
4.12
3.59
1.60
1.82
0.93
0.60
4.
2.
8.
6.
46.
60
67
14
83
52
1960
5.48
4.01
4.08
2.88
3.04
0.70
T
1.92
1.
4.
B.
3.
39.
17
22
03
75
28
1961
7.71
9.11
4.46
2.35
3.07
0.54
0.75
0.82
0.
3.
4.
5.
42.
46
27
67
32
53
1962
2.43
2.29
2.86
2.03
1.82
0.68
0.69
1.96
2.
4.
9.
5.
35.'
31
16
34
22
79
1963
2.25
4.36
3.43
3.06
0.90
1.68
1.18
0.73
0.
5.
9.
5.
38.
59
06
69
79
72
1964
9.76
1.66
2.96
1.56
0.91
3.82
0.99
1.23
2.
1.
9.
5.
41.
27
00
65
53
34
1965
5.27
3.B8
0.57
3.73
1.63
0.59
0.38
2.18
0.
2.
4.
7.
33.
49
76
98
10
56
1966
5.43
2.31
4.38
1.99
1.35
1.15
1.35
0.42
1.
2.
6.
S.
38.
77
92
85
31
23
1967
9.32
2.72
3.71
2.50
0.38
2.04
0.01
0.02
0.
6.
2.
4.
35.
94
66
56
72
58
1968
6.90
6.08
5.08
1.33
1.67
3.02
0.83
4.58
1.
4.
5.
8.
50.
93
32
86
55
15
1969
5.71
3.16
2.20
3.45
2.93
0.91
0.27
0.45
5.
1.
2.
5.
33.
57
19
21
68
73
1970
8.22
2.26
3.16
3.31
1.17
0.43
0.48
0.32
2.
2.
5.
8.
37.
23
52
03
28
41
1971
5.32
4.36
7.12
2.39
1.43
2.28
0.68
0.57
3.
3.
5.
6.
43.
51
57
31
67
21
1972
7.24
8.11
6.74
4.12
0.69
1.81
1.34
1.13
4.
0.
3.
B.
48.
10
72
38
98
36
1973
4.29
1.89
1.62
1.35
1.60
2.50
0.08
0.27
1.
3.
7.
8.
35.
81
31
99
33
04
1974
7.78
4.01
5.84
2.39
1.37
1.25
1.51
0.01
0.
1.
5.
6.
37.
21
99
06
45
87
1975
6.01
5.80
2.87
2.49
1.13
0.84
0.27
4.59
T
7.
5.
7.
44.
75
07
66
48
1976
5.55
4.74
2.71
1.67
1.61
0.63
1.17
2.71
1.
2.
0.
1.
26.
25
06
74
86
70
1977
1.77
1.58
3.80
0.55
3.70
0.54
0.42
3.59
2.
2.
5.
6.
32.
55
60
27
47
84
1978
4.30
3.59
2.43
4.19
1.79
0.75
1.40
1.19
5.
0.
6.
1.
33.
95
98
05
37
99
1979
2.25
5.32
1.55
0.81
0.88
0.46
0.73
1.02
2.
3.
1.
11.
32.
07
38
94
85
26
1980
4.09
5.04
2.10
3.23
0.97
1.77
0.46
0.64
1.
1.
7.
7.
35.
43
32
16
39
60
1981
2.42
4.45
2.23
1.58
1.33
2.31
1.38
0.25
3.
6.
4.
5.
35.
42
40
07
56
40
1982
5.35
7.57
3.73
2.07
0.63
1.03
0.59
0.62
1.
4.
5.
6.
39.
49
07
31
86
32
1983
7.07
4.57
3.81
1.06
2.10
1.85
2.39
1.90
1.
1.
7.
5.
40.
85
34
97
02
93
1984
3.62
3.91
3.91
2.87
3.38
2.81
0.17
0.13
1.
2.
8.
4.
36.
01
14
09
95
99
1985
0.58
2.63
2.56
1.30
0.85
2.80
0.10
0.55
1.
5.
4.
1.
25.
98
74
26
78
13
1986
8.54
4.41
2.67
1.38
1.71
0.68
1.10
0.10
1.
4.
7.
3.
38.
89
21
98
67
34
1987
5.98
2.05
5.53
2.61
2.38
0.16
0.39
0.29
0.
0.
3.
6.
29.
I
I
I
I
j
j
91
31
21
11
93
1988
4.07
0.71
3.76
3.20
3.01
1.56
0.50
0.28
1.
2.
B.
3.
32.
75
24
43
48
98
1989
2.78
3.43
5.79
2.80
2.78
1.14
0.64
0.89
0.
2.
6.
4.
34.
54
98
13
79
69
1990
9.41
3.72
2.58
2.54
1.98
3.05
0.58
0.71
0.
5.
10.
3.
44.
05
79
71
63
75
1991
4.46
4.69
4.66
6.53
1.39
1.29
0.28
2.17
T
1.
5.
3.
35.
31
33
31
42
1992
7.82
3.09
1.68
4.12
0.12
1.14
0.89
0.66
1.
2.
5.
4.
32.
15
45
57
09
78
1993
4.09
0.35
4.80
4.54
2.86
2.48
1.27
0.16
0.
1.
2.
4.
28.
03
54
20
48
80
1994
2.51
4.47
3.17
2.27
1.43
1.25
0.28
0.30
1.
3.
5.
8.
34.
69
51
79
15
82
1995
4.48
4.97
4.07
2.05
0.81
1.46
1.34
1.81
0.
3.
10.
6.
42.
91
93
40
37
60
1996
7.34
8.35
2.06
5.37
2.07
0.59
0.77
1.32
1.
5.
5.
10.
50.
85
54
23
18
67
1997
7.02
1.99
8.15
4.32
1.87
1.64
1.20
L27
3.
5.
3.
2.
43.
41
83
93
63
26
1998
7.15
3.31
3.96
0.99
1.98
M1.11
0.41
0.35
0.
3.
11.
B.
44.
72
48
62
98
06
1999
6.84
6.95
3.66
1.49
2.12
1.86
1.18
0.92
0.
2.
9.
5.
42.
17
26
60
06
11
2000
3.77
5.25
2.82
1.48
3.27
1.61
0.23
0.33
1.
3.
3.
2.
28.
12
00
27
51
66
2001
2.70
2.07
2.73
3.16
1.39
3.05
1.03
2.32
0.
3.
9.
5.
37.
83
13
26
89
56
2002
5.98
4.17
2.82
4.29
1.11
1.73
0.64
0.04
0.
0.
3.
5.
31.
42
67
51
98
36
2003
8.39
1.76
6.34
2.74
1.16
0.51
0.06
0.32
0.
B.
6.
3.
41.
89
96
77
88
78
2004
6.36
2.44
2.14
0.65
2.51
0.71
0.16
3.00
2.
2.
3.
4.
31.
80
80
16
37
10
2005
4.44
1.20
3.71
3.68
3.32
1.63
1.03
0.29
MO.
3.
5.
6.
35.
75
02
52
85
44
2006
11.65
2.55
2.18
2.73
1.65
1.67
0.06
0.02
1.
1.
15.
7.
48.
43
55
63
30
42
2007
6.22
3.38
4.42
0.69
1.46
1.34
1.44
0.73
3.
3.
3.
9.
38.
16
32
71
08
95
2008
4.26
1.47
3.65
1.90
0.89
1.64
0.48
2.87
0.
2.
6.
4.
30.
78
17
52
10
73
2009
5.40
1.51
4.16
3.36
3.61
0.18
0.06
1.16
1.
5.
B.
2.
38.
75
54
96
75
44
2010
6.17
3.52
3.76
3.49
2.83
2.49
0.31
0.64
4.
5.
5.
8.
46.
80
24
05
69
99
2011
4.99
3.05
6.29
4.47
3.20
1.42
0.70
0.13
1.
3.
5.
2.
36.
29
45
16
24
39
2012
6.83 ,
3.63
7.20
2.68
2.05
2.96
1.04
T
0.
6.
8.
6.
48.
03
71
28
85
26
2013
4.16
1.58
2.74
5.89
2.38
1.30
T
1.35
6.
1.
3.
1.
32.
17
54
79
66
56
2014
3.70
6.11
9.44
4.18
3.15
0.73
0.77
1.81
2.
6.
4.
4.
48.
23
75
84
79
50
2015
3.66
5.27
4.47
2.03
0.58
0.23
0.09
3.28
0.
4.
8.
11.
44.
83
81
37
21
83
2016
7.45
5.97
5.52
1.19
0.94
1.77
0.72
0.17
1.
10.
6.
3.
45.
05
05
48
87
18
2017
4.22
8.85
7.32
4.21
2.28
1.52
T
0.02
0.
M0.
29.
59
58
59
Notes: Data missing in any
month have an "M" flag. A "T"
indicates a trace of
precipitation.
Data missing for all days in a
month or year is blank.
Creation date: 2016-07-22
NRCS method - Rainfall Documentation Worksheet Hydrology Tools for Wetland Determination
NRCS Fnoineerinn Field Handbook Chanter 19
Date
10/16/2017
Landowner/Project Brooks Lake Center Connector
Weather Station
SeaTac Intl AP
State WA
County
King
Growing Season 2/7 to 12/10
Photo/obs Date
10/10/20171
Soil Name
shaded cells are
locked or calculated
1st Prior Month*
2nd Prior Month*
3rd Prior Month*
Long-term rainfall statistics
(from WETS table or State
Climatology Office) __
Month
30%
chance
<
30%
chance
>
Precip
Condition
Dry, Wet,
Normal
Condition
Value
Month
Weight
Value
Product of
Previous 2
Columns
September
0.69
1.90
0.59
D
1
3
3
.Au ust
0.38
1.24
0.02
D
1
2
2
July
0.431
0.97
0.00
D
1
11
1
*compared to vhoto/observation
date Sum
Note: If sum is
6-9 prior period has been drier
than normal
10- 14 prior period has been normal
15 - 18 prior period has been wetter
than normal
Conclusions: prior period has been drier than normal
Condition value:
DKy =1
Normal =2
Wet =3
APPENDIX D
Wetland Determination Forms
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Brook Lake Center Connector City/County: Federal Way. King County Sampling Date:10-10-17
Applicant/Owner: City of Federal Way State: WA Sampling Point: SP-1
Investigator(s): Jamie Sloan Section, Township, Range: S29. T21 N. R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): <1
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: NAD 1983
Soil Map Unit Name: Seattle Muck NWI classification: PFOA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ❑ No ® (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑
Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑
within a Wetland.
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑
Remarks: Hydrologic conditions for the 3-month period prior to the site visit were drier than normal.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Yes ® No ❑
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30')
°% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1, Tsu a hetero h Ila
75
Yes FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2. Alnus rubra
7
No FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
82
= Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80 (A/B)
SaplinglShrub Stratum (Plot size: 16)
1. Rubus snectabilis
10
Yes FAC
Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Frangula nurshiana
10
Yes FAC
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3.
OBL species x 1 =
4.
FACW species x 2 =
5.
FAC species x 3 =
20
= Total Cover
FACU species x 4 =
Herb Siralum (Plot size: 5')
UPL species x 5 =
1. Maianthemum ditatatum
40
Yes FAC
Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Lysichiton americanus
10
Yes OBL
3
Prevalence Index = B/A =
4
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
B
® Dominance Test is >50%
7
❑ Prevalence Index is s3.0'
8
❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9.
❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
10.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
50
= Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30')
-
1'
Hydrophytic
2•
Vegetation
0
= Total Cover
Present? Yes ® No ❑
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 50
Remarks: Most of the Tsuga heterophylla were located on upland hummocks.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: SP-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)_ %
CDlor [moist] % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
04 7.5YR 2.5/1 100
Fibrous root laver
4-14 10YR 2/1 100
Peat
14+ Root Refusal
'T : C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covaied or Coated Sand Grains. Location; 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)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:`
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary,Indicators minimum of one required: check all that apply)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more Teg uired
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2,
® High Water Table (A2)
1, 2, 4A, and 413)
4A, and 413)
® Saturation (A3)
❑ Salt Crust (B11)
❑ Drainage Patterns (610)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
® 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 (B4)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ®
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑
Depth (inches): 8
Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑
Depth (inches): 4
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑
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: Brook Lake Center Connector City/County: Federal Way, King County Sampling Date: 10-10-17
Applicant/Owner: City of Federal Way State: WA Sampling Point: SP-2
Investigator(s): Jamie Sloan Section, Township, Range: S29, T21N. R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): <1
Subregion (LRR). A Lat: Long: Datum: NAD 1983
Soil Map Unit Name: Everett Gravelly Sandy- Loam 0-151/oSlopes NWI classification: PFOA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ❑ No ® (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑
Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No-0-Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No 10
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Hydrologic conditions for the 3-month period prior to the site visit were drier than normal. SP-2 is located within an upland inclusion within
Wetland A.
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30')
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Tsuga heteroohvlla _
75
Yes FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Alnus rubra
10
No FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
85
= Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33 (A/B)
5aglinolShrub Stratum (Plot size: 16)
1. Ilex aguifolium
1
Yes FACU
Prevalence Index worksheet:
2,
Total % Cover of: Mu
OBL species x 1 =
3•
4•
FACW species x 2 =
5,
FAC species x 3 =
1
= Total Cover
FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5')
UPL species x 5 =
1. Maianthemum dilatatum
2
Yes FAC
Column Totals: (A) (B)
2.
3
Prevalence Index = B/A =
q
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
❑ Dominance Test is >50%
7
❑ Prevalence Index is 153.0'
g
❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9.
❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
10.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2
= Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30')
1.
Hydrophytic
2
Vegetation
0
= Total Cover
Present? Yes ❑ No
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 98
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: SP-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' Locz
Texture Remarks
0-4 7.5YR 2.511 100
Fibrous root laver
4-12 10YR 2/2 100
Peat
12+ Root Refusal
'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)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type
Depth (inches):_
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Primary Indicators Iminimurn of one reouired: check all that aooly)
Secondary Indicators 2 or more re uirsd
❑ Surface Water (All)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2,
❑ High Water Table (A2)
1, 2, 4A, and 46)
4A, and 413)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Salt Crust (1311)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (613)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑ 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 Stressed 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)
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No
(includes capillary fringe)
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
APPENDIX E
Selected Site_Photographs
- YC _ .. • - 1 .�
Fw
_ 1
41)
yi "y y'•:�/�-ter
y"��_'"rs�
`.�Y'
../•�- -fir.
- •
F a:
Wetland/Waterway
a. Delineation
Brook - Center
Selected Site Photographs
E-I
a '
Federal•
3. Looking east at where the proposed trail within Wetland A will connect to the
existing boardwalk.
4. Looking southwest at SP-2, an upland inclusion within Wetland A.
Wetland/Waterway Figure
LANDAU Delineation Selected Site Photographs
AASSOCIATES Brook Lake CenterE_2
Federal Way, Washington L
I
J
J
APPENDIX F
Wetland. Ratings Forms
- , '41., =r
1-
w
1
L 1.4L. ..
a
A
� r
Outlet
.. - _ .. .
Legend Note
1. Black and white reproduction of this color
—'� Wetland Boundary Permanently Flooded original may reduce its effectiveness and
Wetland Boundary (Estimated) Seasonally Flooded lead to incorrect interpretation.
Saturated Only 0 800 1,600
Data Sources: City of Federal Wav: Fsri World Imagerv- Scale in Feet
Wetland/Waterway Delineation Figure
LANDALI Brook Lake Center Connector Hydroperiods F-2
ASSOCI,'0 E-S Federal Way, Washington
1
► ry ►
!
t` Jt
r ,,� � � � � � � i �
r�
•,,,
,cam .� � � �� �'
��
`
1*� ' Y It, W \4/
41
4'
W +
f�
i+
' r
_
I
r r
•�� � r
1
t �
J !
00
OF
r ►
r
fol
� �
I
Legend
Note
® Wetland Boundary L7j Boundary Area 150-ft
1. Black and white reproduction of this color
original may reduce its effectiveness and
®— Wetland Boundary (Estimated)
lead to incorrect interpretation.
0 800 1,600
Data Sources: City of Federal Way; Esri World Imagery.
Scale in Feet
Wetland/Waterway Delineation
Boundary within 150-ft Figure
LANDAU Brook Lake Center Connector
m3
ASSOCIATES Federal Way, Washington
of
Wetlands 1
N
\ .� /
IPWIP
\
_ s
Legend
Wetland Boundary C-1-Kilometer Wetland Buffer
Wetland Boundary (Estimated) Relatively Undisturbed Habitat
Data Sources: City of Federal Way; Esri World Imagery.
Wetland/Waterway Delineation
-i9rr IVA*
. -- - •
N
Note
1. Black and white reproduction of this color
original may reduce its effectiveness and
lead to incorrect interpretation.
0 1,750 3,500
Scale in Feet
LANDAU Brook Lake Center Connector 1-Kilometer Wetland Buffer
Assoctm-r-s I Federal Way, Washington
Figure
IF-5
M�
tl
I
v
tl
- G
tl
Ni
i
,ram,
�
�
b
yC
F
C
N
�
�
10
0
=
v
v
a
j41
0
Y
ri
cnran
m
v
3
o a
o o
0 0 0 0 N
o
0
o01
G
0QI 0
0
p oI oNI
Dz
�+
d
u
i5 c3
U-
I -
AAW
L LL LL
+r
V
fn
O
M
C
O L
u
N Cl) O
C � OD
C C
lD
U
O f0 G1
r4 3
? N A
o mUN
�
O Y
W J
L Q
i o "
L°n � m
x
E
o`
=3: s. 3.1 t: :"'i _ e--ie � •y31e_.y;la:�:J :^17�.�•: @•l:drt�f-'Y'_� _ — u:is�. .. .- -,
WRIA 10: Puyallup -White
The following table lists overview information for neater quality improvement projects
(also i:nc�rtn as total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs) For this crater resource inventor),
area IVJRIk , P}ease use links ;:,,-:here.available) for more information on a project.
Counties
• Kiro County
v Pierce Count,<
Le.
r Waterbody Name Pollutant
Clarks Creek I Dissolved Oxygen
Meek- Creek Sediment
� 1
Fecal Coliform
t_
i`
Status** TMDL Leads
Approved by EPA Donovan Grav
i
360-4,^,7-5407
Has an implementation
I
olan
Approved by EPA
I
Has an implementation !
plar,
i
Carman[enn nt Rm.
Dioxin
I
I Approved by EPA.
Donovan Grav
l
360-407-5407
PLI.41uo ki•:3^ irate -area i Fecal Coliform �W
Approved by EPA. v
. Donovan araY'^—
h
— —
1136a-407-6407
i•"JitrCarameter
Approved by EPA.
i
I
,Ammonia-N
1
boo (5-day)
!
E
White River
Natershed
I
Approved b; EPA.
Upper White,
I
f
+"
• Sediment
Temperature
i
Under Development
Lower ',":hive
PH
I
j
South Prairie Creek
Fecal ColifornT
Approved by EPA
Oonnvan Gray
i
Tributary:
Temperature
f 36,0-4D7-S407
Has an implementation
I
Nlilkesorr`Gaie
clan
res k
I
1
Source: Ecology 2016b
Wetland/Waterway Delin. Figure
LANDAU Brook Lake Center TMDLs
1AASSOCIATES Connector F_7
Federal Way, Washington
Wetland A
RATING SUMMARY —Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland A
Rated by JLS
HGM Class used for rating Depressional & Flats
Date of site visit: 10/10/2017
Trained by Ecology? D Yes ❑ No Date of training 9/26/2014
Wetland has multiple HGM classes? O Yes ❑ No
NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ESRI World Imagery
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY I (based on functions Dor special characteristics D )
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
X Category I - Total score = 23 - 27
Category II - Total score = 20 - 22
Category III - Total score =16 -19
Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION
Improving
Hydrologic
I Habitat
Water Quality
List appropriate rating (N, M, L)
Site Potential
H
M
M
Landscape Potential
H
H
M
Value
H
M
H
Score Based on
9
7
7
Ratings
Total
23
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC
Category
Estuarine
Wetland of High Conservation Value
I
Bog
I
Mature Forest
Old Growth Forest
Coastal Lagoon
Interdunal
None of the above
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 - January 14, 2015
Wetland A
Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Dearessional Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
F-1
Hydroperiods
D 1.4, H 1.2
F-2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods)
D 1.1, D 4.1
F-2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)
D 2.2, D 5.2
F-3
Map of the contributing basin
D 4.3, D 5.3
F-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
F-5
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
D 3.1, D 3.2
F-6
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
D 3.3
F-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 kni 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
Slone 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 - January 14, 2015
Wetland A
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?
O 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)?
ID 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).
0 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.
R1 NO-goto5
❑ 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?
1 p The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding
_1I from that stream or river,
p The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
I❑ NO-goto6
[21 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 3 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland A
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 0 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.
0 NO-goto8
❑ 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 - January 14, 2015
Wetland A
I
j
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
0J
Wetland A
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
❑ 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key)
with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).
points = 3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly
constricted permanently flowing outlet.
points = 2
2
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet
that is permanently flowing
points = 1
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is
a permanently flowing ditch.
points = 1
D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface for duff layer] is true clay or true organic
(use_NRCS-definitions_). ___ _ Yes-=
4 -No = 0
4
D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of oersistent plants (Emergent. Scrub -shrub, and/or
Forested Cowardin classes):
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area
points = 5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > V of area
points = 3
5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area
points = 1
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area
points = 0
D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal pondinctcor inundation:
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual.
Area seasonally ponded is > Yz total area of wetland
points = 4
4
Area seasonally ponded is >'/ total area of wetland
points = 2
Area seasonally ponded is < 1/ total area of wetland
points = 0
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes abovel
7157J
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 -16 = H . 6 -11 = M '__0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0
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?
0
Source Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes abovel
3
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ._ .. 3 or 4 = H ... 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river,
lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
1
D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list?
Yes=1 No=O
1
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 above
4
Rating of Value If score is: i 2 - 4 = H . 1 = M . 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 - January 14, 2015
Wetland A
DEPRESSIONAL AND 'FLATS WETLANDS
Hydrologic Farrctfar�s - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding arld 5trc3r71 dr-,gradation
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
❑ Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3
O 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 ponding 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.
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5
3
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 abovel
8
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 012 -16 = H 26 -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 discharges? 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.)?
Yes =1 No=O
1
Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above
3
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 0 3 = H ❑ 1 or 2 = M ❑ 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
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):
a Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -
gradient of unit. points = 2 1
a 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
There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. oint = 0
D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood
conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland A
Total For D 6 Add the points in the boxes abovel 1
Rating of Value If score is: ❑ 2 - 4 = H E 1 = M ❑ 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland A
n
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the
Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be
combined for each class to meet the threshold of'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
Li Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points - 1
Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous,
moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime
has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ac to count (see text for descriptions of
hydroperiods ).
�? Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
2
Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0
-' Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
L' 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
2
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.
OD
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 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland A
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number
of points.
Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long)
Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends
at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at
least 33 ft (10 m)
Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat -for denning
(> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees
that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed)
At least'/ 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 )
4
Total for 1H_1 Add the points in the boxes above _ 13 1
Rating of Site Potential If Score is: - -115 -18 = H 0 7 - 14 = M ❑ 0 - 6 = L Hecord the raring on me irrst page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat function of the site?
H 2.1 Accessible habitats include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate:
18 % undisturbed habitat + ( 5 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2) = 20.5%
If total accessible habitat is:
2
> 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:
40 % undisturbed habitat + { 8 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2) = 44%
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
<_ 50% of 1km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes abovel
1
Rating of Landscape Potential If Score is: 4 - 6 = H n 1 - 3 = M LJ < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose
only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant
or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 2
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the
Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or
regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a
watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
I
1
I
I
I
I
j
Wetland A
Rating of Value If Score is: 0 2 = H ❑ 1 = M ❑ 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11
WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland A
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.
httn://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw0a165�df or access the list from here:
h ttp:llwdfw. wa. govlcon s e rv_a Lion /p hs/l i s 11
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.
;i Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
F1 Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species
of native_ fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -_growth west of Cascade crest — Stands of at least 2 tree species,
forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha)
> 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests — Stands with average diameters
exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of
snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200
years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy
coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 — see
web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a
dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161— see web link above).
L-i 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.
El Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
❑ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m),
composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May
be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay
characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast
height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12
in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 12 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland A
addressed elsewhere.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 13 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland A
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Category
Check off any criteria that apply to the'wailand. List the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
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 0 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 = Cate a I No - Go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least_ two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing,
and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are
Spartina , see page 25)
At least 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 = Cate ory 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 ❑No - Go to SC2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
CI 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/datasearch/wnhpwetiands.pdf
❑ 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 = CategoUi 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 SC3.3 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 SC3.3 No=Isnot abog
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 anv of the species (or combination of species) listed
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 14 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland A
in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
❑ Yes =Isa
No=Isnot a
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 15 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland A
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 conti uous acre of forest that meets one of these
criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you
answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
❑ Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species,
forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac
(20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height
(dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
❑ Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80-
200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh)
exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
❑ Yes = Category I El 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 0 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 % 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)
❑ Yes = Cateaory 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 ID No = Not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form
(rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)?
❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No - Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
❑ Yes = Category II ❑ No - Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and
1 ac?
❑ Yes = Category III ❑ No = Category IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
Cat. I
If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable' on Summary Farm
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 16 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
APPROVED
PLANNING LANDAU
City of Federal Way ASSOCIATES
Dept. of Community Development
May 16, 2018 Permit # 7 J.00 ~ CO ^ n
City of Federal Way By_ RECEIVED
33325E Avenue South ate
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 JAN 17 2019
Attn: Mr. Tony Doucette, PE COMMUNFEDERAL WAY
DEVELOPMENT
Transmitted via email to: Tony.Doucette@cityoffederalway.com
Re: Geotechnical Data Letter
Brook Lake Center Connector Trail Geotechnical Services
Federal Way, Washington
Project No. 0238082.010.011
Dear Mr. Doucette:
This letter presents the results of geotechnical engineering services provided by Landau Associates, Inc.
(LAI) in support of the Brook Lake Center Connector Trail project at West Hylebos Wetlands Park in Federal
Way, Washington (site).
We understand the City of Federal Way (City) plans to construct an elevated, 6- foot (ft)-wide boardwalk
between the Brook Lake Community Center (Community Center) and the existing Brook Lake boardwalk
(trail alignment). The City has asked LAI to evaluate subsurface soil conditions at the site to support design
of a Diamond Pier® pin pile foundation system for the proposed boardwalk. Figure 1 shows the proposed
trail alignment, aerial imagery, and the approximate locations of the explorations completed for this study.
Surface Conditions
The proposed trail alignment meanders through a forest of coniferous and deciduous trees with an
understory of vegetation common to wetlands in the Pacific Northwest. Topography along the trail is flat
with a few gentle undulations. The first 270 ft of the proposed connector trail, located north of the
Community Center, consist of a cross slope inclined at a 10 to 25 percent grade. In some areas, standing
water/bog is present along the trail alignment.
Geologic Review
Geologic information for the project area was obtained from the Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5-
minute Quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties, Washington (Booth, et al. 2004). The map indicates that the
project area is underlain by wetland deposits (Qw) and glacial till (Qvt). Wetland deposits generally include
peat and alluvium, with peat deposits composed of a significant amount of organic matter and includes
muck, silt, and clay deposited in wetland areas. Glacial till deposits often consist of a glacially transported
and deposited mixture of subrounded to well-rounded clasts in a massive, silt- or sand -rich matrix.
Generally, glacial till deposits are highly compacted and exhibit very low permeability.
955 Malin Lane SW, Suite B • Tumwater, Washington 98501 • (360) 791-3178 • www.landauinc.com
Brook Lake Center Connector Trail Geotechnical Services
Subsurface Conditions
Landau Associates
LAI explored subsurface conditions at the site by advancing seven hand -auger borings (HA-1 through HA-7)
3.5 to 10 ft below ground surface (bgs). Additionally, LAI advanced a %-inch-diameter peat -probe at six
locations (P-1 through P-6) where standing water was present or where hand -auger explorations were
unable to expose soil suitable for foundation support (i.e., bearing soil greater than 10 ft bgs). Exploration
locations and depths to suitable bearing soil are presented on Figure 1.
LAI personnel collected disturbed soil samples for each soil type encountered in the hand -auger
explorations. The soil encountered was classified using visual observation methods (ASTM International
standard D2488) and the Unified Soil Classification System. The following table provides a summary of the
subsurface soil conditions observed and the soil engineering properties recommended for design of the
Diamond Pier foundation system.
Table 1. Subsurface Soil Conditions
Soil Parameters
Boring
Location
Depth
(ft bgs)
Soil Description
Unit Weight
Friction Angle
Cohesion
(pcf)
(degrees)
(psf)
0.0-1.5
Dark brown, organic SILT/PEAT
N/A
N/A
N/A
HA-1
1.5-3.2
Mottled gray SILT
115
30
0
>3.2
Gray, sandy GRAVEL
125
36
0
0.0-2.0
Dark brown, organic SILT/PEAT
N/A
N/A
N/A
HA-2
2.0-4.0
Brown to gray, sandy SILT with gravel
115
30
0
>4.0
Gray, sandy GRAVEL with silt
125
36
0
0.0-2.0
Dark brown, organic SILT/PEAT
N/A
N/A
N/A
HA-3
2.0-4.0
Mottled gray SILT with sand and gravel
120
32
0
>4.0
Gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL
125
36
0
0.0-2.5
Dark brown, organic SILT/PEAT
N/A
N/A
N/A
HA-4
2.5-4.0
Gray, sandy SILT with gravel
120
32
0
>4.0
Gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL
125
36
0
0.0-5.0
Dark brown, organic SILT/PEAT
N/A
N/A
N/A
HA-S
>7.0
Gray, silty, sandy GRAVELIaI
125
36
0
>10.5
Gray, silty, sandy GRAVELiaiibi
125
36
0
0-10.5
Dark brown PEATibi
N/A
N/A
N/A
HA-6
>10.5
Gray, silty, sandy GRAVELiaii°>
125
36
0
0.0-22.5
Dark brown PEATibi
N/A
NA
N/A
HA-7
>22.5
Gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL(a)(b)
125
36
0
(a) Soil description based on
interpolation from adjacent borings.
ft =feet
(b) Depth based on peat -probe advanced beyond maximum hand -auger depth.
pcf = pounds per cubic foot
bgs = below
ground surface
psf = pounds per square foot
May 16, 2018
2
Brook Lake Center Connector Trail Geotechnical Services
Landau Associates
In addition to the hand -auger explorations summarized above, six peat -probes were conducted.
Information about approximate depth to bearing soil at the peat -probe locations is provided on Figure 1.
Foundation System Feasibility
Diamond Pier's proprietary foundation system requires that bearing soil be within 8 to 9 ft of ground
surface (Pin Foundations 2018). Based on the subsurface conditions observed in our explorations, the
Diamond Pier system is anticipated to be feasible for foundation support of the proposed boardwalk,
beginning at the Community Center and extending to P-3 or slightly beyond. Given the dense vegetation
along the trail alignment, the Diamond Pier installer should be prepared to encounter obstructions (i.e.,
tree roots) during installation.
The soil from P-3 to the tie-in at the existing Brook Lake boardwalk is not suitable to support the Diamond
Pier system. An alternative foundation system(s) will be required for the segment of boardwalk that
extends beyond P-3. Small -diameter pipe pile (pin pile) foundations may be appropriate for foundation
support of the boardwalk, where suitable bearing soil is encountered beyond 8 to 9 ft bgs. Using a
recycled -tire shallow foundation system, similar to the one that supports the existing boardwalk, may be
the most cost practical alternative. The City has expressed a desire to avoid using the recycled -tire system,
given the maintenance needed to mitigate settlement of shallow foundations. Differential settlement
should be anticipated between the existing shallow foundation -supported boardwalk and the proposed
pile -supported boardwalk.
Pin Pile Foundation Design
We anticipate that heavy -wall, 2-inch-diameter steel pin piles could be used to support allowable vertical
loads of 2 tons per pile (City of Seattle 2009). To reach capacity, 2-inch-diameter pin piles are driven to
refusal using a hand -operated 90-pound pneumatic jackhammer. Refusal criteria for pin piles is typically
defined as less than 1 inch of penetration over 60 seconds of continuous driving.
Pin piles do not provide appreciable lateral resistance. Additionally, because peat soils are present, the
ground surface is expected to settle away from the pile cap over time. Therefore, lateral resistance will
likely need to be provided by passive resistance along the buried portion of the pile cap. For design of
passive resistance on level ground, we recommend an allowable fluid density of 40 pounds per cubic foot.
This includes a safety factor of 1.5 on ultimate values. The upper foot of embedment and skin friction on
the bottom of the pile cap should be ignored when calculating passive resistance.
Based on our conversations with local contractors, installation of 2-inch-diameter pin piles at the site will
cost approximately $40 per foot of pile. This quote assumes the use of hand -operated equipment and
includes the cost of furnishing and installing pin piles only; pile caps and/or connections are excluded. For
cost -estimating purposes, we recommend assuming pin piles extend 5 ft beyond the depth -to -bearing -soil
shown on Figure 1.
At this time, the estimated depth of pin pile refusal is based on peat probing and the assumption that the
probes. refused .o.n gla.cialty co.nso.lidate.d soils, similar to the soils mapped at the site and observed in the
May 16, 2018
Brook Lake Center Connector Trail Geotechnical Services Landau Associates
hand -auger explorations. Typically, peat probes are unable to advance through medium dense soil, and soil
samples are not obtained via the probing process. Accordingly, actual pin pile tip elevations could extend
much deeper than the peat probes. If a pin pile system is selected, LAI should be consulted about the cost -
benefit of advancing two geotechnical borings with a limited -access drill rig.
Closing
This letter has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Federal Way for specific application to the
proposed Brook Lake Center Connector Trail project in Federal Way, Washington. Use of the information
contained in this letter by others or for another project is at the user's sole risk. The findings,
recommendations, and opinions presented herein are based on field investigations completed for the
project.
We trust this letter provides you with sufficient information to proceed with the project. if you have
questions or require clarification on any of the items discussed above, please call the undersigned at (360)
791-3178.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Benjamin Ford
SeniorProjectEIT
�r C
Calvin McCaughan, PE
Principal Engineer
6116
BJ F/CAM/m cs
[Y:\0238\082.010\R\BROOK LAKE CENTER CONNECTOR TRAIL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES DATA LETTER DOCXI
References
ASTM. 2003. D420-D5876: Annual Book of ASTM Standards. ASTM International.
Booth D.B., H.H. Waldron, K.G. Troost. 2004. Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5-minute Quadrangle, King
and Pierce Counties, Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
City of Seattle Department of Planning & Development. 2009. Director's Rule 10-2009, Small Diameter Pile
Piles (Pin Piles). May 18.
Pin Foundations, Inc. 2018. Installation Manual: Diamond Pier° Foundation System. Available at:
www.diamondpiers.com.
Attachments: Figure 1. Site and Exploration Plan
May 16, 2018
4
a
m
Legend
HA-1 Q Approximate Hand -Auger Location and Designation
P-1 0 Approximate Peat -Probe Location and Designation
(4.0') Approximate Depth to Bearing Soil
" Existing Trail /Boardwalk
HA-7 (22.5') r
P-6 (18-5') HA-6 (10.5') AD P-3 {6.5')
_ HA-5 (7.0')
Proposed Trail Alignment -
Q 9-2 {I.5')
_ ■.P 1 (4.0')
HA-1 (3.2'
Brook Lake Community
v
.o
a
LANDAU
ASSOCIATES
0 50 100 Note
Scale in Feet 1. Black and white reproduction of this color
original may reduce its effectiveness and
lead to incorrect interpretation.
Source: Cityof Federal Way, 2018
FeC€iy c f Federal Way Figure
Brook Lake Center Site and Exploration Plan 1
Connector Trail
deral Way, Washington
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
BROOK LAKE CENTER CONNECTOR
MY *F
Federal Vila
33325 STH AVE. SOUTH PHONE: (253) 835-7000
FEDERAL WAY FAX:(253) 835-2709
WASHINGTON 98003 www.CityDfFederalWay.com
M)
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT ENG:
John Mulkey, P E
PHONE*
253-835-2722
EMAIL:
john mulkey@cilyoffederalway corn
RFB NO. XXXXX
DRAWING INDEX
COUNT I SHT# D-SCRIPTION
DESIGN PLANS
01
C01
COVER SHEET
02
CO2
'PLAN AND PROFILE
03
CO3
NOTES
04
C04
BOARDWALK DETAILS
05
C05
BOARDWALK DETAILS
06
C06
BOARDWALK DETAILS
07
C01
BOARDWALK DETAILS
PLANS ii,iAC
City of Federal Way
Dept. of Community Development
Permit - 3 AL ,
- 0 —
{� �" jq
praw weels below,
B] Call before you dig,
Date D
VERIFY SCALE
BAR IS ONE INCH ON
ORIGINAL DRAWING
0 T'
IF NOT ONE INCH ON
THIS SHEET, ADJUST
SCALES ACCORDINGLY.
DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED
JAN 17 2019
LOCATION MAP �+�y �} r 20 ■
NTS C 1 1 1 41 C�E RItL Wf'1Y
V+%h ov+ d� fi'G+�� ° (� , cv�nMt� Lod M x�
�� IRFB #:
BROOK LAKE DESIGGNuK
V\kmVPLLf A S Y ,� xxxxx
CENTER and rea 400(5 � i.001
CONNECTOR COVER SHEET
SHT O1 OF07
N�
10 0 20 ao
SCALE: 1"= 20'
NOTE: SCALEx2 FOR 11x17 SHEET
8
t+
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
PROJECT ENG:
VERIFY SCALE
w
�
OF CITY
John Mulkey, P.E.
IS ONE INCH ON
Federal
1 a
PHONE #:
ORIGINAL DRAWING
ORIGINAL
g
25M35-2722
0 V
33325 8TH AVE. SOUTH
PHONE: (253) 835-7000
IF NOT ONE INCH ON
IF
FEDERAL WAY
FAX:(253) 835-2709
EMAIL:
THIS SHEET, ADJUST
�
WASHINGTON 98003
www.CityOfFedera1Way.com
john mulkey@cityoffederalway.com
ACCORDINGLY,
rsr '
. - y
2+00 2+50 3+Uu--
DRAWING VERSION 1 REVISION LOG f'FE
# I DATE IDESCRIPTION BROOK LAKE DESIGN PLANS xxxxx
### 1/1712019 ##kCY#i?A' 40
CENTER CO2
CONNECTOR PLAN AND PROFILE 02
EXISTING GROUND
(WETLAND)
BOARDWALK CROSS SECTION
5.5'
�— BOARDWALK
w
W
Ow
F J
N f—
Q
f` r
i
r
r
r
i
i
F/
SHALLOW PIN
FOUNDATION
\
\
\
\
NOTE:
FOUNDATIONS WILL BE PIN FOUNDATIONS WHERE
DEPTH TO BEARING SOIL IS LESS THAN 9 FT.
FOUNDATIONS WILL BE FLOATING WHEN DEPTH TO
BEARING SOIL IS GREATER THAN 9 FT.
Federal Way
-
33325 STH AVE. SOUTH PHONE: (253) 835-7000
FEDERAL WAY
FAX:(253) 835-2709
_
WASHINGTON
98003 www.CitVOfFederalWay.com
PROJECT ENG
John Mulkey, RE
PHONE 9:
253-835-2722
EMAIL:
john. mulkey@cityoffederalway.com
VERIFY SCALE
BAR IS ONE INCH ON
ORIGINAL DRAWING.
0 0 1„
IF NOT ONE INCH ON
THIS SHEET, ADJUST
SCALES ACCORDINGLY
FLOATING
FOUNDATION
r
r
III{"r
r
r
r
i
r�
l
r
,r
DESCRIPTION
uasxx�rzxxra
BOARDWALK PROFILE
3' TO 10' SPAN
EXISTING GROUND
(WETLAND)
\
\
SHALLOW PIN \\�
FOUNDATION
EXISTING GROUND
FLOATING
FOUNDATION
NOTE:
SPAN LENGTH TO BE OPTIMIZED DURING FINAL
DESIGN. EXISTING BOARDWALK SPANS ARE 3-5 FT FOR
FLOATING FOUNDATIONS AND 5-10 FT FOR SHALLOW
PIN FOUNDATIONS.
BROOK LAKE
CENTER
CONNECTOR
r,_6
DESIGN PLANS XXXXX
CO3
NOTES
03 A7
9'-11 3/4't1/8-
Q MODULE 3X6 JOISTS 1
I� 1
SIMPSON JOIST
HGR, TYP
-� 3X6, TYP
EA END
L (2) 16d NAILS
@ BLKG, TYP m L4X4X5/16X0'-5'
w CORNER ANGLE W/
m (4) 1/2"0 CARRIAGE
BOLTS, TYP (4) PLCS.
COUNTERBORE CARRIAGE
BOLT HEADS 1/2" MAX
FRAMING PLAN
10 FOOT STRAIGHT MO DULE
1/2"=1'-0
5/16X _74- X5" BENT PL
W/(4)1/2"0 CARRIAGE
BOLTS. COUNTERBORE
BOLT HEADS 1/2" MAX
3x6
SIMPSON ¢
JOIST HGR.*
TYP c
in
3.6 ZI 10• 1
5/16X 4L X5• BENT PL
f1 8 W/(6)1/2"0 CARRIAGE
BOLTS. COUNTERBORE
BOLT HEADS 1/2• MAX
FRAMING PLAN
11.25 DEGREE WEDGE MODULE 5
I/2'=f-0'
OF
Federal Way
33325 STH AVE. SOUTH PHONE: (253) 835-7000
FEDERAL WAY FAX:(253) 835-2709
WASHINGTON 98003 www.CityOfFederalWay.com
PROJECT ENG
John Mulkey. P E
PHONE #:
253-835-2722
EMAIL:
john mulkey@ciryoffederalway. com
INDICATES ACCEPTABLE
TOLERANCE, TYP.
SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR
f QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.
4'-11 3/4" t 1/8'
CL MODULE—,
SIMPSON JOIST
HGR, TYP
3X6, TYP
EA END
(5/16XO'-5"
ER ANGLE W/
/2.0 CARRIAGE
BOLTS, TYP (4) PLCS
COUNTERBORE CARRIAGE
BOLT HEADS 1/2 MAX
FRAMING PLAN
5 FOOT STRAIGHT MODULE 2
— 5/16X -74" X5• BENT PL
W/(4)1/2"0 CARRIAGE
BOLTS. COUNTERBORE
BOLT HEADS 1/2' MAX-
3x6
3x6 3x6
SIMPSON
JOIST HGR:
TYP .�
v
°7
3z6
I'-11'f1/B' 5/16XJ4'X5' BENT PL
W/(4)1/2"0 CARRIAGE
BOLTS. COUNTERBORE
BOLT HEADS 1/2" MAX
FRAMING PLAN
45 DEGREE WEDGE MODULE 3
tj2•=1•-O'
VERIFY SCALE
BAR IS ONE INCH ON
ORIGINAL DRAWING.
0 � 1"
IF NOT ONE INCH ON
THIS SHEET, ADJUST
SCALES ACCORDINGLY
11.25 DEGREE WEDGE
NODULE
2X6 DECKING (TYP). DECKING 22.5 DEGREE WEDGE
SHALL BE FASTENED TO FRAMING MODULE i -
NTH (2) 17X3" WOOD SCREWS l -
EA JOIST. DRILL PILOT HOLES
& DRIVE FLUSH.
r _+
+
45 DEGREE WEDGE
MODULE
DECKING & BULLRAIL AT
WEDGE MODULES TO BE FIELD
INSTALLED.
10' STRAIGHT
MODULE. —
FRAMING BELO
TYP
5/16X -74" X5' BENT PL
W/(4)1/2"0 CARRIAGE
BOLTS. COUNTERBORE
BOLT HEADS 1/2" MAX
3x6
SIMPSON
JOIST HGR
TYP v
era
36
10-
�t1/8 5/16X41 _l4"X5" BENT PL
W/(6)1/2"0 CARRIAGE
BOLTS. COUNTERBORE
BOLT HEADS 1/2' MAX
FRAMING PLAN
22.5 DEGREE WEDGE MODULE 4
I/2•-1•_0'
BOARDWALK CL ALIGNMENT
jj PER SHEETS C-1.0 THRU C-1.2
BY ANCHOR ENVIRONMENTAL
5' STRAIGHT MODULE,
TYP
STRAIGHT MODULES TO BE
DELIVERED TO SITE WITH
DECKING & BULLRAIL
INSTALLED
4X4 BULLRAIL
FOLLOW TREX DECK GAPPING
GUIDELINES. MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE "IN-SERVICE" GAP
=1/2• AFTER SHRINKAGE
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
VERTICAL DEVIATION OF TOP
SURFACE OF DECKING = 1/4'.
BULLRAIL ATTACHMENT
TYP
_ ExTEND DECKING @
BULLRAIL ATTACHMENT
ONLY
/2"
TYPICAL DECK PLAN
PREASSEMBLED BOARDWALK MODULE s
Si gC 3f
xG" m[x tt u+G 7xnC W"
7x4
�.naicROOK 4x4 RWAE.
TV TV I Tip
+n
emT, TP
. T =V& T/=K T*
TV
SECTION
PRE -ASSEMBLED BOARDNALK MODULE A
VC-1-0
IG VERSION 1 RE:VI LOG RF9 #
N
DESCRIPTION BROOK LAKE DESIGN PLANS XXXXX
CENTER C04
CONNECTOR BOARDWALK DETAILS 04 .,07
BOARDWALK CL ALIGNMENT
�1 PER SHEETS C-1.0
BY ANCHOR ENVIRONMENTAL
TALAL
CJ - 1
SS II r � rl
T 11
11 NI
11 =N II (;
11 L " IF
BOARDWALK FRAMING
t ABOVE
I II
I ,I
I
,I
ATYP
11
A/5^9
II
,
11 II ii
II
II 1, I II II
II '
TIRE FOUNDATION, TYP
PROVIDE TIRES SUCH
THAT SUPPORT IS
PROVIDED AT EACH
END OF EACH MODULE
AS SHOWN
W 61
4
� Iz
m WNW
G67 8!_
TYPICAL FOUNDATION PLAN
PREASSEMBLED BOARDWALK MODULE �
'n'=I'-O-
DEomG
TYP —
COST GRACE
tw POUN ATO •/ POLvstvR IEm 1
FLE s ' OLOr 11MYENYLaE
WVEIbNG 10P � BPT1W
12I tlrAXr CANRU4 Bats HEST INTO EACH
THE FOR
RLTPER AITAENIENT (iAVI PR01rjE
GALV NUT k RASTER
CL AumENT
PER SHEET
r-c
N
� aJLERNI. TYP
3X6 Jaws
r1r
9wsaF � �
T1P
L (2) 3T6 SLEEPERS
• EA PAR OF
TIRES, TYP
CUT OR FILL EM1W (RAVE SO iPES ARE
LEVEL AID RECURM TOP OF DECK ELEVATION
5 ACHIEVED . SEE SOLS REPORT BY ANCHOR
ENW ONFJITAL FAIN ApOTK NAL NFONUOON
ONE AMIGNAL LATER G 39 SLEEPERS NAY
ALSO BE USED TO SET TOP G DECK ELEVATION
SECTION
TYPICAL TIRE SUPP
jA.FRNORTED BOARDWALK
NAOXY ALLONAHE PyEEO
TOP SU
TP SL OENINR 6
RFACE 6 OEoa1G v00ulE PBA R.ITV
R/r ..
oEaaNc
SmPSCH HRS12 STRAP
(KW STRAP AT
Axa[B
CON ECMRS AS REOb)
E)G6T GRACE Z
MAX AXA BULLRAR.
SROSON A23
n TT1+
JOISTS
3X6 SLEEPERS'
TOE FOIRUATIGN
SECTION
TYPICAL TIRE SUPPORTED BOARDWALK e
s,rxl-Ir
11.25 DEGREE
2X6 DECKING (TYP). DECKING
22.5 DEGREE
- -
SHALL BE FASTENED TO FRAMING
MODULE
WITH (2) 17X3" WOOD SCREWS
y
EA JOIST. DRILL PILOT HOLES
1
A
k DRIVE FLUSH.
1 - -
�
45 DEGREE
�;
L -
MODULE
i
vi-
r
-
zo -c
CL
f'
z Q
V V
�
CID
11
I
10' STRAIGHT MODULE,
II
TYP
I;
�
II 11
'
4X4 BULLRAIL
FRAMING BELOW,
,
1/4- DECKING GAP,
TYP
l�-
TYP
_
TYPA
x
II
.�
II VI
P
BULLRAIL ATTACHMENT
TYP
r —
EXTEND DECKING
BULLRAIL ATTACHMENT
1
I I
ONLY
TYPICAL DECK PLAN
PREASSEMBLED BOARDWALK MODULE
I/2•�I•-0•
BOADRWALK CL ALIGNMENT
l I PER SHEET __ BY
l 1 ANCHOR ENVIRONMENTAL
Lt�
. t
5' STRAIGHT MODULE,
TYP
a
- yx
f
e
My OF
Federal Way
33325 8TH AVE. SOUTH PHONE: (253) 835-7000
FEDERAL WAY FAX:(253) 835-2709
WASHINGTON 98003 www.CityOffederalWay.com
PROJECTENG:
John Mulkey. P.E.
VERIFY SCALE
T3RAWING
VERSION 1 RViSI[3N LOG
R
BROOK LAKE
CENTER
CONNECTOR
DESIGN PLANS
RFB ::
xxxxx
#
DATE
DESCRIPTION
###
1/17/2019
RN If,
53055
BAR IS ONE INCH ON
ORIGINAL DRAWING.
0 �1x
IF NOT ONE INCH ON
THIS SHEET, ADJUST
SCALES ACCORDINGLY.
C05
OrJ or 07
BOARDWALK DETAILS
EMAIL:
cl
lohn.mulkey@tyoUederalway.com
EXTEND DECKING ® BULLRAIL ATTACHMENT
ONLY. SEE A/S8 FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION ON BULLRAIL ATTACHMENT
TO DECKING
2X6 DECKING (TYP). DECKING
SHALL BE FASTENED TO FRAMING
WITH (2) 17X3- WOOD SCREWS
4x4 BULLRAIL �. EA JOIST. DRILL PILOT HOLES
k DRIVE FLUSH.
CL PIER
NOTE:
JOISTS MAY BE CONTINUOUS OVER MULTIPLE SPANS.
FRAMING PLAN - TYPIC.
CL AIIGIRENT PER MIS C-1.0 THRU C-I 2
FOLLOW TREX DECK GAPPING
GUIDELINES. MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE 'IN-SERVICE' GAP
=1/2- AFTER SHRINKAGE.
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
VERTICAL DEVIATION OF TOP
SURFACE OF DECKING = 1/4-
DIAMOND PIER
/BELOW, TYP
300 CROSS
/-BEAMS, TYP
2x4 DIAGONAL BRACING
hr EVERY 4TH BAY
3x10 JOIST, TYP
i 'MIN 1' MAX
GAP BETWEEN
ENDS OF JOISTS
4X4 POST
BELOW
PIER
FIELD BUILT, DIAMOND PIER SUPPORTED, BOARD
2.6 DEDIOIG-
Tw
7X4As TKJI
aOCI4416
T%J•4 CARNAGE BOLT
T1P
4.4 BULIRAE. TYP
TOP OF ClEc4a
NIO JOISTS, TYP
If FOR MI C-2
3.10 fA055 eEw, TIP
ELM%&
%'
I
(3) 1/2.4 TIM BATS. TYP CROSS
O4L+
aA
KAM TO POST COR4CTIO1
aRNRAE REOD .ERE K01
Gum
D'M'ONO PER F pwrjO4
II/ P06i BASE SRAMT. TIP
-
Six>iT A001E By M > >ff.
7DL ORA011G5 TST
♦
f%AM blAogI MAY ALSO
R LOCATIONS
ENMR00g1IAl FOR LOGeOG �
JK USDO IF PFTSFS NOT 11SEQ
_
I ERE OINIORAE IS REOV
AM FOR OUARORAE DETAILS.
AE C1s-10 FOR nvrA
COI4ECn4M OF QUARORAI. TO
BOAPOWIL !i V
SRPSON Hut alKCTOR
TYP 0 EA JOIST TO
ADJUST POST ItNGIH AS REOD
w tONFECTM `
TO SET TOP OF OEOC MVARON
SECTION - FIELD BUILT DIAMOND PIER SUPPORTED BOARDWALK A
3/4•ar.ff
PROJECT ENG:
VERIFY SCALE
cr" OF
John Mulkey, RE
BAR IS ONE INCH ON
Federal
Way
PHONE #:
ORIGINAL DRAWING
253-835-2722
0 T,
33325 STH AVE. SOUTH
PHONE: (253) 835-7000
IF NOT ONE INCH ON
FEDERAL WAY
FAX:(253) 835-2709
EMAIL:
THIS SHEET, ADJUST
WASHINGTON 98003
www.CityOfFederalWay.com
John mulkey@cilyoffedemlway com I
SCALES ACCORDINGLY.
Tx BOARDWALK ALIGNMENT PER
SHEETS C-1,0 THRU C-1.2
BY ANCHOR ENVIRONMENTAL
61* GUARDRAIL POST
4114 BIIURAE
IMOKY-T Sl+y 11401 RaT NAT)
aaoulG rxxuhr a WASIM
IEoaRc PER Ea.r
Or99 BOLT
PER 0. GMT
PER I
IG-ff MAs
2.1 TRE% aOCMRIG, TYP 3%10 JOIST 3A10 D OEM
BEYOND
26 DEOOHT, TYP 4.4 OULLRAL. I
RAIL POST
1'-ff RAE
� GDARD
n n n 4• OULIRAE
IW
3.10 JOISTS. I
NR, IiIO� [R►Of 4A0 a00OI1G
UN) JOIST
' p DIAMOND PER 2.4 WZOW IBMAOIIO EA JDE' 3/r4 lIFU 00.T, ]/r4 RE6I BaT
' 1 �iOONAn014 TTP "Ity FOIp1t1 DAY. , 0 POST
PROLE {3] iI 4U00 , SAC109 TO JO5T
y + ``.] Smiles to M.
SECTION — TYPICAL CONNECTION OF
ELEVATION — FIELD BUILT DIAMONQ PIER SUPPORTED BOARDWALK B GUARDRAIL TO BOARDWALK C
FES VCIl1WYlRCV1.+'�+.YiV� BROOK LAKE
DESCRIPTION
pgteecxue9u
CENTER
CONNECTOR
RFB #:
DESIGN PLANS XXXXX
C06
BOARDWALK DETAILS
06 .,07
1
PIER PIER Ct
4'-Q' MIN PIER
MIN
5-0 MAX
j1 SIMPSON JOIST 1
3X6 ' HANGER, TV
I
1 `1 F-
f ��
I
I
I �
1 I
I I
V A 1
n
4X4 BULLRAIL
e A»Dw x
SIMPSON A35
ANGLE CLIP,
TYP
3X6 CROSS
BEAMS BELOW
TYP
DIAMOND PIER
BELOW, TYP
^I1
f4X4 POST I
BELOW, TYP
I
{ 1 FOLLOW TREX DECK GAPPING,
1 GUIDELINES. MAXIMUM
1 ALLOWABLE IN-SERHCC 01
E =1/2- AFTER SHRINKAGE.
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
VERTICAL DEVIATION OF TOP
SURFACE OF DECKING = 1/4
BOARDWALK
DECKING
SPAN
tu"6;
1
2X6 DECKING. DECKING SHALL
BE FASTENED TO FRAMING
W/(2) 17X3- WOOD SCREWS
EA JOIST. DRILL PILOT HOLES &
DRIVE FLUSH
VIEWING PLATFORM SCHEDULE
PLAN
MARK
PLATFORM
WIDTH
PLATFORM
LENGTH
g'-p'
12'-0'
Q
10'-0'
16'-0"
Q3
4'-0'
10'-0"
®
10'-0'
20'-0"
FRAMING PLAN
TYPICAL VIEWING PLATFORM
PROJECT ENG:
VERIFY SCALE
�+
C 11�y � ■ OF
John Mulkey, RE
IS ONE INCH
Federal
WayBAR
PHONE#:
G.
ORIGINAL DRAWING.
-
253-835-2722
0
33325 8TH AVE. SOUTH PHONE: (253) 835-7000
IF NOT ONE INCH ON
FEDERAL WAY FAX:(253) 835-2709
EMAIL:
THIS SHEET, ADJUST
WASHINGTON 98003 www.CityOfFederalWay.com
john Mulkey@cityoffederalway.com I
SCALES ACCORDINGLY.
1 4' MIN GAP
PLATFORM WIDTH (SEE SCHEDULE) 1 2' MAx GAP
CL PIER CL PIER
2X4X6' TREX BLOCKING 3 1/2' '-T 5'-0" MAX, TYP C� PIER
MAX DECKING EXTENSI4X4 BULLRAIL, 2X6 DECKING
ON
0 BULLRAIL BLKG ATTACHMENTS 3X611JO ST
TOP �
ELEV PER SHEET C-2
4X4 POST, 3X6 CROSS BEAM
GRADE
TYP
(2) 1/2.0 THRU BOLTS,
w TYP CROSS BEAM TO
SIMPSON H11Z CONNECTORz'•' w L, JOST CONNECTION
TYP 0 EACH JOIST TO
NOTE: CROSSBEAM CONNECTION
ADJUST POST LENGTH AS REO'D TO DIAMOND PIER FOUNDATION
SET TOP OF DECK ELEVATION PATH POST BASE BRACKETS, TV
SECTION
TYPICAL VIEWING PLATFORM
MABIIM KRX& DEUTIIM OF
IM SURFACE R OEOW • 1/4--
$110SO4 002 smv. Tlr „� R
EA SOE Or BOAi!(Imm
E3=441m AS Dti RUM F_vm
t
TOP or CPECX Et i._
PER 8[EI C-x
9w AIM � � 3100 JOSIS
• ti 1f - (2) 3XI0 CRM BEAM
OIE FOUg1111b1 I AN FOMROM
L • d b '• J
SECTION - TYPICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN
PPE -ASSEMBLED & FIEL BUILT BOARDWALK SECTIONS
31.••i -0'
DES RIPTI 11J1Y 1 KLY I"•"1'1 ��� BROOK LAKE
DESCRIPTION
lj4tttt5tttttt� nn'iittC
CENTER
CONNECTOR
RFB #:
DESIGN PLANS XXXXX
C01
BOARDWALK DETAILS
5Hl 07 OF07
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL
DATE: 1-31-19
TO: Cole Elliott, Development Services Manager
Greg Kirk, Building Plans Examiner
Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Chris Cahan, South King Fire & Rescue
FROM: Leila Willoughby -Oakes, Planning
FOR DRC MTG. ON: Please email me any comments by 02-15-19
(Project timeline is April 2019 for BP issuance)
FILE NUMBER(s): 19-100329-00-AD
PROJECT NAME: BROOKLAKE CENTER
& WEST
HYLEBOS
WETLAND PARK
TRAIL CONNECTION
PROJECT ADDRESS: 850 S 356TH ST
ZONING DISTRICT: RS 35.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Community Development Director approval
for a 500 foot long elevated boardwalk across
wetlands- connecting gravel trail between the
Brooklake Center and the existing boardwalk within
West Hylebos Wetland Park. Partial exemption request
per FWRC 19.145.440, FWRC 19.145.270(3) and FWRC
19.145.120(1). Army Core determines permit not
required for work proposed.
LAND USE: Administrative Decision- Written Director Approval
PROJECT CONTACT: Public Works Streets Division
(John Mulkey, Project Engineer -
John.Mulke @cit offederalwa .co; 253-835-2722
MATERIALS SUBMITTED: Project Narrative
Administrative Decision Application
Wetland Report prepared by Landau Assoc.(Nov. 17, 2017)
Geotechnical Letter prepared by Landau Assoc.(May 16, 2011
Army Core Approval Letter (dated July 30, 2018)
Reduced scale project drawings 11 X 17 (Sheets Cl-C7)
submitted by Federal Way Department of Public Works.
RECEyffffST FOk- - DMllVISTRATIVE DECISION
11f1A"XTTATTTV n1WVCT r%V&fVWT DEPARTMENT
etTY OF ' : 33325 81h Avenue South
Federal Way JAN 17 2019 Federal Way, WA 98003
253-835-2607;Fax 253-835-2609
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY w'«r��'.ci nffederal�3 catn
COMMUNITY DEVELOpmi
Jyr
FILE NuNrBIER / I - I �) 0 3 O� � Date / — 7 _ / 9
Applicant
NAME
6b��
MU lle
PRIMARY PHONE
z 3b ps=
BUSINESS/ORGANIZATION I�qq �,, !!
c) ��� ��t(�rct� lrii
pp
Iv�`ic. �r�S ��
ALTERNATE PHONE
ZS 3 ` P..S =2?00
MAILING ADbREss
333 7-5-
Ql Aveovcc
E-MAIL.
jckn,wt,(keg CcNed _ , tia.
CITY
STATE
W yj
ZIP
% go()_? y
FAX
Property Address/Location V b S 6 r" �� �� 2r�• [� ��cr " L�-��'��
e,, cX f &, t c e I Z q Z/ d -/ — I S / �, � t�, d a ��s f I've, l' Pas
Description of Request 1 + z-' C e- w �ri y' K ru i f pH
��.: r WL�I� SnGI GJV�t<p TV�nG� Cl r�yLl ias �n r? 1 We2A T?LDOV, �YtiL Cfy%. �.£ 6 �hC_! JXlzdhl"
�+ � ce Tr�tit.►^1Y� yV� ��� W r.'S�' i� iA � � GL �[ l�L�r7�]� � aT a r• . rI i � �. s:� � t C� S� l'01 � {l Gi r i'C � !tiI w+
,3�c 1 �1 e�,G� wi 1Al Ci�ylw : r� I
List/Describe
.n l.S .�C7 ,. 1 t4 e � SeAeOL- � � Wt., f iv � �c �c� f�z� �' e��Jc•z
For Staff Use
❑ Code Interpretation/Clarification
❑ Critical Areas Letter/Analysis/Peer Review
❑ Request for Extension (Land Use/Plat Approval)
❑ Revisions to Approved Permit
❑ Tree Removal
❑ mooning Compliance Letter
A.
Bulletin #079 — December 11, 2018 Page 1 of 1 kAHandouts\Request for Administrative Decision
"' .+� t� �r�•�l �`v,;�.®, L' ,4e 'c . C' ' € -, _� �' TIC E i l e
MIA
fA
V.
_ a•fi1r
IV
. _ ff�F-- �� tip= _ +� �^ �Y• _ -• �L�'-'Y a =l;
my� 1�"•."
SM
111111
4{, _ _ - ."_ a- "� ••"may..
w•- s-..=air
R.-.= _+awl:: r--. xis•:: �r+-=t..• ::- • �-y __ .. �_. _ .y; ..
di W.
kA
7� �� - 'i% �Fr •V .�� Tam• - - _
1 V";, IV— I z , '5 0 e— '' V2
7 11
Vol
Ad
p v
IV—
_3V
Na
41? Alo�
,YFl
�W'4-�
IF 7-4
•
i-.
:�
lrlY.
CITY OF
V8W,�- Federal Way
-mom
Centered on Opportunity
January 17, 2019
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www. cityoffederalway.. com
RECEIVED
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
Brian Davis
Community Development Director JAN 17 2019
City of Federal Way CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
33325 8th Ave S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Subject: Brook Lake Center Connector Project
Critical Areas Partial Exemption and Request for Administrative Decision
Mr. Davis,
The Capital Projects Division is submitting a Critical Area Partial Exemption review request and
Request for Administrative Decision for the Brook Lake Center Connector Project. This project
will be constructing a pedestrian path and elevated boardwalk within the West Hylebos Wetlands
Park to connect it to the Brook Lake Center to the existing boardwalk to allow for increased
access for Surface Water Management outreach and education programs, specifically for the
annual "Storming the Sound" salmon release, which has seen tremendous growth in participation
since its implementation in 2014. The current entrance to the park is on S 348`' Street and the
release point is at the southernmost point of the trail, which is about a half -mile walk. The
connector will extend the trail 500 feet to the Brook Lake Center property which will allow much
easier access to the release location, for staff, equipment and other participants. It will also allow
for greater additional access to the park for residents who want to enjoy the boardwalk.
This project was not submitted to Community Development under SEPA as it is Categorically
Exempt under WAC 197-11-800 (2) (ix) Addition of bicycle lanes, paths and facilities, and
pedestrian walks and paths include sidewalk extension, but not including addition of automobile
lanes.
As this project will be connecting to the existing trail within the park, it will be constructed
mainly within a wetland and partially within the buffer. There will be no excavation within the
wetland and only minor excavation within the buffer to key in the ramp connecting the
boardwalk to the land, and a gravel trail to the parking area. Within the wetland, the path will be
supported by either tire supports, in areas that do not have bearing capacity, or pin piles, which
are driven directly into the ground. The pin piles have been used in other areas of the boardwalk
as a low impact support. This project should be defined as an improvement under FWRC
19.05.090 and as such should be considered partially exempt under FWRC 19.145.120 under
item (1) as a public improvement.
We believe we are also exempt form Preliminary Drainage, Grading and Right of Way plans.
There will be no drainage facilities constructed as this project will be mainly boardwalk and no
facilities are required. Grading for the path will be minimal and total less than five cubic yards of
excavation for the entire project. As the project will be built entirely on land currently owned by
the City, no Right of Way is required.
In regards to tree retention, there are two dead alder trees within the path alignment area that
pose a danger and are to be felled and removed. The project and site requirements do not allow
for removal of any other trees. The pathway was set to avoid any disturbance of trees or stumps
within the wetland and no excavation is planned or allowed within the wetland boundary.
In regard to Special Studies we are including a copy of the Wetland Delineation Report, JARPA
Letter and Geotechnical report for the project. The new raised pedestrian boardwalk is to be
constructed with non -pollution generating impervious surface with an added area of
approximately 3000 square feet. Foundations will be low -impact hand driven diamond pier or
floating tire foundations for minimal surface disturbance. The location for the proposed
boardwalk was chosen specifically to avoid tree removal and to minimize impact to the
surrounding area. Only dead or hazardous trees will be knocked down and will remain on the
property. Vegetation removal will be to the minimum extent feasible to construct the boardwalk.
No mitigation is proposed as the projected impact will be limited to the low -impact foundations.
Based on this we believe we are exempt from any other report requirements.
We are submitting the Critical Areas Partial Exemption and Request for Administrative Decision
to comply with the requirements of FWRC 19.145.120 and seeking written approval of a Partial
Exemption to allow construction of the trail.
Thanks for your prompt attention to these requests. If you have any further questions, do not
hesitate to contact me at 253-835-2722.
Sincerel 01.1
John Mulkey. P.E.
Street Systems Project Engineer
City of Federal Way
This exemption may be revocable at any time.
Approved
Brian Davis, Community Development Director
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SEATTLE DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 3755
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124-3755
Regulatory Branch
Mr. Tony Doucette and Mr. Kent Smith
33325 Bch Ave South
Federal Way, Washington 98003
Dear Mr. Doucette and Mr. Smith:
JUL 30 2018
RECEIVED
AUG 01 2018
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PREf��
JAN 17 2019
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
COMMUNRY DEVELOPMENT
Reference: NWS-2018-539
Doucette, Tony
We have received your application for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to construct a
500 foot long boardwalk across wetlands at Federal Way, King, Washington, as depicted on the
enclosed drawings dated July 24, 2018. We have reviewed the information you provided to us
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899. We have determined that a DA permit is not required for your proposed work as described
in your application and drawings.
Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, a Section 10 DA permit is
normally required for work or structures in or affecting navigable waters of the U.S. Because the
West Hylebos Wetlands Complex is not a navigable water, a Section 10 DA permit is not
required.
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a DA permit is normally required for the
discharge of dredged or fill material (e.g., fill, excavation, or mechanized land clearing) into
waters of the U.S., including wetlands and navigable waters of the U.S. For more information,
see the enclosed Clean Water Act Extracts and Definitions. The Hylebos Wetlands Complex is a
water of the U.S. However, because construction of a boardwalk does not involve a discharge of
dredged or fill material, a Section 404 DA permit is not required.
While a DA permit is not required, local, state, and other federal requirements may still
apply. For assistance in determining other permit requirements for the proposed project, we
recommend you contact the Washington State Office of Regulatory Assistance via the internet at
www.ora.wa.gov.
-2-
If you have any questions, please contact Kristin McDermott at
kristin.l.mcdermoti@usace.army.mil or by phone at (206) 316-3975.
Sincerely,
Jacalen Printz, Section Chief
Regulatory Branch
Enclosures
Brook Lake Center Connector Trail at West Hylebos Wetlands Park
Site photos to supplement JARPA Form
Example of Existing Boardwalk
i
Ex agnp le gf E isti ng in Fovnda'on
Location wlzrn~_Pm osedTrail will cgnmet
May 2018
Example of Existing Boardwalk
Example of Exigia&EL&p4gon
gnample of E isti T ' Uyxqion
NWS- 2018 - 5 3 g
Sheet 1 of 5
July 24, 2018
LA
-11 0
CD
a
E3
'a
0
w
CD
Q.
w
0
su
rL
m
O
Cit.
0
m
XM
0)
cc
O
a
9
Sheet 2 of 5
July 24, 2018
to*tv
rA
ciz
0
T
a6
pr
CD CD
,4 '0
CD'
r
w
IST AVB SW
RR GSZ CA
CD
tr
0
,Z
Hi
�� WAY6RLEV�L� %C
4 0
x� T� C
cn
n
°
ram=
----! ! o
_! I m
CRABXXXXX BROOK LAKE CENTER CONNECTOR ty
a.enwws
WS-�1 - 53 �.
a o NOTES Sheet 4 of 5 �#3ia l wa
w �FM,,,,,
'a .w. July 24, 2018 :,.
.�
73
CD
�- sue{-• � �• h � i !' �•-.
` k C3m co
_
co _
c " a U
cm
Q cU o
H �C o
m p
Ln
,►` v
�
L„
LM
co
_ N ■ '
,4l .tfl�
N or
r V e �Y 0 U ,
a� .
�. �...2
.,
_.
C� 4 �' •- rn V� K Lc'� w m
C x �
a t e _
cTj
mr Q ca
r 4 • R!i O
^� N m
= X X O
Sheet 5 of 5 G9
July 24, 2018 "'� � � ilz �
i CLEAN WATER ACT
]Extracts and. Definitions
EXTRACTS from the Clean Water Act.
L. SECTION 404
(a) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, may issue permits,
after notice and opportunity for public hearings for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
the navigable waters at specified disposal sites.
(b) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, each such disposal site shall be specified for
each such permit by the Secretary of the Army (1) through the application of guidelines
developed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (Administrator), in
coujunction with the Secretary of the Army, which guidelines shall be based upon criteria
comparable to the criteria applicable to the territorial seas, the contiguous zone, and the ocean
under section 403(c), and (2) in any case where such guidelines under clause (1) alone would
prohibit the specification of a site, through the application additionally of the economic impacts
of the site on navigation and anchorage.
(c) The Administrator is authorized to prohibit the specification (including the withdrawal
of specification) of any defined area as a disposal site, and he is authorized to deny or restrict the
use of any defined area for specification (including the withdrawal of specification) as a disposal
site, whenever he determines, after notice and opportunity for public hearings, that the discharge
of such materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water
supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or
recreational areas. Before making such detemrination, the Administrator shall set forth in
writing and make public his findings and his reasons for making any determination under this
subsection.
2. SECTION 301
This section prohibits the discharge of any pollutant including fill or dredged material
except as incompliance with various sections of the Clean'Water Act, including Section 404.
3. SECTION 307
The Administrator shall publish a list of toxic pollutants. Each toxic pollutant shall be
subject to effluent standards (which may include a prohibition). Under this section it is unlawful
to violate any such effluent standards or prohibition.
4_ SECTION 309
This section provides that any person who willfully or negligently violates the provisions of
this Act may be punished by a fine of not less than $2,500 or more than $37,500 per day of
violation or by imprisonment for not more than one year or by both. In addition, any person
violating this Act may be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $37,500 per day of violation.
DEFINITIONS regarding the Clean Water Act:
The term "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that Linder normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. The
Corps of Engineers has the responsibiI ity for determining whether a specific wetland area is
within Section 404 jurisdiction.
The term "adjacent" means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated
from other waters of the United States by manmade dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach
dunes, and the like are "adjacent wetlands."
The term "discharge of dredged rnateriA" means the addition, including redeposition, of
dredged material, runoff from a contained land or water disposal area, and any addition,
i ncluding redeposition, of excavated material. These activities include mechanized landclearing,
grading, filling in low areas, sidecasting of excavated material from new ditching work, and
other placement of excavated material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.
The term "discharge of fill material'' means the addition of fill material used for the
primary effect of replacing any portion of water of the U.S. with dry Iand or of changing the
bottom elevation of a water of the U.S., including wetlands. The placement of pilings constitutes
a discharge of fill material when such placement has or would have the effect of a discharge of
fill material.
The tern "ordinary high water mark." means that line on the shore established by the
fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line
impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial
vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the
characteristics of the surrounding area.