The URL can be used to link to this page

17-105489-Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan Revised-02.16.23EXISTING CONDITIONS PAGE 1 Wet.land, LLC Jennifer Marriott, PWS 8201 164th Ave NE, Suite 200, PMB 141 Redmond, WA 98052 9 February 2023 City of Federal Way Department of Community Development PROJECT: Woodbridge Business Park, Federal Way, Washington SUBJECT: Revised Critical Areas Report Addendum Dear City, The City provided comments on this Project in the spring of 2021 and again in August 2022 that included ESA’s review of the critical areas information provided as part of this application. ESA’s review in 2021 covered the most recent critical areas report titled Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan, dated 9 April 2020 as prepared by Talasaea Consultants (Attachment 1). I have been part of this Project since its beginnings and have continued my role even after leaving Talasaea in March of 2020. In order to respect the Project documents, rather than revise the April 2020 Talasaea Report or create a new report, an addendum to the April 2020 Talasaea critical areas report was prepared. This revised addendum incorporates information based on the August 2022 ESA comments, as well as the new site plan. Responses to ESA’s comments on this application are provided as a separate document. In order to facilitate the review of these documents, Attachment 2 of this Addendum is a copy of the 2018 Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) under which this Project is grandfathered. The plan sheets that constitute the mitigation plan as well as outline all critical areas impacts onsite have been completely redone in an effort to ensure accuracy and clarity to the critical areas proposed to be impacted by this Project (Attachment 3, Revised Mitigation Plan): Sheet W1.0 Critical Areas Overview Plan Sheet W1.1 Project Site Overview Sheet W1.2 Existing Conditions Plan Sheet W1.3 Existing Conditions Plan Sheet W1.4 Proposed Impacts & Mitigation Overview Plan Sheet W1.5 Proposed Impacts & Mitigation Overview Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS PAGE 2 Sheet W1.6 Proposed Impacts & Mitigation Sheet W1.7 Proposed Impacts & Mitigation Sheet W1.8 Proposed Impacts & Mitigation Enlargement Sheet W1.9 Proposed Impacts & Mitigation Enlargement Sheet W1.10 Proposed Impacts & Mitigation Enlargement Sheet W1.11 Proposed Impacts & Mitigation Summary Table Sheet W2.0 Fencing Plan & Details Sheet W2.1 Grading Specifications Sheet W3.0 Plant Schedule and Details Sheet W3.1 Planting Specifications Sheet W4.0 Performance Monitoring Plan The site plan has been revised to accommodate other comments by the City. This includes, among other items, slight adjustments around the perimeter of the main project footprint to tighten up the site plan adjacent to critical areas as well as to reflect boundary line adjustments that have been approved since the original application for this Project. The impacts and mitigation discussion has also been revised to discuss buffer impacts resulting from the road improvements to Weyerhaeuser Way South. Direct and indirect wetland impacts totalling 8,585 square feet (0.2-acres) and 6,353 square feet (0.15-acre), respectively, are proposed to accommodate this Project. These impacts will be compensated for through the purchase of 20.96 in-lieu fee credits from the King County In-Lieu Fee (ILF) Program. The ILF Plan as prepared for the USACE is provided as Attachment 4. On-site mitigation will occur for other buffer modifications proposed outside of the direct and indirect wetland impacts. Discussions of each area of buffer modification proposed are provided below in this Addendum. EXISTING CONDITIONS PAGE 3 1. Existing Conditions 1.1 Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) – Pre-2022 The ordinary high water marks (OHWM) of the onsite streams and North Lake were determined based on the Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) guidance document Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (October 2016, Publication No. 16-06-029). Delineations were done between in late winter to spring of 2016. Stream AC was delineated based on the location of the tops of bank for this artificial channel. North Lake was more complicated as the north end of the lake extends into a large wetland complex. The North Lake OHWM was also used as the starting location to determine the extent of the Shoreline Management Zone (SMZ). The OHWM of North Lake was established based on a clear topographic break along the western lake edge. Where wetlands occur adjacent to the open water portion of the lake, the OHWM was established based on the species of vegetation present. Aquatic plants and other obligate (OBL) plants were considered to be within the OHWM based on ECY guidance, while facultative wetland (FACW) or drier plants remained outside of the OHWM. Wetland vegetation along the western edge of the lake typically lacks both aquatic vegetation and OBL wetland vegetation, so the OHWM focused on the presence of a clear topographic break (bank) and the edge of the open water portion of the lake. Wetland conditions that extended up the hill were dominated by FACW or facultative (FAC) species, and thus were excluded from the OHWM delineation. The OHWM was more complicated at the north end of the lake, east of the WDFW boat ramp, due to the large wetland complex (Wetland CD) that occurs there. The upper limits of Wetland CD (not in Project Area) was delineated as part of the greater critical areas evaluations of the Woodbridge Property, and included within the Lakefront Boundary Line Adjustment application. The OHWM is located through Wetland CD such that this wetland occurs both inside and outside of the OHWM of the lake. The OHWM was not field delineated through this specific parcel/Wetland CD. Rather, the OHWM was approximated based on aerial imagery with field spot checks to be located outside of the OBL wetland vegetation. Spot elevations at certain locations and the use of lidar elevations combined were used to delineate the OHWM at this location. The remainder of the OHWM to the west and south where the OHWM is adjacent to the Project Area was field delineated. In addition to the OHWM of North Lake, this lake is also a Shoreline of the State. Therefore, in addition to delineating the OHWM of the lake, the OHWM was then used to identify areas that occur within the Shoreline Management Zone (SMZ). The SMZ extends 200 feet from the delineated OHWM of North Lake and extends to encompass the entirety of any wetlands that occur even partially within the 200-foot SMZ. This inclusion of wetlands within the SMZ that occur even partially within the SMZ was the main reason why a field delineation of the OHWM of North Lake northeast of the Project Area was not conducted or deemed an efficient use of time. 1.2 Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) – 2022 At the request of the City, the OHWM of North Lake was delineated in November 2022 along a stretch adjacent to the Business Park to establish a final line for the 200-foot Shoreline Management Zone (SMZ). The OHWM was EXISTING CONDITIONS PAGE 4 typically flagged at the boundary between the obligate sedges, rushes, and cattails occurring in the shallow waters at the edge of the lake and the willows and Douglas spirea that form a large portion of Wetland BD along this stretch of lakeshore. This new delineation was surveyed by ESM Consulting Engineers and the new shoreline was incorporated into the revised figures. As a result of this study, it was determined that the adjusted 200-foot SMZ no longer extended over the area of road improvements. Therefore, no portion of this Project occurs within the SMZ. Photo 1. Photos of North Lake OHWM (blue flags) 1.3 Wetlands Clarification Sheet W1.1 of Attachment 3 shows how the Project Site has changed over time, including a summary of which wetlands were covered in which previous versions of critical areas reports relative to which wetlands occur within the current project area. The current site plan reflects a much-reduced project limit that is much smaller than any of the previous critical areas reports for this application or for the boundary line adjustments previously submitted to the City. Wetlands that have been removed from the study area remain jurisdictional wetlands, but have been removed from discussions for this Project as they occur beyond the scope of the Project Site and Study Area, regardless of previous parcel boundaries and reporting. The discussion moving forward focuses on those wetlands that occur within or adjacent to the project site that are or could be affected by this Project. Wetlands KG, KH, KI, KJ, KK, KL, and KM were previously removed because these areas were reevaluated and determined to not meet the definition of a wetland. However, since these features were identified within the Boundary Line Adjustments (BLA) for this area, the attached revised Critical Areas plan sheets and mitigation plan have been revised to reflect the presence of these wetlands. All of these wetlands occur outside of the project site and the study area. Wetlands KA, KB, KC, KD, KF, KN, KT, KU, KV, KW (previously included) and Wetlands KG, KH, KI, KJ, KK, KL, and KM (re-added back in) These wetlands are a series of small slope and depressional wetlands that occur north of South 336th Street. These herbaceous wetlands are dominated by pasture grasses, typically a mix of rye (Lolium spp.), fescues (Festuca spp.), bentgrasses (Agrostis spp.), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), and others. WETLAND IMPACTS PAGE 5 2. Wetland Impacts Direct and indirect wetland impacts are proposed as part of this Project to accommodate the footprint of the large warehouses and the necessary infrastructure, parking, and stormwater ponds. The site plan was revised based on the last round of City comments, and in turn, the wetland impacts were adjusted accordingly. The fully updated plan sheets and mitigation plan are provided as Attachment 3. A summary of direct and indirect wetland impacts is provided in the below table and located on Sheet W1.5. Table 1. Summary of Wetland Impacts Direct impacts are wetland fill and have only changed slightly from previous site plans. Indirect wetland impacts can be very subjective so an analysis of both USACE and City regulations w ere analyzed in light of each wetland impact to determine the best path forward. Indirect wetland impacts were identified where site grading disturbed the buffer sufficiently to preclude the proper function of the associated buffer, or where buffer impacts were to forested buffers where a time lag factor would prevent successful and quick reestablishment of any temporarily impacted buffers. Where feasible, buffer averaging was used to minimize or avoid where indirect impacts occurred with buffer replacement used to ensure no net loss of buffer area. A discussion of buffer modifications and impacts is provided in Chapter 3 below. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 6 3. Wetland Buffer Impacts Certain development within buffers is allowed as outlined in FWRC 19.145.440 Development within wetland buffers, including trails and stormwater management facilities, with buffer averaging or enhancement allowed to modify buffers where needed. A detailed assessment of buffer modifications is outlined below. This assessment excludes all wetlands that are proposed to be fully filled as these wetlands will not have post-development buffers remaining. As a quick summary: Buffer Impacts • Permanent Buffer Impacts 36,721 square feet • Reduced buffers for buffer averaging for road improvements and site development • Utility corridor and maintenance access for Stormwater Ponds #2 and #3 • Temporary Disturbances 27,114 square feet • Existing trail restoration (multiple wetlands) • Stream AC culvert removal and buffer enhancement Buffer Mitigation 93,757 square feet • Wetland Buffer Replacement 61,354 square feet • Replacement for Permanent Buffer Impacts • Wetland Buffer Re-Establishment 4,754 square feet • New buffer added between wetlands and Project (multiple wetlands) • Wetland and Stream Buffer Restoration 27,649 square feet • Restoration of existing unpaved trail (multiple wetlands) • Stream buffer restoration at culvert and Stormwater Pond #5 outfall WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 7 Table 2. Summary of Critical Areas Impacts & Mitigation WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 8 3.1 Regulatory Overview of Impacts and Mitigation The Project is grandfathered under the 2018 Federal Way Revised Code (Attachment 2). GENERAL FWRC 19.145.120 Partial exemptions. FWRC 19.145.120 allows for the restoration of critical areas assuming the restoration action does not alter the location, dimensions, or size of the critical area or buffer and does not reduce the existing quality or functions of the critical area or buffer. An existing maintenance trail meanders through multiple buffers near the center of the Site that has been used as an oversized pedestrian trail in the past. However, this trail was intended for access for maintenance vehicles, not pedestrians. This trail will be removed wherever it occurs within the Project Site and restored to a functional buffer. This restoration action is discussed below segment by segment as it occurs within the buffers of various wetlands. FWRC 19.145.160 Building setbacks. A 5-foot building setback is required off all critical area buffers. At no point in this site plan are buildings or structures proposed within five (5) feet of a wetland buffer. FWRC 19.145.180 Critical area markers, signs, and fences. The Project proposes signage at 150-foot intervals and critical areas fencing along all boundaries between critical areas and the proposed development. Where buffers back up to other open spaces or undeveloped areas, no critical area signs or fencing are proposed. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS Stream AC is the only stream within the Project Site. The Project occurs outside of the lake buffer and the Shoreline Management Zone for North Lake as discussed above. FWRC 19.145.270 Stream buffers. The standard buffer for Stream AC has been applied. FWRC 19.145.310 Removal of streams from culverts. No culverts will be installed as part of this project, but a culvert is proposed now to be removed with stream restoration proposed in this area. FWRC 19.145.330 Intrusions into stream buffers. Intrusions into stream buffers are allowed per FWRC 19.145.330 with a buffer enhancement plan. This requires that the enhanced reduced buffer will function at an equivalent or higher level than the standard buffer. No clear dimensional requirements are outlined. The focus is on function of the buffer rather than size of the buffer. WETLANDS FWRC 19.145.420 Wetland rating and buffers. All wetlands were rated with the 2014 rating system. Rating sheets were previously provided. No change to wetland ratings has occurred, and the previously verified wetland ratings have been used in the impact and mitigation analyses below. FWRC 19.145.430 Development within wetlands. Justification of the wetland fill was previously provided to document that the currently proposed direct wetland impacts are the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed Project after multiple iterations of site plan evaluations and adjustments. Mitigation for wetland impacts is proposed through the ILF program consistent with FWRC 19.145.430.4.a. Wetland mitigation ratios are not applied to this project as no onsite mitigation for wetland fill is proposed. The ILF Plan as prepared for the USACE is provided as Attachment 4. The purchase of ILF credits for wetland fill (direct or indirect) is also understood to WET LAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 9 address the wetland buffer associated with the filled portion of the wetland. This is inherent in the process of purchasing mitigation credits from a mitigation bank or ILF program. Indirect wetland impacts as a result of partial wetland fill are not clearly addressed within the FWRC. Indirect impacts result from a partial wetland fill leaving a portion of wetland insufficiently buffered based on the standard buffers applied to the wetland. Since mitigation requirements for indirect wetland impacts are not clearly defined in the 2018 FWRC, application of best available science must be used to determine the most appropriate path forward. In an email conversation with Dan Krentz of the USACE, Dan noted that the USACE does allow reduced buffers to be used for determining indirect wetland impacts where the buffer area is averaged for no net loss of buffer area, but this is determined on a case-by-case basis. This Project does have an active application with the USACE so this will be evaluated with the USACE for their concurrence. FWRC 19.145.430.7 requires mitigation monitoring for a minimum of five (5) years. FWRC 19.145.440 Development within wetland buffers. FWRC 19.145.440.4 allows buffers to stop at the edge of a permanently altered state, such as roads, paved parking lots, or permanent structures. There are several locations on the Site where buffers stop at the edge of paved parking lots or roads. The gravel maintenance trail was not considered a permanently altered state despite the compacted gravel nature of the trail. FWRC 19.145.440.5 allows for buffer averaging of all wetland buffers as long as there is no net loss of buffer area, that buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning habitat, and the buffer reduction is no more than 25% of the standard buffer width. Where buffer averaging is proposed the City (FWRC 19.145.440.5) requires the following criteria be met: (a) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; (b) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion; (c) The buffer at its narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required width; and (d) Unless authorized in writing by a consenting neighboring property owner, the averaging will remain on the subject property. Based on the above information, the following actions were taken at each location where direct and indirect wetland impacts occurred: • Areas of wetland fill (direct wetland impacts) were indicated in a dark grey hatch and will be mitigated for through the purchase of ILF credits. This credit purchase includes the buffers that extended off the filled wetland area. Therefore, once direct wetland impacts were calculated, the buffers in the existing condition are no longer an accurate reflection of the wetland condition. • Wetland buffers were reapplied to the remaining portion of the wetlands to establish new post-development buffers and evaluate for extent of indirect wetland impacts. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 10 • Buffer averaging is allowed per FWRC 19.145.440.5 where a 25% reduction from the standard buffer defines the minimum buffer allowed per code. Therefore, 75% of the standard buffer is an acceptable buffer width that will protect those wetlands when the reduced buffer width is replaced. By definition, buffer replacement can only occur outside of the standard buffers for any given wetland. In an area where multiple wetlands occur in close proximity, this means that overlapping buffers push the buffer replacement further than when only one wetland occurs. This creates a larger wetland/upland complex that provides dynamic ecosystems that are able to support a larger assemblage of wildlife than smaller areas. • The new standard buffer applied to the edge of the post-construction wetland limits was evaluated. The outer 25% of this new buffer is hatched in pink to clearly show these areas that will be replaced through onsite buffer replacement for no net loss of buffer area. • The inner 75% of the buffer where they occur adjacent to a direct wetland impact (wetland fill) will be mitigated through the purchase of ILF credits. Thus, ILF credits are only purchased for the reduced buffer while the remaining area is replaced through buffer replacement – consistent with the FWRC and USACE guidance. Where no direct impacts to wetlands occurred, per code buffer reduction with averaging was applied to ensure no net loss of buffer area. The criteria of FWRC 19.145.440.5 will be discussed on a wetland-by-wetland basis below where buffer averaging is proposed. 3.2 Wetland AE Wetland AE will be filled in its entirety with mitigation provided through the purchase of ILF credits. 3.3 Wetland AF Wetland AF will be mitigated for in its entirety with mitigation provided through the purchase of ILF credits as compensation for indirect wetland impacts affecting the entire wetland. 3.4 Wetland AG Partial fill of Wetland AG is proposed with associated indirect wetland impacts. Direct fill of 2,061 square feet of Wetland AG is proposed for a permanent impact to 32% of this wetland for filling the northern arm of this wetland that wraps around an existing stormwater pond. This wetland was at least partially formed as a result of the adjacent stormwater pond. The direct impact will be mitigated through the purchase of credits from the King County ILF Program. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 11 Figure 1. Snip from Sheet W1.9, Revised Mitigation Plans, showing impacts and mitigation. Indirect impacts will result from the filling of this section of Wetland AG and to modify the existing stormwater pond into a newly designed pond that will meet current requirements. Indirect wetland impacts total 361 square feet that reflect the City-supported minimum buffer width of 75% of the standard buffer. For this wetland, the minimum buffer width supported by the FWRC for a 60-foot standard buffer is 45 feet. A total of 3,432 square feet of buffer will be reduced from the post-fill outer 25% buffer area that will be replaced adjacent to the current buffer. Where buffer averaging is proposed the City (FWRC 19.145.440.5) requires the following criteria be met: (a) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; There is no net loss of buffer area after averaging. Buffer reduced totals 3,432 square feet with approximately 20,427 square feet of buffer replaced. This results in a net gain of 16,995 square feet of buffer located uphill of the wetland through which much of this wetland’s hydrology is derived. (b) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion; There is no part of this wetland buffer that is higher functioning than other areas. The whole buffer except for where a trail crosses the wetland at the south end is all consistently forested with native woody trees and shrubs. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 12 The portion of the wetland and buffer impacted by the fill was the lowest functioning portion of this wetland since this upper arm had minimal understory vegetation than other areas. (c) The buffer at its narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required width; and The buffer at its narrowest is 75% of the standard buffer (45 feet with a standard width of 60 feet). The portion of the wetland that falls within this 45-foot buffer that was used to calculate indirect impacts will be mitigated through the ILF program as if the wetland in this area was filled. Addressing the indirect impacts through the ILF credit purchase also addresses mitigation for the reduced buffer associated with the indirect wetland impacts. The difference between the reduced 45-foot buffer and the standard 60-foot buffer area is being replaced onsite for no net loss of buffer area. (d) Unless authorized in writing by a consenting neighboring property owner, the averaging will remain on the subject property. All buffer modifications occur on the subject property. Other temporary buffer impacts proposed during construction will result from the restoration of an existing maintenance trail into forested, functional buffer totaling 1,034 square feet. These temporary impacts for trail to buffer restoration are not tallied based on FWRC 19.145.440 as these are existing trails that will be restored as buffer in place through removal of the trail substrate, soil decompaction and amendments as needed, and subsequent replanting concurrent with other onsite buffer mitigation activities. 3.5 Wetland AH Wetland AH will be mitigated for in its entirety with mitigation provided through the purchase of ILF credits as compensation for indirect wetland impacts affecting the entire wetland. 3.6 Wetland AV Wetland AV is an irregularly-shaped wetland that is constrained by existing features on 3 of 4 sides in its current condition. Current buffers for Wetland AV range between almost none (south end) to roughly 11-12 feet to the east and west due to existing development constraints that have vegetative and hydrologic impacts on this wetland. However, only the asphalt parking lot and roads east of the Site are sufficient to stop the buffer based on FWRC 19.145.440.4. While the maintenance trail is a wide compacted surface, it is not frequently used for vehicles. The buffer at the north end overlaps with buffers from Wetland DK, thus there is no “outer” 25% of the buffer for this wetland where a standard application of FWRC 19.145.440 could be implemented. The same is true around the entirety of this wetland due to the constrained existing conditions of this wetland and its buffer. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 13 Figure 2. Snip from Sheet W1.9, Revised Mitigation Plans, for Wetland AV. No direct impacts are proposed to Wetland AV. Indirect impacts of 580 square feet will result due to proposed stormwater ponds #3 and 4, as well as a portion of the access road to these ponds. Buffer will be modified in several ways for this wetland – additional discussion of these elements of modifying the Wetland AV buffer is provided below. • Buffer averaging to accommodate the western arm of the wetland - reduced buffer totals 2,715 square feet (73 square feet, Project; 2,642 square feet for stormwater ponds) with approximately 2,727 square feet of buffer replaced. • Buffer averaging to accommodate the utility corridor and maintenance access trail - reduced buffer totals 1,879 square feet with approximately 4,754 square feet of buffer re-established as replacement buffer. Note: the utility corridor overlaps with Wetland DK buffer. The value here reflects the portion of the utility corridor/access trail that occurs within the Wetland AV buffer, though it overlaps the buffer for Wetland DK at this location. Portions of this utility corridor/access trail are effectively mitigated twice – for Wetland AV and for Wetland DK. • 4,754 square feet of buffer will be re-established in place where the edge of development is moving away from the wetland, giving back an area of buffer that was previously paved as compensation for the utility corridor. • 155 square feet of buffer addition will occur where the trail is proposed to be restored to upland where the trail occurs outside of any standard buffers. • 4,022 square feet of existing buffer that is the maintenance trail will be restored in place. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 14 Where buffer averaging is proposed the City (FWRC 19.145.440.5) requires the following criteria be met: (a) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; There is no net loss of buffer area after averaging. Reduced buffer totals 4,594 square feet: 73 square feet where the buffer is being reduced for the project within the outer 25% along the northeastern edge; 2,672 square feet for the new stormwater ponds; and 1,879 square feet for the utility corridor. Mitigation totals 7,636 square feet of new buffer, including 2,727 square feet of buffer replacement and 4,754 square feet of buffer re-establishment where the current edge of development is shifting away from the wetland, as well as 155 square feet of trail to buffer restoration where the trail occurs outside of existing buffers. The reduced buffer for the maintenance access trail is 1,879 square feet. This area is being compensated for at a greater than 1:1 ratio. This maintenance access trail will only be used a few times a year, and based on the City’s guidance for altered buffers (FWRC 19.145.440.4), a rarely used unpaved maintenance road would not meet the parameters of stopping a functional buffer. Buffer function will continue over this trail with no interruption. (b) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion; There is no part of the existing wetland buffer that is higher functioning than other areas. The whole buffer except for where a trail crosses the wetland at the south and western edges is all consistently forested with native woody trees and shrubs. Those portions of the standard buffer that are lower in quality are excluded from the standard buffer by application of FWRC 19.145.440.4. (c) The buffer at its narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required width; and The buffer at its narrowest is 75% of the standard buffer (45 feet with a standard width of 60 feet). The portion of the wetland that falls within this 45-foot buffer that was used to calculate indirect impacts will be mitigated through the ILF program as if the wetland in this area was filled. Addressing the indirect impacts through the ILF credit purchase also addresses mitigation for the reduced buffer associated with the indirect wetland impacts. The difference between the reduced 45-foot buffer and the standard 60-foot buffer area is being replaced onsite for no net loss of buffer area. The buffer will continue to function over the maintenance trail proposed over the necessary utility line with no interruption. (d) Unless authorized in writing by a consenting neighboring property owner, the averaging will remain on the subject property. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 15 All buffer modifications occur on the subject property. Other temporary buffer impacts proposed totaling 4,022 square feet will result from the restoration of an existing maintenance trail into forested, functional buffer. These temporary impacts for trail to buffer restoration are not tallied based on FWRC 19.145.440 as these are existing trails that will be restored as functional buffer in place through removal of the trail substrate, soil decompaction and amendments as needed, and subsequent replanting concurrent with other onsite buffer mitigation activities. A new access road is proposed to overlap a new utility line to connect the development to stormwater ponds 2 and 3. This new access road is intended for periodic maintenance only and will be rarely used, likely no more than a few times a year. The road substrate could be evaluated to further reduce the effects on the wetland buffers. The utility line was evaluated to see if it could be relocated, but this is the most direct route that meets the elevations necessary to ensure a functional drainage system. It was decided to retain the new maintenance access road over the new utility line to achieve the best outcome for the adjacent critical areas while accommodating the proj ect needs. Large stormwater ponds are required to accommodate this Project due to the large area of impervious surfaces proposed. Restrictions on development into the meadow west of the proposed project footprint due to this area being of historical significance to the view corridor associated with the headquarters building to the south heavily restricts where stormwater ponds can be placed. The use of vaults has been evaluated and are being used to a limited extent where feasible to reduce the stormwater pond area requirements. Infiltration is not a viable option for this Site as outlined in the geotechnical studies. Despite the use of some vaults, extensive ponds are still necessary, and where ponds are placed, maintenance access is necessary. Multiple locations were evaluated for placement of the maintenance access to the stormwater ponds, and it was decided the most direct route was best to reduce the footprint of this access road within the critical areas that occur between the ponds and the interior roads of the proposed development. Consideration was given to using the existing unpaved trail, especially in light of guidance provided by the City. However, the current conditions of this trail are not adequate for safe access of maintenance vehicles with the deep side ditches, so work would have been required to expand this feature into a safe access road. The relocation of the utility line under this existing trail was also not feasible. Proximity of this trail to Wetland AV was also a consideration as the trail side ditches have a significant negative effect on Wetland AV hydrology. The proposed access road location moves this road to the most direct route, thus limiting buffer impacts, while also keeping this trail a maximum, feasible distance from all wetlands. Based on this assessment, it was determined that the section of buffer between Wetlands AV and DK was the best location with the remainder of the unpaved access road to be restored as functional buffer with the side ditches removed to also restore more natural surface water movement through this area. The indirect impacts proposed to the Wetland AV buffer to accommodate this access road will be compensated for through buffer averaging to replace the affected buffer. The stormwater maintenance access road located through the buffers between Wetlands AV and DK will result in 1,879 square feet of buffer converted to the rarely used access road that will be replaced with the addition of 4,754 square feet of buffer that will be re-established as new buffer, as required by buffer averaging. These areas of new re-established buffer will be restored to a fully vegetation condition, including removal of all existing structures within these areas currently. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 16 The indirect impacts resulting from this buffer intrusion exceed the 25% reduction allowed per code due to the existing constraints of this location, but the nearest interpretation of buffer averaging as feasible given existing conditions was applied to this location. 3.7 Wetland BL Wetland BL is a forested and shrubby slope wetland that occurs on the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South. This wetland occurs within the Shoreline Management Zone (SMZ) for North Lake. However, its buffer extends beyond the SMZ and over a small area proposed for road improvements. The area of road improvements, to include the addition of curb, gutter, and sidewalks, occurs outside of the SMZ. Minor buffer averaging will be proposed to accommodate the road work. Figure 3. Snip from Sheet 1.10, Revised Mitigation Plan, for Wetland BL. Where buffer averaging is proposed the City (FWRC 19.145.440.5) requires the following criteria be met: (a) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; There is no net loss of buffer area after averaging. Reduced buffer totals 960 square feet with 986 square feet of forested buffer provided as replacement for no net loss of buffer area. The standard buffer width of 80 feet is being reduced by less than 25% to 65 feet. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 17 (b) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion; The buffer being reduced occurs at the edge of the existing road within the current right of way and is generally mowed as part of roadway maintenance. The buffer provided as replacement is forested with native species, and is higher quality than the buffer reduced. (c) The buffer at its narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required width; and The buffer at its narrowest is more than 75% (60 feet with a standard width of 80 feet) of the standard buffer with a minimum buffer width of 65 feet. (d) Unless authorized in writing by a consenting neighboring property owner, the averaging will remain on the subject property. All buffer modifications occur on the subject property. 3.8 Wetland BR Wetland BR will remain unimpacted with no substantial buffer impacts anticipated. A small swale is also proposed within the Wetland BR buffer that will require reduction of 284 square feet of buffer in the outer 25% of the Wetland BR buffer. Approximately 704 square feet of buffer replacement is proposed immediately adjacent to the wetland buffer and swale for a net gain of 420 square feet of buffer. This swale is not associated with the Project’s stormwater infrastructure, but rather is intended to provide a clear hydrologic connection between Wetland AV and Wetland BR and support the baseflow of Stream AC. A 438 square foot segment of maintenance trail occurs within the buffer of Wetland BR that will be restored in place, requiring temporary impacts for the restoration work. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 18 Figure 4. Snip from Sheet W1.9, Revised Mitigation Plans, for Wetland BR. 3.9 Wetland BS-North Wetland BS-North will be filled in its entirety with mitigation provided through the purchase of ILF credits. 3.10 Wetland BS-South Wetland BS-South occurs just outside the project limits but its buffer extends onto the Project Site. This wetland will remain unimpacted. The Wetland BS-South buffer stops short of the proposed trail restoration. The trail restoration is not proposed to extend outside of the Project Site. 3.11 Wetland CB Wetland CB is a forested depressional wetland that occurs on the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South. This wetland receives stormwater discharges from the pond on the west side of Weyerhaeuser Way South and conveys that water east and south to North Lake through Wetland CD. The buffer along the western edge adjacent to Weyerhaeuser Way stops short of the standard buffer based on FWRC 19.145.440.4 that allows for buffers to stop at permanently altered landscapes, such as roads. Road improvements are proposed to Weyerhaeuser Way South, including the addition of curb, gutter, and sidewalks that will reduce the buffer for this wetland. Minor buffer averaging will be proposed to accommodate the road work. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 19 Figure 5. Snip from Sheet 1.10, Revised Mitigation Plan, for Wetland CB. Where buffer averaging is proposed the City (FWRC 19.145.440.5) requires the following criteria be met: (a) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; The buffer at its narrowest for this wetland is 22 feet adjacent to Weyerhaeuser Way South. This location will be further narrowed to accommodate the City-required road improvements. No net loss of buffer area will occur after averaging. Reduced buffer totals 4,280 square feet with 4,795 square feet of forested buffer provided as replacement for no net loss of buffer area. (b) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion; The buffer being reduced occurs at the edge of the existing road within the current right of way and is generally mowed as part of roadway maintenance. The buffer provided as replacement is forested with native species, and is of higher quality than the buffer reduced. (c) The buffer at its narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required width; and The buffer at its narrowest is less than the standard 105-foot buffer already due to an existing non-conforming use with Weyerhaeuser Way. Weyerhaeuser Way has been at this location for many decades and is an established existing use that is being upgraded to meet current City standards. WETLAND BUFFER IM PACTS PAGE 20 (d) Unless authorized in writing by a consenting neighboring property owner, the averaging will remain on the subject property. All buffer modifications occur on the subject property. 3.12 Wetland CN Wetland CN is a forested and shrubby depressional wetland that occurs on the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South. The buffer along the western edge adjacent to Weyerhaeuser Way stops short of the standard buffer based on FWRC 19.145.440.4 that allows for buffers to stop at permanently altered landscapes, such as roads. Road improvements are proposed to Weyerhaeuser Way South, including the addition of curb, gutter, and sidewalks that will reduce the buffer for this wetland. Minor buffer averaging will be proposed to accommodate the road work. Figure 6. Snip from Sheet 1.10, Revised Mitigation Plan, for Wetland CN. Where buffer averaging is proposed the City (FWRC 19.145.440.5) requires the following criteria be met: (d) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; The buffer at its narrowest for this wetland is 36 feet adjacent to Weyerhaeuser Way South. This location will be further narrowed to accommodate the City-required road improvements. No net loss of buffer area will occur after averaging. Reduced buffer totals 4,170 square feet with 4,459 square feet of forested buffer provided as replacement for no net loss of buffer area. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 21 (e) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion; The buffer being reduced occurs at the edge of the existing road within the current right of way and is generally mowed as part of roadway maintenance. The buffer provided as replacement is forested with native species, and is of higher quality than the buffer reduced. (f) The buffer at its narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required width; and The buffer at its narrowest is less than the standard 80-foot buffer already due to an existing non-conforming use with Weyerhaeuser Way. Weyerhaeuser Way has been at this location for many decades and is an established existing use that is being upgraded to meet current City standards. (d) Unless authorized in writing by a consenting neighboring property owner, the averaging will remain on the subject property. All buffer modifications occur on the subject property. 3.13 Wetland DE Direct placement of fill into Wetland DE will total 264 square feet (1% of the total wetland area) with an additional 4,302 square feet of indirect wetland impacts resulting from the insufficiently buffered wetland. The indirect impacts were determined based on the minimum wetland area required to provide a minimum 45-foot buffer consistent with FWRC 19.145.440.5. Both direct and indirect wetland impacts will be compensated for through the purchase of in-lieu fee credits. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 22 Figure 7. Snip from Sheet W1.8, Revised Mitigation Plans, for Wetland DE Buffer will be modified in several ways for this wetland – additional discussion of these elements of modifying the Wetland DE buffer is provided below. • Buffer averaging at the north end of the wetland - reduced buffer totals 4,523 square feet with approximately 11,504 square feet of buffer replaced. • 4,723 square feet of existing buffer that is the maintenance trail will be restored in place. Where buffer averaging is proposed the City (FWRC 19.145.440.5) requires the following criteria be met: (a) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 23 Once the direct impacts are accounted for, the outer 25% of the new standard buffer will be reduced for a reduction of 4,523 square feet with 11,504 square feet of replacement buffer. The replacement buffer will be adjacent to the existing standard Wetland DE buffer consistent with FWRC 19.145.440.5 that requires that the buffer be replaced adjacent to the existing buffer. The buffer replacement is more than twice the reduced buffer area for no net loss of buffer area. While some portions of the replaced buffer occur adjacent to Wetlands DF and DG, the majority of the replacement buffer occurs adjacent to the Wetland DE buffer, as required. (b) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion; There is no part of this wetland buffer that is higher functioning than other areas. The wetland itself is dominated by a non-native European ash. All of the buffers are higher functioning than the wetland itself as the buffer is dominated by native species. All portions of the buffer are forested with conifers as the dominant canopy tree, unlike the wetland. The whole buffer except for where a trail passes through the buffer west of the wetland is all consistently forested with native woody trees and shrubs. (c) The buffer at its narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required width; and The buffer at its narrowest is 75% of the standard buffer (45 feet with a standard width of 60 feet). The portion of the wetland that falls within this 45-foot buffer that was used to calculate indirect impacts will be mitigated through the ILF program as if the wetland in this area was filled. Addressing the indirect impacts through the ILF credit purchase also addresses mitigation for the reduced buffer associated with the indirect wetland impacts. The difference between the reduced 45-foot buffer and the standard 60-foot buffer area is being replaced onsite for no net loss of buffer area. (d) Unless authorized in writing by a consenting neighboring property owner, the averaging will remain on the subject property. All buffer modifications occur on the subject property. Other temporary buffer impacts proposed during construction will result from the restoration of an existing maintenance trail into forested, functional buffer totaling 4,723 square feet. These temporary impacts for trail to buffer restoration are not tallied based on FWRC 19.145.440 as these are existing trails that will be restored as buffer in place through removal of the trail substrate, soil decompaction and amendments as needed, and subsequent replanting concurrent with other onsite buffer mitigation activities. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 24 3.14 Wetland DF Wetland DF will remain unimpacted by this Project. No buffer impacts to this wetland are proposed. 3.15 Wetland DG Wetland DG will remain unimpacted by this Project. No buffer impacts to this wetland are proposed. 3.16 Wetland DH Wetland DH will remain unimpacted by this Project. No buffer impacts to this wetland are proposed. 3.17 Wetland DI Wetland DI will remain unimpacted by this Project. No buffer impacts to this wetland are proposed. 3.18 Wetland DK Wetland DK has a standard 60-foot buffer that overlaps the Wetland AV buffer to the south. The maintenance trail is a wide compacted surface that passes through the western portion of the Wetland DK buffer. However, this maintenance trail is not frequently used for vehicles. The buffer at the south end overlaps with buffers from Wetland AV, thus there is no “outer” 25% of the buffer for this wetland where a standard application of FWRC 19.145.440 could be implemented. No direct or indirect impacts are proposed to Wetland DK. Buffer will be modified in several ways for this wetland – additional discussion of these elements of modifying the Wetland AV buffer is provided below. • Buffer averaging to accommodate the new utility corridor and maintenance access trail - reduced buffer totals 3,468 square feet with approximately 8,858 square feet of buffer replaced. • 109 square feet of buffer addition will occur where the trail is proposed to be restored to upland where the trail occurs outside of any standard buffers. • 2,153 square feet of existing buffer that is the maintenance trail will be restored in place. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 25 Figure 8. Snip from Sheet W1.8, Revised Mitigation Plans, for Wetland DK. Where buffer averaging is proposed the City (FWRC 19.145.440.5) requires the following criteria be met: (a) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; The reduced buffer for the utility corridor/maintenance access trail is 3,468 square feet with 8,858 square feet of buffer provided as replacement. This maintenance access trail will only be used a few times a year, and based on the City’s guidance for altered buffers (FWRC 19.145.440.4), a rarely used unpaved maintenance road would not meet the parameters of stopping a functional buffer. Buffer function will continue over this trail with no interruption. Portions of this buffer impact occur in areas that overlap the Wetland AV buffer. These areas are being mitigated for twice, for Wetland DK and for Wetland AV. (b) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion; There is no part of this wetland buffer that is higher functioning than other areas. The whole buffer except for where a trail passes through the buffer west of the wetland is all consistently forested with native woody trees and shrubs. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 26 (c) The buffer at its narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required width; and The concept of the 75% width does not exist at this location due to overlapping wetland buffers. See below for more discussion. The buffer will continue to function over the maintenance trail proposed over the necessary utility line with no interruption. (d) Unless authorized in writing by a consenting neighboring property owner, the averaging will remain on the subject property. All buffer modifications occur on the subject property. A new access road is proposed to overlap a new utility line to connect the development to stormwater ponds 2 and 3. This new access road is intended for periodic maintenance only and will be rarely used, likely no more than a few times a year. The road substrate could be evaluated to further reduce the effects on the wetland buffers. The utility line was evaluated to see if it could be relocated, but this is the most direct route that meets the elevations necessary to ensure a functional drainage system. It was decided to retain the new maintenance access road over the new utility line to achieve the best outcome for the adjacent critical areas while accommodating the project needs. Large stormwater ponds are required to accommodate this Project due to the large area of impervious surfaces proposed. Restrictions on development into the meadow west of the proposed project footprint due to this area being of historical significance to the view corridor associated with the headquarters building to the south heavily restricts where stormwater ponds can be placed. The use of vaults has been evaluated and are being used to a limited extent where feasible to reduce the stormwater pond area requirements. Infiltration is not a viable option for this Site as outlined in the geotechnical studies. Despite the use of some vaults, extensive ponds are still necessary, and where ponds are placed, maintenance access is necessary. Multiple locations were evaluated for placement of the maintenance access to the stormwater ponds, and it was decided the most direct route was best to reduce the footprint of this access road within the critical areas that occur between the ponds and the interior roads of the proposed development. Consideration was given to using the existing unpaved trail, especially in light of guidance provided by the City. However, the current conditions of this trail are not adequate for safe access of maintenance vehicles with the deep side ditches, so work would have been required to expand this feature into a safe access road. The relocation of the utility line under this existing trail was also not feasible. Proximity of this trail to Wetland AV was also a consideration as the trail side ditches have a significant negative effect on Wetland AV hydrology. The proposed access road location moves this road to the most direct route, thus limiting buffer impacts, while also keeping this trail a maximum, feasible distance from all wetlands. Based on this assessment, it was determined that the section of buffer between Wetlands AV and DK was the best location with the remainder of the unpaved access road to be restored as functional buffer with the side ditches removed to also restore more natural surface water movement through this area. The indirect impacts proposed to the Wetland DK buffer to accommodate this access road will be compensated for through buffer averaging to replace the affected buffer. The stormwater maintenance access road located through WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 27 the buffers between Wetlands AV and DK will result in 3,468 square feet of buffer converted to the rarely used access road that will be replaced with the addition of 8,868 square feet of buffer. The indirect impacts resulting from this buffer intrusion exceed the 25% reduction allowed per code due to the existing constraints of this location, but the nearest interpretation of buffer averaging as feasible given existing conditions was applied to this location. 3.19 Wetland EI Wetland EI will be filled in its entirety with mitigation provided through the purchase of ILF credits. 3.20 Wetland EJ Wetland EJ will be filled in its entirety with mitigation provided through the purchase of ILF credits. 3.21 Wetland EK Wetland EK will be filled in its entirety with mitigation provided through the purchase of ILF credits. 3.22 Wetland EL Wetland EL will be filled in its entirety with mitigation provided through the purchase of ILF credits. 3.23 Wetland EM Wetland EM will be filled in its entirety with mitigation provided through the purchase of ILF credits. 3.24 Wetland FB Wetland FB will be impacted by the proposed road improvements to Weyerhaeuser Way South that will widen this road to add curb, gutters and a sidewalk. The buffer is already less than the standard buffer along the road as the existing edge of pavement stops the buffer. A buffer reduction of 783 square feet is proposed to accommodate the road widening with 1,608 square feet of buffer replacement proposed for no net loss of wetland buffer area from the existing condition. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 28 Figure 9. Snip from Sheet W1.8, Revised Mitigation Plans, for Wetland FB. 3.25 Wetland FD Wetland FD will be filled in its entirety with mitigation provided through the purchase of ILF credits. 3.26 Wetland FE Wetland FE will be filled in its entirety with mitigation provided through the purchase of ILF credits. 3.27 Wetland FF Wetland FF will be filled in its entirety with mitigation provided through the purchase of ILF credits. 3.28 Wetland GB-North No direct wetland impacts are proposed. Indirect impacts totaling 13 square feet are proposed due to the encroachment into the standard 60-foot buffer for this wetland. The indirect impacts were determined based on the minimum wetland area required to provide a minimum 45-foot buffer consistent with FWRC 19.145.440.5. Indirect wetland impacts will be compensated for through the purchase of in-lieu fee credits. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 29 Figure 10. Snip from Sheet W1.8, Revised Mitigation Plans, for Wetland GB-North. Buffer will be modified in several ways for this wetland – additional discussion of these elements of modifying the Wetland GB-North buffer is provided below. • Buffer averaging to accommodate the north end of the buffer for the site grading - reduced buffer totals 1,701 square feet. • Buffer averaging to accommodate the utility line along the western edge of the buffer - reduced buffer totals 2,001 square feet. • Replacement buffer totals 5,286 square feet • 271 square feet of buffer addition will occur where the trail is proposed to be restored to upland where the trail occurs outside of any standard buffers. • 1,602 square feet of existing buffer that is the maintenance trail will be restored in place. Where buffer averaging is proposed the City (FWRC 19.145.440.5) requires the following criteria be met: (d) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; The outer 25% of the new standard buffer will be reduced by 3,702 square feet (1,701 square feet for the Project and 2,001 square feet for the utility corridor) with 5,286 square feet of replacement buffer provided in compensation. The replacement buffer will be adjacent to the existing standard Wetland GB-North buffer to the south consistent with FWRC 19.145.440.5 that requires that the buffer be replaced adjacent to the existing buffer. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 30 (e) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion; There is no part of this wetland buffer that is higher functioning than other areas. The whole buffer except for where a trail passes through the buffer west of the wetland is all consistently forested with native woody trees and shrubs. (f) The buffer at its narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required width; and The buffer at its narrowest is 75% of the standard buffer (45 feet with a standard width of 60 feet). The portion of the wetland that falls within this 45-foot buffer that was used to calculate indirect impacts will be mitigated through the ILF program as if the wetland in this area was filled. Addressing the indirect impacts through the ILF credit purchase also addresses mitigation for the reduced buffer associated with the indirect wetland impacts. The difference between the reduced 45-foot buffer and the standard 60-foot buffer area is being replaced onsite for no net loss of buffer area. (d) Unless authorized in writing by a consenting neighboring property owner, the averaging will remain on the subject property. All buffer modifications occur on the subject property. Other temporary buffer impacts proposed during construction will result from the restoration of an existing maintenance trail into forested, functional buffer totaling 1,602 square feet. These temporary impacts for trail to buffer restoration are not tallied based on FWRC 19.145.440 as these are existing trails that will be restored as buffer in place through removal of the trail substrate, soil decompaction and amendments as needed, and subsequent replanting concurrent with other onsite buffer mitigation activities. 3.29 Stream AC Minor impacts are proposed to Stream AC to reconfigure its headwaters, an existing, permitted stormwater pond. A small area of temporary stream disturbance will result from removing a culvert as part of the trail restoration effort. Two (2) areas of stream buffer enhancement will also occur to compensate for an outfall structure (dispersion trench) being placed within the stream buffer, and to facilitate the reconfiguration of an existing stormwater pond. FWRC 19.145.310 allows for removal of streams from culverts. FWRC 19.145.330 allows for intrusions into stream buffers with the following information – sections (2) and (3) are discussed below. FWRC 19.145.340 notes that stream grading is only allowed during dry season May 1st – October 1st. However, in-water work will ultimately be determined by the in-water work windows identified by the USACE and WDFW. (2) Stream buffer intrusions may be permitted with a buffer enhancement plan. The applicant shall demonstrate that the remaining and enhanced reduced buffer will function at an equivalent or higher level than the standard buffer. The plan shall provide an assessment of the following existing functions and conditions of the buffer and the effects of the proposed modification on those functions: WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 31 (a) Habitat; Stream buffer intrusions are proposed at two (2) locations – for the reconfiguring of an existing stormwater pond and to construct a new dispersion trench outfall to release treated stormwater into the stream buffer. The existing stream buffers at both locations are heavily disturbed. Around the existing pond, the buffer is either within the existing pond or extends over the berm of the stormwater pond. The berm has a gravel road on top and has little vegetation present. The proposed location of the new outfall structure is currently maintained as lawn/meadow and is regularly mowed. Therefore, the areas of stream buffer disturbed are already low functioning areas of habitat. The mitigation proposed will restore other areas of low functioning buffer into forested buffers that will provide greater habitat opportunities over the existing condition. (b) Water quality; The stream is currently fed by an older stormwater pond that does not meet all current stormwater standards. The improved stormwater facility will meet current standards that will have a direct impact on water quality within this system. (c) Stormwater retention capabilities; Part of the reason the stream buffer impacts is to construct a larger, improved stormwater facility for the new project that will also serve to improve the stormwater retention capabilities of the engineered project elements. The proposed stream buffer impacts will have no effect on the stormwater retention capabilities, especially in light of the mitigation proposed to greatly improve drainage through the culvert removal/stream restoration element and significant enhancement of select areas of the stream buffer. (d) Groundwater recharge; and This is not a location of groundwater recharge. (e) Erosion protection. Appropriate BMPs will be implemented during construction to prevent erosion issues. This stream and adjacent areas are relatively low gradient so erosion is not a major concern. (3) The city may approve a stream buffer intrusion based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; The stream buffer intrusions will not adversely affect water quality. The intrusions are directly tied to the new stormwater facility for the proposed development. The new stormwater facility will need the applicable regulations and bring the stormwater released in the area up to current standards. WETLAND B UFFER IMPACTS PAGE 32 (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or buffer area; The areas proposed for stream buffer intrusions are low quality habitat relative to the overall buffer quality for this stream. The intrusions are targeted for areas of buffer that are already disturbed. The mitigation will take additional areas of disturbed buffer and enhance them to a fully forested condition. Part of the mitigation will be to remove a culvert that is located under the pedestrian trail that is targeted for buffer restoration. The stream grades will be matched on either end of the culvert and the stream will route through an above-ground channel. Appropriate streambed gravels will be installed as the new substrate, while large woody material will be added around the new channel. The remainder of the restoration area will be planted with native woody species of trees and shrubs. (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; The areas proposed for stream buffer intrusions are low quality habitat relative to the overall buffer quality for this stream that have little positive effect on the stream for drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. The intrusions are targeted for areas of buffer that are already disturbed. The mitigation will take additional areas of disturbed buffer and enhance them to a fully forested condition that will have a net positive impact to both drainage and stormwater retention. d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; No part of the stream buffer intrusions proposed, impacts or mitigation, will lead to unstable earth conditions or create erosion hazards. All appropriate BMPs will be implemented during construction. e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole; and The proposed stream buffer intrusions will have no impact on other properties. f) It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. The property has been thoroughly evaluated as it pertains to the project and needs of the project. The impacts proposed are the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed project. The existing stormwater pond cannot be used in its current configuration to meet current standards. This pond must be reconfigured, and an incidental impact to the Stream AC buffer will result as the buffer extends over the stormwater pond and its adjacent berm and side slopes. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS PAGE 33 Figure 11. Snip from Sheet W1.9, Revised Mitigation Plans, for Stream AC. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN PAGE 34 4. Performance Monitoring Plan 4.1 Proposed Mitigation Plan 4.1.1 Agency Policies and Guidance The proposed mitigation plan was designed in accordance with the policies and guidance provided in the following documents: • FWRC Chapter 19.145; • The Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) Publication #06-06-011a, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance, and Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1), dated March 2006 (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 2006a, 2006b); and • The Federal Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources Final Rule (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332, April 10, 2008), effective June 9, 2008 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 2008). All proposed mitigation shall be based on best available science and shall demonstrate no net loss of critical area functions and values. 4.1.2 Mitigation Sequencing Mitigation sequencing has been applied to the proposed project pursuant to the mitigation definition and preferred sequence definition outlined in FWRC 19.145.130. The City mitigation sequencing requirements are as follows, and are consistent with the USACE requirements: (1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts; (3) Rectifying the impact to the critical area by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; (4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and (6) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. A detailed discussion of mitigation sequencing was discussed by critical area above. Impacts to wetlands were minimized to the greatest extent possible given the constraints of warehouse design and parking requirements, as well as the general site constraints of existing easements, protected areas, and roads, among other factors. The Project has gone through multiple site plan iterations to get to a functional design that achieves the goals of the PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN PAGE 35 Project for a minimum area of warehouse with associated parking, office space, and infrastructure that meets all applicable regulations. Mitigation is offered for all impacts either through the purchase of ILF credits or onsite through buffer restoration, enhancement, and replacement. There will be no net loss of buffer from the existing condition. All mitigation areas that involve planting vegetation will be monitored for a minimum of 5 years as required by the permitting agencies. 4.1.3 Proposed Mitigation Components The mitigation components for this Project include buffer replacement, re-establishment, and restoration. • Wetland Buffer Replacement 61,354 square feet • Replacement for Permanent Buffer Impacts • Wetland Buffer Re-Establishment 4,754 square feet • New buffer added between wetlands and Project (multiple wetlands) • Wetland and Stream Buffer Restoration 27,649 square feet • Restoration of existing unpaved trail (multiple wetlands) • Stream buffer restoration at culvert and Stormwater Pond #5 outfall WETLAND BUFFER REPLACEMENT Wetland buffer replacement will provide new buffer as replacement to reduced buffers adjacent to the existing standard buffers. A detailed wetland by wetland discussion was provided in Chapter 3 above. WETLAND BUFFER RE-ESTABLISHMENT Buffer re-establishment will occur east of Wetland AV where the existing developed edge will move east allowing for conversion of areas that were previously within the standard buffer but excluded due to their developed nature. The asphalt and concrete will be removed from these areas and these areas will be restored as vegetated buffer. WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER RESTORATION Buffer restoration is targeted around those areas that are a maintenance trail that’s located around the Site that has often been used for pedestrians. However, this trail system was intended for maintenance vehicles to have access around the property. This maintenance trail will be removed and restored as functional buffer with the trail base removed, any adjacent swales filled in, and native soil brought in as needed to support plantings of native vegetation. This also includes areas of restoration in the stream buffer where areas currently mowed and heavily maintained will be planted with woody species to become a forested buffer. A planting plan is provided in Attachment 3. Proposed buffer and upland restoration measures include: 1. Clearing and grubbing as required by Mitigation plans; 2. Decompacting soils, scarify and amend with topsoil or compost; 3. Adding soil amendments, as determined necessary; 4. Installing 3 inches of bark mulch in all bare soil areas; and 5. Planting a variety of native deciduous and evergreen tree and shrub species. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN PAGE 36 4.1.4 Mitigation Design Elements NATIVE SOIL RETENTION Native soil will be retained from the disturbed portion of the Site that is currently native forest so that the native soil and mulch layers can be used in the restoration areas to retain the native microbiome of the site soils. MULCH Trees from the onsite disturbed areas will be mulched and used in the restoration areas. While logs will mostly be removed from the Site, there will be lots of small debris that can be utilized as mulch retained onsite. LARGE WOODY MATERIAL Select pieces of large wood (logs and/or root wads) will be retained and placed within the stream restoration areas. The exact number will be determined in the field in coordination with the site contractor. PLANTINGS All plantings will only be native species typical for the region that have been site located based on that species’ tolerances for light, water, and soil type. A variety of tree and shrub species will be chosen with the intent to provide structural and species diversity within the mitigation areas. It is expected that natural recruitment of species occurring in the area will also occur and contribute to the species diversity and cover in the mitigation area. SITE PROTECTION Critical area fencing and signage will be placed along the boundaries between critical areas and the developed portions of the Site. No fencing or signs will be installed where they would be located through undeveloped areas. 4.1.5 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards The primary goal of the mitigation is to compensate for impacts to buffers and restore the temporarily impacted buffers. To accomplish these goals, the proposed project will: • Wetland Buffer Replacement 61,354 square feet • Wetland Buffer Re-Establishment 4,754 square feet • Wetland and Stream Buffer Restoration 27,649 square feet Mitigation actions will be evaluated through the following objectives and performance standards. See below for a full description of the monitoring methods that will be used to evaluate the approved performance standards. Mitigation monitoring will be performed by a qualified biologist. Objective A: Create structural and plant species diversity in all of the mitigation areas. Performance Standard A1: Percent survival of all installed species must be at least 100% at the end of Year 1 (per contactor warranty), and at least 80% at the end of Years 2 and 3. Performance Standard A2: At least 8 species of desirable native plant species will be present in the buffer restoration and enhancement areas. Species may be comprised of both planted and naturally colonized vegetation. Performance Standard A3: Native woody species (planted or volunteer) will achieve an average stem density of at least 3 stems per 100 square feet by the end of Year 1 and an average of at least 4 stems per PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN PAGE 37 100 square feet by the end of Year 3. Total percent areal woody plant coverage must be at least 35% by the end of Year 4 and 50% by the end of Year 5. Objective B: Create 26 linear feet of functional stream channel for Stream AC. Performance Standard B1: Stream banks will be monitored annually for bed and bank stability to ensure no major erosion events have occurred beyond what would be considered normal for a stream of this size. Objective C: Remove and control invasive plants to less than 10% cover in mitigation areas. Performance Standard C1: After construction and throughout the 5-year monitoring period, arial coverage by non-native invasive plant species shall be maintained at 10% or less throughout the mitigation site. These species include, but are not limited to: non-native invasive knotweed species (such as Polygonum cuspidatum, P. polystachyum, P. sachalinense, and P. bohemicum), Scot’s broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed, and bittersweet nightshade. 4.2 Mitigation Construction Sequencing The following provides the general sequence of activities anticipated to construct this mitigation project. Some of these activities may be conducted concurrently as the project progresses. 1. Conduct a site meeting between the Contractor, project Biologist or Ecologist, and the Owner's Representative to review the project plans, staging/stockpile areas, and material disposal areas. 2. A pre-construction meeting with City staff will be required in advance of beginning any construction activities. 3. Survey clearing limits. 4. The project Biologist or Ecologist shall review clearing limits and shall flag trees and other existing vegetation to remain within the work area. They shall also flag any woody material to be saved and stockpiled for later use as habitat features (stumps, snags, down logs). 5. Install silt fence and any other erosion and sedimentation control BMPs necessary for work in the project areas. 6. Stream AC Culvert Removal/Restoration: a. Culvert removal will only be done in the summer months. b. Install fish exclusion devices in Stream AC at either end of the in-stream work area, if needed, pending presence of water (which may run dry in the summer months). c. Install dam at upstream end of culvert work area. d. Install dam at downstream end of culvert work area. e. Divert stream flows around the culvert work area. f. Use seine nets to capture and remove fish from the Project Area, if water is present. g. Dewater culvert work area. h. Remove culvert. i. Regrade new stream channel to match up and downstream elevations and cross section/profile. j. Install coir fabric in new stream channel to cover disturbed soils. k. Place stream aggregate in new channel per WDFW guidance and specifications. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN PAGE 38 l. Plant per the planting typicals/plans. m. Slowly reintroduce water into the new stream channel until water level within the new channel is roughly equal to the water levels immediately downstream of the Project Area. If no water in stream, then skip to next step. n. Remove the lower dam. o. Remove the upper dam. p. Remove the stream diversion system. q. Remove fish exclusion devices. 7. Clear and grub designated buffers to remove any existing structures and infrastructure. 8. Ensure a minimum of 12” of suitable soil is present within all enhancement and restoration areas. 9. Plant cleared and grubbed areas per the planting typicals/plans. 10. Mulch all grubbed and cleared areas and provide a 3-inch-deep mulch ring around all container-planted material. 11. Complete site cleanup. 4.3 Post-Construction Approval Once construction is approved, a qualified wetland ecologist shall conduct a post-construction assessment. The purpose of this assessment will be to establish baseline conditions at Year 0 of the required monitoring period. A Baseline Assessment report including “as-built” drawings will be submitted to all of the required agencies. The as- built plan set will identify and describe any changes in grading, planting, or other constructed features in relation to the original approved plan. 4.4 Post-Construction Assessment The Permittee or representative shall notify the permitting agencies (County) when the mitigation plan has been fully installed and is ready for a final site inspection and subsequent final approval. Once final approval is obtained in writing, and “as-built” plans are approved, the monitoring period will begin. 4.5 Monitoring Plan Performance monitoring of the mitigation areas will be conducted according to all applicable code/regulatory requirements and permit conditions. Monitoring will be conducted according to FWRC 19.145.430.7 for a minimum of five (5) years for the City and 10 years for the USACE. Monitoring will be conducted according to the schedule presented in Table 3 below, and will be performed by a qualified biologist or ecologist. The performance monitoring period will be complete when the mitigation site meets all performance standards, at which point one can conclude that the goals and objectives for the mitigation site have been met. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN PAGE 39 Table 3. Projected Schedule for Performance Monitoring & Maintenance Events Year Date Maintenance Review Performance Monitoring Report Due to Agencies Year 0 As-built and Baseline Assessment Fall X X X 1 Spring X X Fall X X X 2 Spring X X Fall X X X 3 Spring X Fall X X X 4 Spring X Fall X X X 5 Spring X Fall X X X* 6 Spring X Fall 7 Spring X Fall X X* 8 Spring X Fall 9 Spring X Fall 10 Spring X Fall X X X**  *Final approvals from the City may be requested to facilitate release of any financial guarantees assuming performance criteria are met.  *Final approvals from the City may be requested to facilitate release of any financial guarantees assuming performance criteria are met. **Final approval from the USACE may be requested assuming performance criteria are met. 4.6 Monitoring Reports Each monitoring report will adhere to the requirements of FWRC 19.145.140. The reports will include: 1) Project Overview, 2) Requirements, 3) Summary Data, 4) Maps and Plans, and 5) Conclusions. Monitoring reports will be submitted to the City Planning Director by December 1st during the years in which monitoring is conducted. 4.6.1 Monitoring Methods The following monitoring methods will be used to evaluate the mitigation site for compliance with the approved performance standards. 4.6.2 Vegetation Monitoring Vegetation monitoring methods may include counts; photo-points; random sampling; sampling plots, quadrats, or transects; stem density; visual inspection; and/or other methods deemed appropriate by the permitting agencies. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN PAGE 40 Vegetation monitoring components shall include general appearance, health, mortality, colonization rates, percent cover, percent survival, volunteer plant species, and invasive weed cover. Permanent vegetation sampling plots, quadrats, and/or transects will be established at selected locations to adequately sample and represent all of the plant communities within the mitigation project areas. The number, exact size, and location of transects, sampling plots, and quadrats will be determined at the time of the baseline assessment and shown on a map for use in the baseline assessment report, as well as future annual monitoring reports. Percent aerial cover of woody vegetation will be evaluated through the use of point-intercept sampling methodology. Using this methodology, a tape will be extended between two permanent markers at each end of an established transect. Trees and shrubs intercepted by the tape will be identified, and the intercept distance recorded. Percent cover by species will then be calculated by adding the intercept distances and expressing them as a total proportion of the tape length. The established vegetation sampling locations will be monitored and compared to the baseline data during each performance monitoring event to aid in determining the success of plant establishment. Percent survival of shrubs and trees will be evaluated in a 10-foot-wide strip along each established transect. The species and location of all shrubs and trees within this area will be recorded at the time of the baseline assessment and will be evaluated during each monitoring event to determine percent survival. 4.6.3 Photo Documentation Permanent photo stations will be established at a minimum of three (3) locations within the mitigation site from which panoramic photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. Photo-point locations will be shown on a map and submitted with the baseline assessment report and yearly performance monitoring reports. These photographs will document general appearance and relative changes within the plant community. Review of the photos over time will provide a semi-quantitative representation of success of the planting plan. 4.6.4 Wildlife Direct and indirect observations of wildlife usage will be recorded during scheduled monitoring events. Direct observations entail actual sightings of the animal, while indirect observations include noticing tracks, scat, nests, or other indications of a species using the area. 4.6.5 Water Quality Water quality will be visually observed during scheduled monitoring events for a qualitative assessment that is only intended to notice obvious discrepancies from expected conditions. No water quality sampling is proposed in conjunction with this parameter. Qualitative water quality assessment parameters include oil sheens (or other surface films); abnormal color or odor of water; stressed or dead vegetation or aquatic fauna, if present; or obvious turbidity. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN PAGE 41 4.6.6 Site Stability General observations of slope stability in the mitigation site will be made during each scheduled monitoring event. Any observations of unexpected erosion will be recorded and discussed with appropriate Team members or Agency staff to determine any necessary corrective measures. 4.7 Maintenance Plan and Contingency Measures Regular maintenance reviews will be performed according to schedule presented in Table 3 as part of the performance monitoring program to address any conditions that could jeopardize the success of the mitigation project. Required maintenance on the site will be implemented within ten (10) business days of submission of a maintenance memo to the maintenance contractor and permittee. The established performance standards identified in Section 7.5 (above) will be compared to the yearly monitoring results to evaluate the success of the mitigation. Adjustments to the mitigation will be made as needed based on these regular evaluations to bring the mitigation back on track for success. The following list includes examples of maintenance (M) actions that may be implemented during the course of the monitoring period. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and other actions may be implemented as deemed necessary. • Replace all dead woody plant material during Year One (M). • Remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants in a manner consistent with current Agency guidelines and recommendations. Use of herbicides or pesticides within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful and would require prior agency approval. All non-native vegetation must be removed and disposed of off-site (M). • Weed all trees and shrubs to the dripline and provide 3-inch deep mulch rings 24 inches in diameter for shrubs and 36 inches in diameter for trees (M). • Remove trash and other debris from the mitigation areas twice a year (M). • Selectively prune woody plants at the direction of Project Ecologist or Biologist to meet the mitigation plan's goal and objectives (e.g., thinning and removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs) (M). • Repair or replace damaged structures including signs, or bat/bird boxes (M). If, during the course of the monitoring period, there appears to be a significant problem with achieving the performance standards, the permittee shall work with the City and other permitting agencies to develop a Contingency Plan in order to get the project back into compliance with the performance standards. Contingency plans can include, but are not limited to, the following actions: additional plant installation, erosion control, bank stabilization, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions of type, size, quantity, and/or location. If required, a Contingency Plan shall be submitted to the City by December 1st of any year when deficiencies are discovered. PERFO RMANCE MONITORING PLAN PAGE 42 The following list includes examples of contingency (C) actions that may be implemented during the course of the monitoring period. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and other actions may be implemented as deemed necessary. • Replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute that meets mitigation plan goals and objectives, subject to project Biologist/Ecologist and agency approval (C). • Re-plant area after reason for failure has been identified (e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.) (C). • After consulting with City staff and other permitting agencies, minor excavations, if deemed to be more beneficial to the existing conditions than currently exists, will be made to correct surface drainage patterns (C). 4.8 Long-Term and Adaptive Management Long-term maintenance of the Site will be handled in conjunction with the Site landscape management, as determined appropriate. It is anticipated that minimal hands-on maintenance will be required of these natural areas after the 5-year performance monitoring period. However, the mitigation areas will be evaluated periodically for unnatural or non-native disturbances, including, but not limited to, invasive species and human impacts, such as trash. The maintenance, contingency action, long term- and adaptive management plans are all intended to be adaptive in nature to respond to the changing conditions of the mitigation site. These elements are intended to be broad in nature and allow a wide variety of action depending on what is best for the mitigation site based on the issues at that time. Any action that requires more than minor modifications to the mitigation site would be discussed with appropriate Agency staff prior to action being taken. 4.9 Financial Guarantees Per FWRC 19.145.100, financial guarantees may be required by the City to cover the costs of the mitigation plan. SUMMARY PAGE 43 5. Summary As described above – in addition to all direct and indirect wetland impacts being compensated for through the purchase of in-lieu fee credits, buffer intrusions are generally kept within the allowable thresholds of no more than 25% reductions except where existing conditions lack a full standard buffer. Permanent buffer impacts are restricted to only 3,024 square feet which will be directly offset through the addition of 3,184 square feet of replacement buffer. Temporary buffer impacts are proposed to accommodate the site plan grading, restore an existing unpaved access road/trail as forested buffer, and to construct a hydrologic connection swale between Wetlands AV and BR that will be field located to avoid any tree impacts. All temporary buffer impacts will be fully restored post-construction for no net loss of buffer functions. Beyond these buffer modifications, voluntary buffer totaling an added 27,113 square feet will be provided around the remaining wetlands on the Site. These combined efforts will ensure there will be no net loss of wetland buffers. Should you have any questions or require additional information regarding this Project, please contact me at jen@wet.land (cell: 813-846-1684). Jennifer Marriott, PWS Owner, Wet.land, LLC Attachments: 1. Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan, dated 9 April 2020, by Talasaea Consultants 2. 2018 Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) (Code this Project follows) 3. Revised Critical Areas Plan sheets, Wet.land, LLC 4. King County In-Lieu Fee Plan SUMMARY PAGE 44 CONTENTS 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) – Pre-2022 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 1.2 Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) – 2022 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 1.3 Wetlands Clarification ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 2. WETLAND IMPACTS .................................................................................................................. 5 3. WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS ................................................................................................ 6 3.1 Regulatory Overview of Impacts and Mitigation --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 3.2 Wetland AE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 3.3 Wetland AF -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 3.4 Wetland AG -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 3.5 Wetland AH -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 3.6 Wetland AV -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 3.7 Wetland BL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 3.8 Wetland BR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 3.9 Wetland BS-North ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 3.10 Wetland BS-South --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 3.11 Wetland CB ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 18 3.12 Wetland CN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 20 3.13 Wetland DE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 21 3.14 Wetland DF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 24 3.15 Wetland DG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 24 3.16 Wetland DH ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 24 3.17 Wetland DI ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24 3.18 Wetland DK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 24 3.19 Wetland EI ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 3.20 Wetland EJ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 3.21 Wetland EK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 27 3.22 Wetland EL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 3.23 Wetland EM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 27 3.24 Wetland FB ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 27 3.25 Wetland FD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 28 3.26 Wetland FE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28 3.27 Wetland FF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28 3.28 Wetland GB-North --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28 3.29 Stream AC -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30 4. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN ............................................................................... 34 4.1 Proposed Mitigation Plan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34 4.1.1 Agency Policies and Guidance ............................................................................................................... 34 4.1.2 Mitigation Sequencing ........................................................................................................................... 34 4.1.3 Proposed Mitigation Components ........................................................................................................ 35 4.1.4 Mitigation Design Elements ................................................................................................................... 36 4.1.5 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards .................................................................. 36 4.2 Mitigation Construction Sequencing ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37 4.3 Post-Construction Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38 SUMMARY PAGE 45 4.4 Post-Construction Assessment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 38 4.5 Monitoring Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38 4.6 Monitoring Reports --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39 4.6.1 Monitoring Methods ............................................................................................................................... 39 4.6.2 Vegetation Monitoring ........................................................................................................................... 39 4.6.3 Photo Documentation ........................................................................................................................... 40 4.6.4 Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................... 40 4.6.5 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 40 4.6.6 Site Stability ........................................................................................................................................... 41 4.7 Maintenance Plan and Contingency Measures ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41 4.8 Long-Term and Adaptive Management -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42 4.9 Financial Guarantees ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42 5. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 43 FIGURES Figure 1. Snip from Sheet W1.9, Revised Mitigation Plans, showing impacts and mitigation. ................................. 11 Figure 2. Snip from Sheet W1.9, Revised Mitigation Plans, for Wetland AV. .............................................................. 13 Figure 3. Snip from Sheet 1.10, Revised Mitigation Plan, for Wetland BL. ................................................................ 16 Figure 4. Snip from Sheet W1.9, Revised Mitigation Plans, for Wetland BR. ............................................................. 18 Figure 5. Snip from Sheet 1.10, Revised Mitigation Plan, for Wetland CB. ................................................................ 19 Figure 6. Snip from Sheet 1.10, Revised Mitigation Plan, for Wetland CN. ................................................................ 20 Figure 7. Snip from Sheet W1.8, Revised Mitigation Plans, for Wetland DE .............................................................. 22 Figure 8. Snip from Sheet W1.8, Revised Mitigation Plans, for Wetland DK. ............................................................. 25 Figure 9. Snip from Sheet W1.8, Revised Mitigation Plans, for Wetland FB. .............................................................. 28 Figure 10. Snip from Sheet W1.8, Revised Mitigation Plans, for Wetland GB-North. ................................................ 29 Figure 11. Snip from Sheet W1.9, Revised Mitigation Plans, for Stream AC. ............................................................. 33 PHOTOS Photo 1. Photos of North Lake OHWM (blue flags) ....................................................................................................... 4 TABLES Table 1. Summary of Wetland Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 5 Table 2. Summary of Critical Areas Impacts & Mitigation ............................................................................................ 7 Table 3. Projected Schedule for Performance Monitoring & Maintenance Events ................................................... 39 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan, dated 9 April 2020, by Talasaea Consultants CRITICAL AREAS REPORT AND PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN WOODBRIDGE BUSINESS PARK FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Prepared For: DANA OSTENSON FEDERAL WAY CAMPUS, LLC Los Angeles, California Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Woodinville, Washington 9 April 2020 Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan Woodbridge Business Park Federal Way, Washington Prepared For: Dana Ostenson Federal Way Campus, LLC 11100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 850 Los Angeles, California 90025 Prepared By: Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 150250 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, Washington 98077 (425) 861-7550 9 April 2020 Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT NAME: Woodbridge Business Park PROJECT LOCATION: The approximate address for the Site is 32901 Weyerhaeuser Way South in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The project will take place on five (5) parcels (King County Parcel numbers 1621049056, 1621049013, 1621049030, 1621049036, and 2285000010) totaling 136 acres. The Public Land Survey System location of the Site is Sections 16 and 21, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. CLIENT: Dana Ostenson, Executive Vice President, Federal Way Campus, LLC PROJECT STAFF: Bill Shiels, Principal; Ann Olsen, RLA; David Teesdale, PWS, Senior Ecologist; Richard Tveten, Senior Ecologist; Aaron Ellig, Ecologist; and Matt Wagner, Mitigation Designer. FIELD SURVEY: Site evaluations and wetland delineations were performed over multiple days between December 2015 and April 2016. DETERMINATION: Forty-eight (48) wetlands were identified on the Project Site. North Lake occurs adjacent to the Site. One (1) man-made stream (Stream AC) connects the existing stormwater pond to Weyerhaeuser Pond off-site to the south. HYDROLOGY: Hydrology for the on-site wetlands is supported, for the most part, by seasonal precipitation and interception of surface water flow, as well as groundwater to a lesser extent. SOILS: The NRCS maps one (1) type of soil over the majority of the Site, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes. A small area in the northwest corner is mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8-15% slopes, and a small area of Orcas Peat is mapped over the far eastern portion of the Site. The National Technical Committee on Hydric Soils does not include Alderwood gravelly sandy loam as a hydric soil, however, Orcas Peat is identified as a hydric soil. VEGETATION: The Site is mix of developed areas and conifer and deciduous mixed forests. Typical native species present within the forested areas include Douglas fir, western red cedar, big-leaf maple, red alder, black cottonwood, salmonberry, vine maple, sword fern, and other native herbaceous and shrub species. Several non-native species of tree are present throughout the property, including several species of eastern oak and European ash. Typical vegetation within the wetlands includes salmonberry and hardhack with limited amounts of sedges and rushes. PROPOSED PROJECT: The Applicant proposes to construct a new business park with three (3) new warehouses with office space and associated infrastructure. The existing Weyerhaeuser Tech Center will remain, but the existing parking lots will be reconfigured to a more compact arrangement around the Tech Center. Associated infrastructure to be constructed includes five (5) new stormwater detention facilities, including reconfiguring the existing stormwater pond, parking for both cars and trucks, and enough maneuvering space for the truck traffic anticipated around these buildings. Due to the size of the proposed buildings, required parking and stormwater, direct and indirect impacts to some wetlands and buffer encroachments are unavoidable. ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Development on the property is governed by the Weyerhaeuser Company Concomitant Pre-Annexation Zoning Agreement (Concomitant Agreement). While the project would be allowed under the Concomitant Agreement, the Applicant has also analyzed the project under the critical area regulations of the FWRC in effect when the project application was submitted (2015 Critical Areas Regulations). The applicant is performing this analysis voluntarily at the request of the City, although it is under no obligation to do so, and does not waive its Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page ii rights under the Concomitant Agreement. The analysis, which follows, demonstrates that the project meets the requirements of the 2015 Critical Areas Regulations. The proposed site plan has been designed to minimize impacts to critical areas to the greatest extent practicable while meeting the criteria for development of a viable project and conforming to the City of Federal Way standards. In attempting to avoid wetland impacts on this site, several different configurations were evaluated to find the best fit for the project needs. Despite these efforts, some impacts to critical areas are unavoidable in order to achieve a viable project. Portions of 48 wetlands, one stream, and North Lake are located on or adjacent to the Site. Construction of the proposed development would directly impact (fill) 12,070 square feet (0.28 acres) of wetlands for the buildings, parking, and stormwater facilities. Four (4) wetlands will have buffer impacts, resulting in an additional 7,840 square feet (0.18 acres) of wetland as being considered indirect wetland impacts due to site development encroachments. For the construction of a replacement detention pond access road, 3,024 square feet (0.07 acres) of permanent impact are proposed to wetland buffers. Additionally, for construction, 29,819 square feet (0.68 acres) of temporary construction impacts are proposed. The area of temporary construction impacts includes the existing trail through the Site. No impacts are proposed to Stream AC or its buffer. No development activities are proposed on or adjacent to North Lake. PROPOSED MITIGATION: This report proposes two mitigation alternatives for direct and indirect wetland impacts. The Applicant will determine the preferred mitigation method at a later date. OPTION 1: Potential Wetland Creation The proposed wetland creation option is provided if on-site mitigation is determined to be the preferred method chosen by the applicant. • Wetland Creation 38,901 square feet • Wetland Enhancement 2,021 square feet • Wetland Buffer Creation 80,225 square feet • Wetland Buffer Enhancement 7,204 square feet • Wetland Buffer Restoration 13,296 square feet OPTION 2: In-Lieu Fee It may be deemed preferred by State and Federal regulatory agencies for the Applicant to purchase credits from a certified In-Lieu Fee (ILF) program as a form of mitigation for wetland impacts. If this is the case, Option 1 mitigation measures would not be enacted. Wetland buffer impacts will be mitigated through a multi-part mitigation plan including elements of wetland buffer creation, wetland buffer replacement, and wetland buffer restoration. Temporary construction impacts resulting from site grading will be restored post-construction. For proposed wetland buffer impacts, the following mitigation will be provided: • Wetland Buffer Creation 27,113 square feet • Wetland Buffer Replacement 3,184 square feet Wetland Buffer Restoration 29,819 square feet All critical area mitigation will be constructed prior to or concurrent with site development activities. A final mitigation plan will be prepared and submitted once preliminary concurrence has been provided for this proposed mitigation plan. Performance monitoring will extend for a minimum of five (5) years over all elements of the mitigation plan. Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ iii List of Figures ..................................................................................................................vi List of Appendices ...........................................................................................................vi Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose of Report ............................................................................... 1 1.2 Statement of Accuracy ........................................................................ 1 1.3 Qualifications ....................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Property Description .................................................................................. 2 2.1 Property Location and Description ...................................................... 2 2.2 Existing Site Development................................................................... 2 2.3 Historical Land Uses............................................................................ 2 Chapter 3. Methodology .............................................................................................. 3 3.1 Background Data Reviewed ................................................................ 3 3.2 Field Investigation ............................................................................... 3 Chapter 4. Results ....................................................................................................... 4 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information ........................................................... 4 4.1.1 USGS Quadrangle .............................................................................. 5 4.1.2 National Wetland Inventory ................................................................. 5 4.1.3 Natural Resources Conservation Service ............................................ 5 4.1.4 King County GIS Database ................................................................. 5 4.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions – Wetlands ......................................... 5 4.2.1 Wetlands AE, AF and AH .................................................................... 6 4.2.2 Wetland AG ......................................................................................... 7 4.2.3 Wetlands AI, AJ, AL, AM, AO, AR, AS ................................................ 7 4.2.4 Wetland AV ......................................................................................... 7 4.2.5 Wetland BA ......................................................................................... 7 4.2.6 Wetland BA-2 ...................................................................................... 7 4.2.7 Wetland BB ......................................................................................... 8 4.2.8 Wetland BD-North ............................................................................... 8 4.2.9 Wetland BR ......................................................................................... 8 4.2.10 Wetland BS-North ............................................................................... 8 4.2.11 Wetland BS-South ............................................................................... 8 4.2.12 Wetland CG ......................................................................................... 8 4.2.13 Wetland DE ......................................................................................... 9 4.2.14 Wetlands DF, DG, DH, and DI ............................................................. 9 4.2.15 Wetland DK ......................................................................................... 9 4.2.16 Wetland EI ........................................................................................... 9 4.2.17 Wetlands EJ, EK, EL, and EM ............................................................. 9 4.2.18 Wetland FB ........................................................................................ 10 4.2.19 Wetland FD ....................................................................................... 10 4.2.20 Wetland FE ........................................................................................ 10 4.2.21 Wetland FF ........................................................................................ 10 4.2.22 Wetland GB-North ............................................................................. 10 Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page iv 4.2.23 Wetland IA ......................................................................................... 10 4.2.24 Wetlands KA, KB, KC, KD, KF, KN, KT, KU, KV, KW ....................... 11 4.2.25 Wetland PK ....................................................................................... 11 4.3 Analysis of Existing Conditions – Streams and Other Features ........ 11 4.3.1 North Lake ......................................................................................... 11 4.3.2 Weyerhaeuser Pond (off-site) ............................................................ 11 4.3.4 Non-regulated Ditches ....................................................................... 12 Chapter 5. Wildlife and Listed Species ...................................................................... 12 5.1 Wildlife Surveys and Assessments .................................................... 12 5.2 Listed Species ................................................................................... 13 Chapter 6. Regulatory Review ................................................................................... 13 6.1 Federal and State Regulations .......................................................... 13 6.2 City of Federal Way Zoning Code ..................................................... 14 6.2.1 Non-SMZ Wetlands ........................................................................... 14 6.2.2 Streams ............................................................................................. 15 6.3 Shoreline Management Zone (SMZ) ................................................. 15 6.4 Other Linear Features ....................................................................... 15 Chapter 7. Proposed Project ..................................................................................... 15 7.1 Proposed Project ............................................................................... 15 7.2 Stormwater Treatment ....................................................................... 16 Chapter 8. Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 17 8.1 Direct and Indirect Wetland Impacts .................................................. 17 8.2 Permanent and Temporary Construction Impacts ............................. 18 8.3 Indirect Wetland Impact Analysis ...................................................... 19 8.3.1 Quality, Sensitivity, and Functions of the Aquatic Resource.............. 19 8.3.2 Nature of Adjacent Land Use Activity and its Potential for Impacts on the Aquatic Resource ........................................................................ 20 8.3.3 Character of the Existing Buffer Area (including soils, slope, vegetation, etc.) ................................................................................. 20 8.3.4 Intended Functions of the Buffer ....................................................... 21 Chapter 9. Proposed Mitigation Plan ......................................................................... 22 9.1 Agency Policies and Guidance .......................................................... 22 9.2 Mitigation Sequencing ....................................................................... 22 9.3 Watershed Approach ......................................................................... 23 9.4 Standard Mitigation Measures ........................................................... 23 9.5 Mitigation Analysis ............................................................................. 23 9.6 Direct and Indirect Wetland Impact Mitigation Options ...................... 25 9.6.1 OPTION 1: Potential Wetland Creation ............................................ 26 9.6.2 OPTION 2: In-Lieu Fee (ILF) Credit Purchase ................................. 26 9.7 Proposed Wetland Buffer Mitigation Details ...................................... 27 9.7.1 Wetland Buffer Creation .................................................................... 27 9.7.2 Wetland Buffer Restoration ............................................................... 28 9.8 Performance Monitoring and Maintenance ........................................ 28 Chapter 10. Summary ................................................................................................. 28 Chapter 11. References .............................................................................................. 30 Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page v LIST OF FIGURES Figures occur at the end of the report. Figure 1 – Vicinity Map & Driving Directions Figure 2 – National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 3 – NRCS Map Figure 4 – Hydrologic Connections Overview LIST OF TABLES Table 1. FWRC Wetland Buffer Requirements (FWRC 19.145.420) ............................ 15 Table 2. Summary of Proposed Wetland Impacts and Mitigation ................................. 18 APPENDICES Appendix A: Wetland Determination Data Forms, Talasaea Consultants, 2016 Appendix B: Feature Summary Table, Talasaea Consultants, 2020 Appendix C: Photodocument, Talasaea Consultants, 2016 Appendix D: Wetland Rating Forms with Figures, Talasaea Consultants, 2016 & 2017 Appendix E: Mitigation Plan Sheets Sheet W1.0. Site Overview Plan Sheet W1.1. Existing Conditions Plan Sheet W1.2. Existing Conditions Plan Sheet W1.3. Proposed Site Plan, Impacts, & Mitigation Overview Plan Sheet W1.4. Proposed Site Plan, Impacts, & Mitigation Overview Plan Sheet W2.0. Potential Mitigation Grading Plan Sheet W2.1. Fencing Plan & Details Sheet W2.2. Grading Specifications Sheet W3.0. Proposed Plant Community Plan Sheet W3.1. Proposed Plant Community Plan Sheet W4.0. Planting Specifications Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Report This report is the result of an existing conditions study for a 136-acre project area that is a part of the Federal Way Campus, LLC property (referred to hereinafter as the “Site”). The Site is located in Federal Way, Washington (Figure 1). The Site is comprised of five parcels (King County Parcel numbers 1621049056, 1621049013, 1621049030, 1621049036, and 2285000010). This report has been prepared to comply with the requirements of the City of Federal Way guidelines. This report will provide and describe the following information: • General property description; • Methodology for critical areas investigation; • Results of critical areas background review and field investigation; • Existing site conditions; • Wildlife assessment; • Regulatory review; • Proposed project discussion; • Project impacts analysis; • Proposed mitigation plan; and • Project summary 1.2 Statement of Accuracy Stream and wetland characterizations and ratings were conducted by trained professionals at Talasaea Consultants, Inc., and adhered to the protocols, guidelines, and generally accepted industry standards available at the time the work was performed. The conclusions in this report are based on the results of analyses performed by Talasaea Consultants and represent our best professional judgment. To that extent and within the limitation of project scope and budget, we believe the information provided herein is accurate and true to the best of our knowledge. Talasaea does not warrant any assumptions or conclusions not expressly made in this report, or based on information or analyses other than what is included herein. 1.3 Qualifications Field investigations and evaluations were conducted by Bill Shiels, Principal; David R. Teesdale, PWS, Senior Wetland Ecologist; Richard Tveten, Senior Ecologist; Aaron Ellig, Ecologist; and Matt Wagner, Mitigation Designer. Bill Shiels has a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from Central Washington University and a Master’s Degree in Biological Oceanography from the University of Alaska. He has over 35 years of experience in wetland delineations and mitigations. David Teesdale has a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from Grinnell College, Iowa, and a Master’s Degree in Ecology from Illinois State University. He has 15 years of experience in wetland delineations and biological evaluations. Richard Tveten has a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in Biology from Western Washington University with a focus on terrestrial ecology and fire ecology, respectively. Richard has worked for the public and private sectors for 20 years in wetlands, water quality, and forest management. Aaron Ellig has Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 2 a Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Science from Western Washington University. He has 5 years of experience in vegetation management and restoration ecology. He has 3 years of experience working with wetland mitigation and monitoring. Matt Wagner holds a Bachelor’s in Landscape Architecture from the University of Washington and a Certificate of Landscape Design from Edmonds Community College. Matt has worked in landscape installation, oversight, and mitigation design for a combined 19 years. CHAPTER 2. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 2.1 Property Location and Description The Site is an assemblage of five parcels currently owned by Federal Way Campus, LLC. The approximate address is 32901 Weyerhaeuser Way South in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The Site is approximately 136 acres in size. The remainder of the associated parcels under Federal Way Campus, LLC ownership are not a part of this project. The Public Land Survey System location of the Site is Sections 16 and 21, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. The topography of the main portion of the Site, west of Weyerhaeuser Way South, is gently sloping downhill from north to south. The properties east of Weyerhaeuser Way South slope eastward to North Lake. The Site is bound to the east by North Lake, to the south by South 336th Street, and Interstate 5 abuts the western edge of the Site. An office park is located north of the Site. The previous Weyerhaeuser headquarters building is located south of the Site across from Weyerhaeuser Pond. 2.2 Existing Site Development The Site is currently developed with the Weyerhaeuser Tech Center and associated infrastructure including six (6) parking lots, paved roads, and gravel access roads. A private trail system surrounds the existing building through the adjacent forested areas. A gas pipeline easement extends along the interstate frontage on the western edge of the property, and another gas pipeline extends from the off-site parcels north of the Site diagonally across the northeast corner of the Site. A stormwater pond is located southwest of the Tech Center and collects runoff from all of the roads and parking areas associated with the Tech Center. This pond discharges south into an artificial channel, now a naturalized stream, before ultimately discharging into Weyerhaeuser Pond. 2.3 Historical Land Uses The land at the north end of North Lake was historically developed as far back as the 1930s, based on accessible historical aerial photographs. The 1936 aerial photograph (www.historicaerials.org) reflects docks present all along the eastern shore of North Lake as well as around the northwest corner of the lake, along the existing shoreline within the Site. The 1964 aerial photograph (www.historicaerials.org) clearly shows a development of some kind that had multiple docks, buildings, and infrastructure. Evidence of wetland fill is noticeable between the 1936 and 1964 aerial photographs. This facility appears to have been abandoned around the time Weyerhaeuser purchased the property. The 1980 aerial photograph (www.historicaerials.com) seems to show the area being left to vegetate naturally. The previously apparent docks along this section of shoreline are no longer present in current aerial imagery. Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 3 In addition to the historical developments around North Lake, there is evidence of houses and residential areas along the old alignment of South 336th Street. These areas were maintained through the 1960s, but appear to be overgrown by 1969, and by 1980 this area was completely redeveloped as part of the Weyerhaeuser Campus construction. CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY The critical areas analysis of the Site involved a two-part effort. The first part consisted of a preliminary assessment of the Site and the immediate surrounding area using published environmental information. This information includes: 1) Wetland and soils information from resource agencies; 2) Critical Areas information from King County and the City of Federal Way; 3) Orthophotography and LIDAR imagery; and, 4) Relevant studies completed or ongoing in the vicinity of the Site. The second part consisted of site investigations where direct observations and measurements of existing environmental conditions were made. Observations included plant communities, soils, hydrology, and stream conditions. This information was used to help characterize the site and define the limits of critical areas on-site and off-site for regulatory purposes (see Section 3.2 – Field Investigation below). 3.1 Background Data Reviewed Background information from the following sources was reviewed prior to field investigations: • US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Wetlands Online Mapper (National Wetlands Inventory, NWI) (USFWS, 2017) (www.wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html); • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2017)(www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/); • King County GIS Database (King County, 2017); • Orthophotography from USDA’s National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP 2017), Earth Explorer (USGS), and Google Earth. • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Mapper; • USFWS listed species data; and • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 3.2 Field Investigation Talasaea Consultants originally evaluated the Site for Federal Way Campus, LLC beginning in December 2015. Talasaea re-verified the wetland boundaries in April 2016 once water levels returned to a normal state after the extremely high rains of December 2015. Brief site evaluations have been conducted since to verify that previously delineated boundaries are still appropriate. Wetland boundaries were evaluated by Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 4 Ecological Science Associates (ESA) for the City of Federal Way between April and June 2017 as part of a boundary line adjustment request. Talasaea’s wetland delineation utilized the routine approach described in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountain, Valleys, and Coast Regions (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010). Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Hitchcock and Cronquist (Hitchcock, et al. 1969). Taxonomic names were updated and plant wetland status was assigned according to North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List, Version 2.4.0 (Lichvar, et al. 2012). Wetland classes were determined with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s system of wetland classification (Cowardin, et al. 1979). Vegetation was considered hydrophytic if greater than 50% of the dominant plant species had a wetland indicator status of facultative or wetter (i.e., facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate wetland). Wetland hydrology was determined based on the presence of hydrologic indicators listed in the Corps’ Regional Supplement. These indicators are separated into Primary Indicators and Secondary Indicators. To confirm the presence of wetland hydrology, one Primary Indicator or two Secondary Indicators must be demonstrated. Indicators of wetland hydrology may include, but are not necessarily limited to: drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, stream gauge data and flood predictions, historical records, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation. Soils on the Site were considered hydric if one or more of the hydric soil indicators listed in the Corps Regional Supplement were present. Indicators include presence of organic soils, reduced, depleted, or gleyed soils, or redoximorphic features in association with reduced soils. An evaluation of patterns of vegetation, soil, and hydrology was made along the interface of wetland and upland. Wetland boundary points were then determined from this information and marked with wire flags or surveyors tape. Appendix A contains data forms prepared by Talasaea for representative locations in both upland and wetland locations. These data forms document the vegetation, soils, and hydrology information that aided in the wetland boundary determination. CHAPTER 4. RESULTS This section describes the results of our in-house research and field investigations. For the purpose of this report, the term “vicinity” describes an area within 105 feet of the Site. 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information The following sources provided information on site conditions based on data compiled from resource agencies and local government. Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 5 4.1.1 USGS Quadrangle The Project Site occurs on the Poverty Bay quadrangle. No features are mapped on the property, however, the quadrangle map indicates North Lake and Weyerhaeuser Pond in close proximity to the Site to the east and south, respectively. Wetlands are shown along the north shoreline of North Lake. No stream features are indicated on this map. 4.1.2 National Wetland Inventory The NWI maps a large wetland complex along the north shoreline of North Lake and a palustrine scrub-shrub/emergent, persistent, seasonally flooded wetland (PSS/EM1C) to the northwest of the Site (Figure 2). The large wetland complex is classified as a palustrine scrub -shrub/emergent, persistent, seasonally flooded (PSS/EMC) wetland adjacent to a palustrine emergent (persistent)/palustrine scrub -shrub, semi-permanently flooded (PEM1/SSF) wetland. One stream is mapped along the southern edge of the property flowing westbound, though this feature is not present in the field. No NWI wetlands are mapped within the Site. 4.1.3 Natural Resources Conservation Service The NRCS maps one (1) type of soil over the majority of the Site, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes (Figure 3). Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8-15% slopes is mapped over a small area in the northwest corner of the Site, while Orcas Peat is mapped over a small eastern portion of the Site near an existing wetland that is adjacent to North Lake. The National Technical Committee on Hydric Soils does not include Alderwood gravelly sandy loam as a hydric soil, though Orcas Peat is identified as a hydric soil. 4.1.4 King County GIS Database King County does not map any critical areas on the Site. Both North Lake and Weyerhaeuser Pond are, however, mapped as wetland units. One 2S stream is indicated as connecting North Lake and Weyerhaeuser Pond off-site. 4.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions – Wetlands The Site west of Weyerhaeuser Way South is currently developed with the former Weyerhaeuser Tech Center and associated infrastructure including parking and stormwater facilities. The buildings and infrastructure were constructed in 1978. Roughly half of the Site contains conifer/deciduous mixed forests, though the forested areas are separated by the roads, trails, and broadly-spaced parking configuration. The stormwater pond on-site collects runoff from much of the existing development, and conveys the treated water downstream through a man-made channel. The channel (identified as Stream AC) flows southward to its confluence with a perennial stream that connects North Lake to the Weyerhaeuser Pond (Figure 4). North Lake abuts the eastern edge of the Site, and is a Shoreline of the State. The areas on the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South are separated by an access road to a public boat ramp managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). North of this boat ramp road, outside of the project site, are the northern limits of a large wetland complex that extends to North Lake, surrounded by a Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 6 coniferous forest. A sewer line easement crosses this area and was replanted some time ago. South of the boat ramp road are portions of several wetlands that appear to collect extra runoff from the roadside ditches associated with the boat ramp road through the winter months. Most of these wetlands are not directly associated with North Lake. The sewer line easement continues across this portion of the property, within the project site, as well. Much of the Site is underlain by glacial till. This dense material frequently possesses inclusions consistent with redoximorphic features except they lack the diffuse boundaries characteristic of active wetland hydrology. This material is also very difficult to dig through for complete soil profiling. In addition, a number of non-native species of trees have been planted along the existing gravel roads over the years. A large area immediately west and southwest of the Tech Center, identified on older maps as an “experimental tree farm,” was completely cleared of the existing native conifers sometime between 1980 and 1990, and replanted primarily with European ash (Fraxinus excelsior) trees. This area has since regrown with the European ash being dominant is some areas, and the remainder dominated by a combination of black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and red alder (Alnus rubra) with scattered Western red cedar (Thuja plicata). These areas coincide with the location of many of the delineated wetlands, which are small depressions in the landscape that are likely residual from the clearcutting effort of the 1980s. Talasaea Consultants performed an initial delineation of on-site wetlands beginning in December 2015. Talasaea re-verified the wetland boundaries in April 2016 as the initial delineations were completed after several atypically high rainfall events. Forty-eight (48) wetlands were identified on the Project Site (Appendix E, Sheets W1.0-W1.2). North Lake occurs adjacent to the Site. One man-made stream (Stream AC) connects the existing stormwater pond to Weyerhaeuser Pond off-site to the south. Several ditch-outs and old log skid trails occur through the western woods on-site that hold water during the winter but neither convey water nor meet the definition of a wetland. The wetland labels given in this report are non-sequential as the wetlands were delineated as part of a larger effort. A complete summary table outlining the wetland classification, size, and other information of all the wetlands can be found in Appendix B. General descriptions can be found below. Photographs of typical conditions within the wetlands, including typical uplands and access roads, are included within Appendix C. Wetlands outside of the Shoreline Management Zone (SMZ) have been rated using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Ecology Publication # 14-06-029) (Appendix D). Wetlands occurring within the SMZ along North Lake were rated using the rating system outlined in the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 15.10 Critical Areas. 4.2.1 Wetlands AE, AF and AH Wetlands AE, AF, and AH are small, depressional palustrine emergent wetlands located south of the stormwater pond. Hydrology is provided seasonally by the stormwater pond through surface water and groundwater leakage from the pond, which collects Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 7 runoff from the entire Weyerhaeuser Tech Center. Typical vegetation includes sedges and rushes, such as soft rush and slough sedge. 4.2.2 Wetland AG Wetland AG is a palustrine forested/scrub-shrub wetland located around the stormwater pond. This wetland occurs at the toe of the slope of the berm surrounding the stormwater pond, and it is likely that hydrology comes from groundwater seeping through the berm as well as surface water from the vicinity. This wetland extends south along either side of Stream AC, the artificial discharge of the stormwater pond. Typical vegetation is red alder, black cottonwood, and salmonberry. 4.2.3 Wetlands AI, AJ, AL, AM, AO, AR, AS These wetlands are a series of small slope and depressional wetlands that occur north of South 336th Street. These herbaceous wetlands are dominated by pasture grasses, typically a mix of rye (Lolium spp.), fescues (Festuca spp.), bentgrasses (Agrostis spp.), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), and others. 4.2.4 Wetland AV Wetland AV is a medium sized wetland-upland mosaic located to the west of the Tech Center. Wetland AV is classified as a palustrine forested wetland. Typical species include red alder, salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). This is part of an area that was planted with European ash, located in clear rows. This general area has poor drainage due to disturbance over the past few decades that has resulted in ponded water within small depressional pockets through these woods. Many of these pocket wetlands were delineated based on the presence of hydrology and hydric soils as the vegetation across a broad area is facultative. 4.2.5 Wetland BA Wetland BA is a relatively small depressional, forested wetland located adjacent to the boat ramp road. This wetland is partially located within the SMZ. This wetland receives runoff from the boat ramp road, and has a culvert that connects it to an off-site wetland complex on the northeast side of the boat ramp road. Typical vegetation includes red alder and salmonberry. This wetland is also topographically connected to Wetlands BA- 2 and PK at high water levels common through the winter months, though this connection is generally not apparent outside of the winter rainy season. 4.2.6 Wetland BA-2 This small, depressional, shrubby wetland is dominated by salmonberry and other small wetland shrubs. This wetland was formerly part of a larger delineation for Wetland BA, however, after a thorough analysis of this larger area, it was determined that Wetlands BA and BA-2 represented the true wetland components that reflected all three parameters of a wetland. The other, discarded areas lacked hydric soils and/or sufficient, long-term hydrology that met the parameters to be considered wetlands. This wetland occurs outside of the SMZ. Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 8 4.2.7 Wetland BB This small, depressional, forested wetland is located adjacent to the boat ramp road, and falls within the SMZ. This wetland receives road runoff from the boat ramp road and drains south to Wetland BD-North. 4.2.8 Wetland BD-North Wetland BD-North is a large lakeshore wetland associated with North Lake that occurs within the SMZ. The entirety of this wetland extends off-site to the north and to the south. This wetland is mostly forested and is dominated by red alder and salmonberry. Hydrology for Wetland BD-North is supported by the lake, surrounding uplands, and Weyerhaeuser Way South. During the winter site visits, water was observed sheet flowing across the gravel path upslope near Wetlands BE and BF before entering Wetland BD-North. 4.2.9 Wetland BR Wetland BR is a pocket of wetland located west of the stormwater pond. This wetland occurs at the edge of the forested area, immediately east of a gravel road that is used to access this portion of the Site. This wetland is a collection of small depressional pockets that contain soft rush and various sedges, with small areas of salmonberry and red elderberry (Sambucus racemose). Western red cedar and red alder also occur within the wetland. Hydrology is generally provided through the interception of shallow ground water and precipitation. Some overland flow is likely provided from Wetland AG with higher rainfall or higher discharges from the stormwater pond. 4.2.10 Wetland BS-North Wetland BS-North is a palustrine forested wetland located in a depression between two parking lots north of the Tech Center. Vegetation within the wetland is dominated by salmonberry, tall manna grass (Glyceria maxima), and soft rush (Juncus effuses) with quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) and red alder present as well. Hydrology for BS- North is supported by parking lot runoff and precipitation. 4.2.11 Wetland BS-South Wetland BS-South is a palustrine emergent wetland located off-site adjacent to Wetland BR. Vegetation is dominated by various grass species with hydrology supported by surface water flows and precipitation. 4.2.12 Wetland CG Wetland CG is located on the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South and is a depressional pocket within the surrounding coniferous forest. This wetland connects to Wetlands BA, BA-2 and PK during periods of high water in the rainy season, though no long-term hydrologic connection is apparent between these wetlands. Wetland CG appears to be a remnant of past logging activities. No vegetation is dominant within this wetland as overall vegetative coverage is less than 20% total and is restricted to small shrubs on hummocks. A dense canopy cover is present due to the adjacent western red cedars, most of which occur outside of the wetland boundaries. Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 9 4.2.13 Wetland DE Wetland DE is a large palustrine forested wetland located west of the Tech Center. Vegetation within the wetland is dominated by European ash, soft rush, a variety of sedges and facultative grasses. Hydrology for Wetland DE is provided by precipitation and interception of surface flows. This is part of an area that was planted as part of the Weyerhaeuser Campus experimental tree farm with European ash, arranged in clear rows. This general area has poor drainage due to disturbance over the past few decades that has resulted in ponded water within small depressional pockets through these woods. Consolidated till generally occurs near the soil surface which precludes the downward movement of water. 4.2.14 Wetlands DF, DG, DH, and DI Wetlands DF, DG, DH, and DI are a series of wetlands located within the woods between Wetland DE and the Tech Center. These wetlands are classified as palustrine forested, and are dominated by black cottonwood, European ash, Douglas spirea (Spireaea douglasii), salmonberry, and Dewey’s sedge (Carex deweyana). Hydrology for these wetlands is provided by precipitation and interception of surface flows. This is part of an area that was planted as part of the former Weyerhaeuser Campus experimental tree farm with European ash, arranged in clear rows. This general area has poor drainage due to disturbance over the past few decades that has resulted in ponded water within small depressional pockets through these woods. Consolidated till near the soil surface severely restricts the downward movement of water. 4.2.15 Wetland DK Wetland DK is a palustrine scrub-shrub wetland located west of the Tech Center. This wetland is generally dominated by small patches of wetland grasses, sedges, and rushes with trees occurring within proximity to the wetland, but not within the wetland. Hydrology for this wetland is provided by precipitation and interception of surface flows. This is part of an area that was planted as part of the former Weyerhaeuser Campus experimental tree farm with European ash, arranged in clear rows. This general area has poor drainage due to disturbance over the past few decades that has resulted in ponded water within small depressional pockets through these woods. Consolidated till near the soil surface severely restricts the downward movement of water. 4.2.16 Wetland EI Wetland EI is a small palustrine forested wetland located northwest of the Tech Center. Vegetation within the wetland is dominated by salmonberry and ruffled starwort (Stellaria crispa). Soils were hydric, and hydrology for this wetland is provided by precipitation and interception of surface flows. 4.2.17 Wetlands EJ, EK, EL, and EM Wetlands EJ, EK, EL, and EM are a cluster of wetlands located northwest of the Tech Center. These wetlands are located within an area dominated by deciduous tree species, as the conifers were logged out years ago. These wetlands are classified as palustrine scrub-shrub and are dominated by salmonberry. Hydrology for Wetlands EJ, EK, EL and EM is provided by precipitation and interception of surface flows. The Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 10 wetland boundaries were delineated based on the presence of wetland hydrology and hydric soils since many species in the area were facultative wetland species. 4.2.18 Wetland FB Wetland FB is a palustrine scrub-shrub wetland located along the northern property line in the northeast corner of the property. Vegetation within the wetland is dominated by young Oregon ash and salmonberry. Hydrology for FB is provided through precipitation and interception of surface flows. 4.2.19 Wetland FD Wetland FD is a palustrine forested wetland located north of the Tech Center that abuts a pipeline right-of-way. This wetland resulted from the impoundment of water behind a berm created through the installation of a pipeline across this area. Hydrology for FD is provided through precipitation and interception of surface flows. 4.2.20 Wetland FE Wetland FE is a palustrine forested wetland located north of the Tech Center by an outdoor volleyball court, adjacent to a gravel road. Portions of this wetland appear to have been artificially excavated, and given the location of this feature near the highest point across the Site, this wetland formed through the impoundment of water because the gravel road acts as a berm. Vegetation within the wetland includes red alder, salmonberry, and creeping buttercup. Hydrology for FE is provided through precipitation and interception of surface flows. 4.2.21 Wetland FF Wetland FF is a palustrine scrub-shrub wetland located north of the Tech Center. This wetland resulted from the impoundment of water behind a berm created through the installation of a pipeline across this area. Vegetation within the wetland is dominated by red alder, salmonberry, and lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina). Hydrology for FF is provided through precipitation and interception of surface flows. 4.2.22 Wetland GB-North Wetland GB-North is a palustrine scrub-shrub wetland located west of the Tech Center. Vegetation within the wetland is dominated by red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Hydrology for GB-North is provided through precipitation and interception of surface flows. 4.2.23 Wetland IA Wetland IA is a slope wetland located in the southwest corner of the Site. This wetland intercepts surface water and shallow subsurface flows from the adjacent hillslopes and conveys the water to a culvert under South 336th Street. This water ultimately flows into Weyerhaeuser Pond. The wetland is dominated by a variety of grasses and sedges. Saturated soil conditions were observed throughout winter and early spring with hydric soil indicators present. Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 11 4.2.24 Wetlands KA, KB, KC, KD, KF, KN, KT, KU, KV, KW These wetlands are a series of small slope and depressional wetlands that occur north of South 336th Street. These herbaceous wetlands are dominated by pasture grasses, typically a mix of rye (Lolium spp.), fescues (Festuca spp.), bentgrasses (Agrostis spp.), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), and others. 4.2.25 Wetland PK Wetland PK is part of the former larger delineation of Wetland BA, and is a small forested wetland within a more recently disturbed area. This wetland occurs within an area that lacks the conifer canopy common through much of this portion of the Site. The areas within and around Wetland PK are dominated by red alder and other deciduous trees that are generally younger than the surrounding conifers. 4.3 Analysis of Existing Conditions – Streams and Other Features No natural streams occur within the Site, though a stream connecting North Lake to Weyerhaeuser Pond occurs off-site to the south. A number of man-made depressional features occur across the landscape that neither convey water nor meet the definition of a wetland. These features appear to be remnants from when this forest was logged in the 1980s shortly after the construction of the Tech Center. Some of the features were likely dug for surface water management to ensure the gravel paths through the woods remained free from ponded water. These features rarely connect to wetlands, but where they did, they were delineated as part of the wetland where appropriate. Many of the ditches and swales connect to the on-site stormwater facility in some fashion, either through direct surface connections or via the pipes that drain the roads and parking areas to the on-site stormwater pond (Figure 4). This stormwater pond then discharges through a man-made conveyance (Stream AC) that ultimately flows into Weyerhaeuser Pond through a connection to a natural stream. The combined streams flow for approximately 600 feet before entering the Weyerhaeuser Pond. The Weyerhaeuser Pond then discharges south through a control structure into a buried pipe that is located underneath the former Weyerhaeuser Headquarters Building. The flows from this stormwater pond and associated channel ultimately enter the Hylebos Creek several miles south of the Site. 4.3.1 North Lake North Lake is a Shoreline of the State and is located adjacent to the northeast parcel of the Site. This 50-acre lake is periodically stocked with rainbow trout by WDFW, and has a resident largemouth bass population that is maintained for fishing. While no motorized boats are allowed on this lake, there is a dock at the north end at the WDFW maintained access point. 4.3.2 Weyerhaeuser Pond (off-site) Weyerhaeuser Pond was constructed in conjunction with the former Weyerhaeuser Headquarters building. Weyerhaeuser Pond is located off-site to the south but is the receiving body for some of the site’s stormwater. Weyerhaeuser Pond serves both as a stormwater pond and natural feature that attracts waterfowl and other wildlife. Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 12 Weyerhaeuser Pond does collect runoff from the surrounding areas, as well as from the North Lake. This man-made pond is not a Shoreline of the State. A control structure at the south end of the pond limits the flows out of this pond. A pipe conveys flows out of the pond, underneath the Weyerhaeuser Headquarters building, through the meadow immediately south of the building, before discharging at a headwall located south of Weyerhaeuser Road, north of Highway 18. 4.3.3 Stream AC A stormwater pond for the Tech Center, located north of the Headquarters building, collects runoff from approximately two-thirds of the Tech Center and surrounding areas. This stormwater pond conveys the treated water downstream through a man-made channel (Stream AC) that extends into the Property before flowing south under South 336th Street to its confluence with Stream HA (off-site). The combined streams flow for approximately 600 feet before entering Weyerhaeuser Pond. Weyerhaeuser Pond then discharges south through a structure into a buried pipe that is located underneath the Headquarters building. The flows from this series of streams ultimately enter Hylebos Creek approximately two miles south of the Property. This conveyance feature, identified as Stream AC for the purposes of this report, has not been maintained and has become naturalized, despite the primary source of flow being the stormwater pond discharge. Stream AC starts at the stormwater pond outlet, but also collects water from the adjacent wetlands. The flow regime of this stream is directly tied to the discharges from the stormwater pond. While this feature was artificially created, its connection to fish-bearing waters and naturalization over time ensures that this feature has at least the potential to sustain fish habitat. 4.3.4 Non-regulated Ditches Several ditches and swales have been constructed and are actively maintained across the Property that tie into natural features. A pair of swales (AT1 and AT2) convey water from the sewer line easement north of South 336th Street south to a culvert under South 336th Street, before discharging these waters into Weyerhaeuser Pond. CHAPTER 5. WILDLIFE AND LISTED SPECIES 5.1 Wildlife Surveys and Assessments The Site was evaluated for wildlife habitat and observations of wildlife were recorded during all field visits since December 2015. The general habitat on-site is a blend of small depressional wetlands, third-growth Douglas fir forest with a patchy salal/sword fern understory, and a mixed deciduous forest with a primarily salmonberry understory. An existing stormwater pond occurs adjacent to several wetlands near the west side of the Site, and a naturalized stream originating from the stormwater pond discharge also occurs on-site. North Lake occurs adjacent to the eastern most portion of the project area. No unique habitats occur on-site. Both North Lake and Stream AC are potential habitats for salmonids and other freshwater fish. Both features provide fish habitat at a minimum. Though no fish of any species were observed within Stream AC, North Lake is regularly stocked with rainbow trout, and presumably has many other fish species present. Listed species evaluated for effects include the listed salmonids (Chinook Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 13 salmon, steelhead, bull trout) to address the potential for downstream water quality impacts. General wildlife observations during field work include: American Robin, Pacific Wren, Canada Goose, Chickadee, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Red-winged Blackbird, Pileated Woodpecker, Bufflehead, Mallard, American Widgeon, American Crow, American Coot, Pied-billed Grebe, Rufous Hummingbird, mountain beaver (burrows), rabbit, deer, coyote, and bullfrogs. 5.2 Listed Species There are no known listed species occurring on or adjacent to the Site. Listed species (salmonids) do occur downstream within Hylebos Creek, and a bald eagle nest is located more than 1,000 feet SE of North Lake. While bald eagles likely use North Lake for foraging, no direct impacts are proposed to North Lake. Any stormwater discharges would be treated prior to being discharged into North Lake or into downstream waterbodies. North Lake is stocked with rainbow trout. Weyerhaeuser Pond off-site to the south of the Site may also be used by bald eagles for foraging, but has previously been recognized as a large stormwater facility that acts as detention and treatment. Salmonids have not been observed in any stream, lake, or pond within the greater Federal Way Campus, LLC property. The apparent hindrances restricting salmonid migration into this area appear to be several not-fish-accessible culverts downstream. There is also a long stretch of pipe (roughly 1,600 linear feet) from the Weyerhaeuser pond, under the former Weyerhaeuser headquarters building, to its outlet just north of Highway 18, that is likely problematic for fish passage. The potential for Federal or State listed species occurring within the Site is very low. North Lake and the associated streams have the capacity for salmonids to occur, though accessibility from Hylebos Creek is artificially restricted. North Lake is stocked with rainbow trout, at a minimum. While no salmon species have been observed within North Lake or associated streams that does not preclude the potential for their presence. No impacts within the ordinary high water mark for any stream or lake is proposed as part of this project, though maintenance of an existing stormwater structure will be necessary. All stormwater will be treated prior to discharge and conveyance into a fish-bearing water. CHAPTER 6. REGULATORY REVIEW 6.1 Federal and State Regulations Wetland impacts on the project site are subject to applicable State and Federal regulations. Wetland impacts are regulated on the Federal level by Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The US Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for administering compliance with Section 404 via the issuance of Nationwide or Individual Permits for any fill or dredging activities within wetlands. Any project that is subject to Section 404 permitting is also subject to requirements of Section 401 of the CWA, administered by the Department of Ecology (DOE). Because direct wetland impacts are proposed on the project site, the proposed project would be required to comply with all Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 14 Section 404 and 401 permitting requirements prior to any construction-related activities that would affect waters of the US. The project is currently being evaluated by the Corps for a Nationwide Permit 39. 6.2 City of Federal Way Zoning Code Development on the property is governed by the Weyerhaeuser Company Concomitant Pre-Annexation Zoning Agreement (Concomitant Agreement). The Concomitant Agreement, Exhibit C, Section XII, sets out regulations for Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Subsection H provides a complete exemption from critical areas regulations for “development affecting wetlands which are individually smaller than 2,500 square feet and/or cumulatively smaller than 10,000 square feet in size in any 20-acre section of this property.” For wetland impacts exceeding this exemption threshold, the Concomitant Agreement allows impacts to wetlands and buffers meeting certain standards that are set out in the Concomitant Agreement itself and in the 1994 Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), which was in effect at the time of the Agreement. The Business Park property divides into seven 20-acre sections. Within each section, the project impacts well under 10,000 square feet of wetland area. While the project would be allowed under the Concomitant Agreement, the Applicant has also analyzed the project under the critical area regulations of the FWRC in effect when the project application was submitted (2015 Critical Areas Regulations). The applicant is performing this analysis voluntarily at the request of the City, although it is under no obligation to do so, and does not waive its rights under the Concomitant Agreement. The analysis, which follows, demonstrates that the project meets the requirements of the 2015 Critical Areas Regulations. Mitigation is also proposed that meets the requirements of the 2015 Critical Areas Regulations and applicable state and federal regulations. Wetlands and other critical areas in Federal Way located outside of the Shoreline Management Zone (SMZ) are regulated under the 2015 Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145. Wetlands identified within the Shoreline Management Zone are addressed under 2015 FWRC Chapter 15.10. 6.2.1 Non-SMZ Wetlands Wetlands occurring outside of the SMZ in Federal Way are currently regulated under FWRC 19.145.420. Wetlands regulated under Chapter 19 of the FWRC should be rated using the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington (2014). The ratings for wetlands determine the appropriate buffer width requirements as specified in the FWRC. Wetland ratings and rating figures can be found in Appendix D. Wetlands identified within the Site, outside of the SMZ, typically rated as a Category III or IV with Habitat Scores ranging from three (3) to six (6). Wetland setbacks in the FWRC are determined first by Category and then by Habitat Score (Table 1). See Appendix B for wetland ratings, categories, and standard buffer for all critical areas. Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 15 Table 1. FWRC Wetland Buffer Requirements (FWRC 19.145.420) Wetland Category Wetland Buffer Width (based on Habitat Score) 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Category I: Bogs and wetlands of high conservation value 190 feet 190 feet 190 feet 225 feet Category I: Forested and based on function score 75 feet 105 feet 165 feet 225 feet Category II 75 feet 105 feet 165 feet 225 feet Category III 60 feet 105 feet 165 feet 225 feet Category IV 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 6.2.2 Streams Stream AC is classified as a fish-bearing Type F stream. Type F streams under FWRC Chapter 19.145.270 require a 100-foot standard buffer. No other streams occur within the Site. 6.3 Shoreline Management Zone (SMZ) North Lake is listed as a Shoreline of the State, and thus is located within the SMZ for the Department of Ecology and the City of Federal Way. Shorelands extend for 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for North Lake and include Wetlands BA, BB, and BD-North. In addition to a 50-foot lakeshore buffer, these areas along the shoreline of North Lake have extra protections under the SMZ, which require additional coordination for any modifications within this area. 6.4 Other Linear Features All other man-made depressional features would not require buffers as they are all non- jurisdictional features. CHAPTER 7. PROPOSED PROJECT 7.1 Proposed Project The Applicant proposes to construct a new business park comprised of three (3) new warehouses with office space and associated infrastructure. The Weyerhaeuser Tech Center will be retained, but the existing parking lots will be reconfigured to a more compact arrangement around the Tech Center. Associated infrastructure to be constructed includes five (5) new stormwater detention facilities, reconfiguring the existing stormwater pond, parking for both cars and trucks, and enough maneuvering space for the truck traffic anticipated around these buildings. Portions of 48 wetlands, one (1) stream, and North Lake are located on or adjacent to the Site. Construction of the proposed development would directly impact (fill) 12,070 square feet (0.28 acre s) of wetlands for the buildings, parking, and stormwater facilities. Four (4) wetlands will have buffer impacts, resulting in an additional 7,840 square feet (0.18 acre s) of wetland being considered indirect wetland impacts due to site development encroachments (Appendix E, Sheets W1.3-1.4 ). Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 16 Proposed construction of a replacement detention pond access road will permanently impact 3,024 square feet (0.07 acres) of wetland buffers. Additionally for construction, 29,819 square feet (0.68 acres) of temporary construction impacts are proposed. The area of temporary construction impacts includes the existing trail through the Site. No impacts are proposed to Stream AC or its buffer. No development activities are proposed on or adjacent to North Lake. 7.2 Stormwater Treatment Five (5) stormwater ponds (Ponds 1-5) are currently proposed to address stormwater treatment and detention needs for the five (5) basins located within the project area. A brief description of the stormwater components of this project are outlined below, though a more in-depth discussion is provided within the Civil Engineering documents submitted with this application. Pond 1 is proposed on the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South and is designed to handle the existing basin that discharges to North Lake, rather than to Weyerhaeuser Pond like the remainder of the Site. Pond 1 will handle detention only as the incoming water is coming from standard parking areas, landscaped areas, and a portion of one (1) building. Basic water quality treatment will be provided through the use of Modular Wetlands filter vault or the approved equivalent. This pond will discharge into the potential wetland creation area proposed within the Site between Weyerhaeuser Way South and North Lake in order to hydrate the wetland creation areas. Ponds 2-5 are located around the western boundaries of the proposed development. One of the ponds (Pond 4) is a reconfiguration of the existing stormwater pond, while the other three are new ponds. Ponds 2, 4, and 5 will handle water quality and detention. Modular Wetlands filter vaults, or the approved equivalent, will provide the required two train enhanced water quality treatment. Pond 3 is solely for detention and will receive clean roof runoff only. Drainage from these four ponds will all ultimately collect within Stream AC and will be conveyed to Weyerhaeuser Pond, consistent with the current condition for most runoff from this developed portion of the Site. It is assumed that any discharges from the Site will reach ambient temperatures before this water is discharged into a fish-bearing water. The stormwater facilities will be designed to meet current DOE Water Quality Standards. The project will meet or exceed the current stormwater standards and will be based on the 2016 King County Stormwater Manual. The discharge from the proposed permanent stormwater detention ponds will be designed to meet pre- development conditions. An approved National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (TESCP) and/or Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be in place prior to the start of construction and will remain in place throughout all earthmoving activities. The following Best Management Practices Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 17 (BMPs) are proposed in the SWPPP: silt fence and native growth protection fence (possibly combined into just orange silt fence), stake and wire fence (around dripline of trees to be retained), stabilized construction entrance, two temporary sedimentation ponds, storm drain inlet protection (for existing and proposed open lid catch basins), temporary and permanent seeding, mulching, sodding, dust control, straw waddles, interceptor dike and swales, as well as outlet protection. Other measures may be implemented as deemed appropriate for the site conditions and/or as directed by City inspectors. CHAPTER 8. IMPACT ANALYSIS The proposed site plan has been designed to minimize impacts to critical areas to the greatest extent practicable while meeting the criteria for development of a viable project and conforming to the City of Federal Way standards. In attempting to avoid wetland impacts on the Site, several different configurations were evaluated to find the best configuration and scale for the project needs. Despite these efforts, some impacts to critical areas are unavoidable in order to achieve a viable project. Portions of 48 wetlands, one (1) stream, and North Lake are located on or adjacent to the Site. Construction of the proposed development would directly impact (fill) 12,070 square feet (0.28 acres) of wetlands for the buildings, parking, and stormwater facilities. Four (4) wetlands will have buffer impacts, resulting in an additional 7,840 square feet (0.18 acres) of wetland as being considered indirect wetland impacts due to site development encroachments (Appendix E, Sheets W1.3-1.4). For the construction of a replacement detention pond access road, permanent and temporary wetland buffer impacts are proposed east of the existing Tech Center. No impacts to Stream AC or its buffer are proposed. No development activities are proposed on or adjacent to North Lake. 8.1 Direct and Indirect Wetland Impacts Wetlands BS-North, EI, EJ, EK, EL, EM, FD, FE, and FF are proposed to be filled for the construction of the buildings and associated parking (Table 2). Partial fill of Wetlands AG and DE are proposed for the construction of buildings. Wetlands AE, AH, and CG are proposed to be filled for the construction of stormwater ponds. The remaining wetlands will be retained in their current conditions. All of the wetlands proposed to be impacted are low quality, depressional features that mostly appear to have developed over the past several decades as a result of poor land management practices by the previous property owner. Proposed wetland fill totals 12,070 square feet (0.28 acres). Small portions of Wetlands AF, AG, AH, AV, DE, DK, and GB-North will have buffer impacts due to the proposed development, and thus will not be able to have full standard buffers (Table 2). Where portions of the wetlands have intrusions into standard buffers required by the FWRC, these will be considered indirect impacts and Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 18 are included within the mitigation plan as if these areas are filled. Indirect impacts comprise another 7,840 square feet (0.18 acres). Table 2. Summary of Proposed Wetland Impacts and Mitigation 8.2 Permanent and Temporary Construction Impacts For the construction of a replacement detention pond access road, permanent construction impacts are proposed to 3,024 square feet (0.07 acres) of wetland buffer. Temporary construction impacts are proposed to 29,819 square feet (0.68 acres) of wetland buffer on-site to accommodate site grading, which includes areas of existing trail within buffers. Any critical area buffer area identified as a temporary buffer impact due to grading will be restored post-construction with native woody tree and shrub Wetland ID 2014 DOE Rating Wetland Impact Required Mitigation Category Impact Type - Direct (D) Indirect (I) Direct Square Feet Indirect Square Feet DOE/FWRC Ratios for Creation Square feet of Creation Required to offset impact AE III D 231 2:1 462 I 8 2:1 16 AF III I 448 2:1 896 AG III D 2,063 2:1 4,126 I 427 2:1 854 AH III D 120 2:1 240 I 591 2:1 1,182 AV III I 406 2:1 812 BS (N) III D 2,683 2:1 5,366 CG III D 3,458 2:1 6,916 DE III D 264 2:1 528 I 3,961 2:1 7,922 DK III I 1,981 2:1 3,962 EI IV D 175 1.5:1 263 EJ III D 231 2:1 462 EK III D 179 2:1 358 EL III D 372 2:1 744 EM III D 306 2:1 612 FD IV D 686 1.5:1 1,029 FE III D 324 2:1 648 FF IV D 978 1.5:1 1,467 GB (N) III I 18 2:1 36 Totals 12,070 7,840 38,901 Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 19 species, and will be included within the overall mitigation plan for monitoring and maintenance. 8.3 Indirect Wetland Impact Analysis Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands (2005, Ecology Publication #05-06-008) identifies four (4) primary factors that should be considered when determining an appropriate buffer width: • Quality, sensitivity, and functions of the aquatic resource; • Nature of adjacent land use activity and its potential for impacts on the aquatic resource; • Character of the existing buffer area (including soils, slope, vegetation, etc.); and • Intended functions of the buffer. The below discussion outlines the existing and proposed conditions for the four (4) wetlands anticipated to be indirectly impacted. In addition to this comparison and discussion of the impacted buffers, the portions of the wetlands identified as having buffer impacts will be mitigated for, as if they were filled. This will ensure that the functions of these wetlands that are potentially lost through the development will be thoroughly compensated. 8.3.1 Quality, Sensitivity, and Functions of the Aquatic Resource The aquatic resources of concern are Wetlands AG, AV, DE, and GB-North. These wetlands appear to have been inadvertently created through human disturbances. Wetland AG occurs at the toe of slope of the berm around the existing stormwater pond, and it appears to receive hydrology via seepage from the pond through the berm, as well as through interception of surface and subsurface flows from the surrounding uplands. Species diversity within the wetland is low with typical plant species including salmonberry with red alder. Almost no herbaceous vegetation occurs within the wetland. Wetland AG wraps around the base of the stormwater pond berm, and Stream AC begins around the central portion of the wetland, where the existing stormwater pond outfall is located. The stormwater pond outfall greatly increases the baseflow and hydrology to Wetland AG. Wetland DE occurs over an area that was clear-cut back in the 1980s and 1990s, and where European ash was replanted. These ash trees are non-native, and are planted in very clear rows. Wetland AV occurs within an area that is surrounded by roads on three sides causing water ponding before exiting into the existing stormwater system. Wetlands AV and DE occur where soil conditions and drainage are poor, a direct result of the unconsolidated till near the soil surface. As many of the plants within these areas were facultative, a Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 20 combination of soils and hydrology were the determining factors for establishing wetland boundaries. Wetland GB-North is located adjacent to a gravel road near Wetland DE. Wetland GB-North is a linear, depressional area that likely resulted from the former land use activities on this property. This is an unnatural wetland system that holds water within the winter/spring months and, as a result, hydrophytic vegetation has thrived within this feature. Wetlands AG, AV, DE, and GB-North are not unique systems nor sensitive systems, but rather are low-quality wetlands that generally only function for water quality and water storage. These wetlands do provide limited opportunities for habitat features for commonly occurring species, but do not provide habitat for any listed species. While none of these wetlands are near an open body of water, Stream AC does enter Wetland AG just south of the proposed direct impacts. No wildlife was observed using these wetlands directly, though bullfrogs were identified within Stream AC near Wetland AG. Several species of songbird were observed across the Site. Mountain beaver holes were observed at several locations nearer the Douglas fir on-site, and a coyote was observed on-site. There is a known coyote den off-site to the south and west of the Site near the rhododendron garden (approximately 3,000 feet from the subject wetland). 8.3.2 Nature of Adjacent Land Use Activity and its Potential for Impacts on the Aquatic Resource The area in and around the Site is zoned as Commercial Park (CP-1), and allows for corporate offices, research facilities, warehousing and distribution, production and light assembly of goods, etc. While there are large areas of undeveloped land in proximity to the Site, all of this land has the potential to be developed into land uses consistent with the CP-1 zoning. The adjacent areas to the north are already developed as office park, as well as the existing Tech Center on-site. The proposed project is within the parameters of the current zoning for the Site. Full buffers are being provided around all non-impacted critical areas, or appropriate compensation to off-set any lost functions. The remaining buffers will protect these remaining wetlands from future human intrusions, as will the removal of the gravel road that occurs in close proximity. 8.3.3 Character of the Existing Buffer Area (including soils, slope, vegetation, etc.) The existing buffer adjacent to Wetland AG is a mix of a native trees and shrubs. Typical species present within the understory include salmonberry, and young red alder. The canopy is primarily red alder and black cottonwood with some western red cedar present. Douglas fir are present at the higher (drier) elevations on the site. Consolidated till occurs typically at fairly shallow depths throughout this area. Wetland AG is located around the base of the berm around Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 21 the existing stormwater pond. There is a gravel path along the top of this berm, as well as gravel trails in close proximity to Wetland AG. The northeastern most point of Wetland AG is located at the edge of the asphalt ring road around the Tech Center. There are no steep slopes in the area, and the area within the buffer is gently sloping towards the east and south, more or less, with minor variations in the contours present on-site. The existing buffer adjacent to Wetlands DE & GB-North is a mix of native trees and shrubs though a gravel road with adjacent road-side ditches separate these two wetlands. Typical species present within the understory include salmonberry and young red alder. The canopy is primarily red alder and black cottonwood with some western red cedar present. Douglas fir are present at the higher (drier) elevations on the site. Consolidated till occurs typically at fairly shallow depths throughout this area. There are no steep slopes in the area, and the area within the buffer is gently sloping from north to south, more or less, with minor variations in the contours present on-site. Wetland AV occurs near Wetland DE and is similar in landscape position and cover, though Wetland AV is vegetated mostly with salmonberry. The buffer for Wetland AV is the most limited of these wetlands paved and gravel roads surround this feature on three sides, leaving little native vegetation behind. 8.3.4 Intended Functions of the Buffer The existing buffer functions primarily for protection against water quality concerns, as well as protecting the wetland from potential contaminants from the adjacent land uses. The designed stormwater treatment system for the proposed development will address and compensate for most, if not all, water quality functions performed by the existing upland buffer. The incorporation of a full stormwater management system for the new development will greatly contribute towards the protection of all remaining wetlands from water quality impacts. Wetland AG will continue to receive discharge from the stormwater pond, consistent with the current condition, with additional water added to the north end of Wetland AG to compensate for the adjustment of outfall location anticipated for the proposed project. The remainder of Wetland DE will continue to receive runoff from the surrounding areas. Wetlands AG, AV, DE, and GB-North will be maintained as part of a larger forested buffer corridor that will connect these wetlands through a City-required 100-foot forested buffer along Interstate-5 and with other undeveloped areas so a corridor will be formed that local wildlife can use. Based on the foregoing details, we feel we can achieve the equivalent buffer functions through the construction and management of the proposed stormwater management plan and densely vegetated planted buffer. Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 22 CHAPTER 9. PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN 9.1 Agency Policies and Guidance The proposed mitigation plan was designed in accordance with the policies and guidance provided in the following documents: • The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) Publication #06-06-011a, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance, and Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1), dated March 2006; • The Federal Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources Final Rule (Title 33 CFR 325 and 332, April 10, 2008), and Title 40 CFR 230.93), effective June 9, 2008; and • Critical Areas Regulations set forth in the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145 Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Chapter 15 Shoreline Management (City of Federal Way, 2017). The objective of the mitigation is to offset the direct and indirect wetland impacts resulting from complete or partial filling of wetlands as outlined in Table 2. 9.2 Mitigation Sequencing All agencies involved require that a sequence of actions be taken for proposals that will impact wetlands. This is referred to as mitigation sequencing. It is administered under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) administered by DOE, as well as under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, administered by the Corps. The mitigation sequencing requirements are: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts. 3. Rectifying the impact to the critical area by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. 6. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. During the site planning process, every effort was undertaken to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to critical areas to the maximum extent practicable while still allowing for a viable development and conforming to City of Federal Way zoning requirements. However, the large, rectangular footprint of the warehouses precludes any creative site planning that might avoid centrally located wetlands. The size and exact locations of the buildings have been adjusted to the greatest extent practicable to minimize wetland impacts. Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 23 All of the proposed wetland impacts are necessary in order to meet the requirements for building, parking, stormwater facilities, and access for emergency services and trucks. The proposed development plan avoids impacting the largest and best quality of the wetlands. The majority of the wetlands to be filled are generally low-quality depressional systems that appear to have been created by poor land management activities in the last few decades and in conjunction with development over the years in adjacent areas. Every effort was taken to avoid wetlands that rated as higher quality, higher functioning wetlands. 9.3 Watershed Approach Selecting a mitigation site using a watershed approach is a process of determining both the suitability and sustainability of a potential mitigation site within the landscape. The process aims to guide potential mitigation to those areas within the landscape where success is most likely to occur. The process is outlined in “Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach” (Hruby, et al., 2009). A watershed plan does not exist for this area. This mitigation site was chosen based on its availability (under same ownership) as well as its connectivity to other critical areas, consistent with the watershed approach. 9.4 Standard Mitigation Measures The following standard mitigation measures will be taken for all non-impacted wetlands, stream, and buffers post-construction. • Lights – Lighting around parking areas will be directed away from the remaining wetlands on-site. • Noise – The remaining wetlands are already located within an area that is regularly used by pedestrians and dogs. Much of this foot traffic will be rerouted away from the wetland complexes remaining on-site. • Toxic Runoff/Stormwater runoff/change in water regime - A new stormwater system designed to the current King County standards will be installed for this project. All runoff from the project site will be routed through the stormwater system. Clean roof runoff will be routed as well to the remaining wetlands, as needed, through their adjacent buffers to hydrate the wetland systems in the post-development condition. • Pets and Human Disturbance – Critical area fencing will be added to the remaining wetland and buffer areas to prevent human intrusions into the buffer/wetland areas. Pets and children are not expected on or near the Site as this is a commercial development. 9.5 Mitigation Analysis The 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps establishes a three-part process of mitigation sequencing to help guide mitigation decisions and determine the type and level of mitigation required to comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Two additional steps are included to ensure that mitigation projects successfully achieve the design goal of no net loss of wetland functions and services. These steps are listed below in order of preference. The Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 24 mitigation analysis guidelines are listed below (in bold font), followed by a discussion (in italic text) of how the proposed project meets each criterion. i. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; The project cannot avoid impacts to wetlands by avoiding certain actions or parts of actions and still have a viable project. The large, rectangular footprint of the warehouses precludes any creative site planning that might avoid centrally located wetlands. Additionally, necessary project components such as parking, roads, landscaping, and stormwater requirements take up additional project area. All of the wetlands proposed to be impacted are low quality, depressional features that mostly appear to have developed over the past several decades as a result of poor land management practices by the previous property owner. Large tracts of wetland will remain in the post-development condition. No impacts are proposed to Stream AC, the Stream AC buffer, or North Lake. ii. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts; The Woodbridge Business Park project has been designed to minimize impacts to wetlands and streams to the maximum extent practicable while maintaining a developable area suitable for a viable warehouse distribution project. The size and scope of the necessary building space, infrastructure, and stormwater needs precludes much variability with regards to avoiding wetland and stream impacts. Every effort was taken to avoid higher quality wetlands, and focus the necessary critical area impacts to those lower functioning wetlands. Several site plan iterations were evaluated to balance the needs of the Project against the constraints of the Site. iii. Rectifying the impact to the critical area by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; The majority of the affected environment will not be able to be re-established, rehabilitated, or restored, nor are impacts to uplands generally regulated that would require such rehabilitation or restoration. The identified wetland impacts on the Site will be permanent and compensatory mitigation will be provided to offset those impacts. Opportunities do exist to enhance the remaining critical areas on-site through buffer enhancement and restoration, though the majority of the compensatory mitigation will occur within the eastern portion of the Site near North Lake. Changes to the stormwater outfall should have no impact on the hydrology of Stream AC as additional sources of hydrology will be provided to ensure the upper limits of Stream AC and Wetland AG are hydrated. Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 25 Opportunities to re-establish, rehabilitate, or restore buffer around the Site will be taken where available. iv. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. Permanent impacts to critical areas cannot be reduced or eliminated over time. However, those critical areas that will remain in proximity to the new development will be protected over time through maintenance of their buffers and ensuring the boundaries are clearly demarcated to prevent human intrusions. Mitigation activities include wetland creation and enhancement and buffer enhancement and restoration. These improvements will be monitored for a minimum of five (5) years with maintenance activities continuing beyond this time. These areas are expected to function as a native system and long-term maintenance is expected to be minimal. The stormwater facilities will be maintained as needed in the long-term. v. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. The Project proposes to compensate for wetland impacts by creating wetlands adjacent to existing wetlands, further outlined in Chapter 9 below. Additionally, proposed buffer restoration and enhancement on the Site will provide ecological benefits to the adjacent critical areas. Temporary impacts due to construction activities will be restored after construction to their pre-construction condition. vi. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. The proposed on-site mitigation requires a performance monitoring and maintenance program for a minimum of five (5) years for the wetland creation and buffer enhancement/restoration. The monitoring and maintenance plan will include goals and objectives for the mitigation plan, success criteria for which the mitigation will be assessed, a contingency plan in case of failure, and proof of a written contract with a qualified professional who will perform the monitoring program. The monitoring program requires at least two (2) site visits per year by a qualified professional, with annual reports submitted to the Planning Official and all other agencies with the jurisdiction. 9.6 Direct and Indirect Wetland Impact Mitigation Options Two alternatives are being provided as mitigation for direct and indirect impacts to wetlands on the Site. The intent is to provide two options that can be evaluated simultaneously, but only one will be provided as mitigation for the project impacts as chosen by the Applicant. Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 26 9.6.1 OPTION 1: Potential Wetland Creation If wetland creation is determined to be the preferred method, a large wetland complex will be created around Wetlands BA-2 and PK in the vicinity of North Lake. The acreage of palustrine emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested wetland created as mitigation for direct wetland impacts was derived using the ratios provided within Table 1a of Chapter 6.5 of Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Ecology Publication #06-06-011a), which are consistent with those provided within FWRC Chapter 19.145.430(5), and reflected in Table 2. Proposed mitigation areas for wetland creation are as follows: • Wetland Creation 38,901 square feet • Wetland Enhancement 2,021 square feet • Wetland Buffer Creation 80,225 square feet • Wetland Buffer Enhancement 7,204 square feet • Wetland Buffer Restoration 13,296 square feet The potential wetland creation will integrate the hydrology of the proposed stormwater discharge into a meandering wetland system before allowing the water to discharge south towards North Lake through Wetland BD. Great care has been taken to avoid larger existing trees and to incorporate existing trees into the mitigation design. Wetland creation will include the following measures: 1) Clearing and grubbing all invasive, non-native weedy species in the wetland creation areas; 2) Grading to create a series of shallow depressions within upland areas. Hydrology will be provided by grading down to the early growing season groundwater elevation and using stormwater runoff associated with Woodbridge Business Park; 3) Installation of habitat features such as rootwads, down logs, stumps, and snags with bird nesting and bat roosting boxes; and 4) Planting a variety of wet-adapted native tree, shrub, and emergent species to provide structural diversity and increased species diversity to the wetland system. The potential mitigation grading concept (Appendix E, Sheet W2.0) includes an area east of the wetland creation area to demonstrate the hydrologic connection between the required wetland creation area and Wetland BD to the south. This additional mitigation area will be part of a future mitigation project for Woodbridge Warehouse A for Corps- required mitigation. 9.6.2 OPTION 2: In-Lieu Fee (ILF) Credit Purchase The federal rule titled Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule (Federal Rule) 33 CFR Section 332.3(b) specifies that when considering options for successfully providing the required compensatory mitigation for federal permits, the Corps District Engineer shall consider the type and location options in the following order: Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 27 a. Wetland mitigation banks, b. In-lieu fee programs, c. Permittee-responsible mitigation under a watershed approach, d. Permittee-responsible mitigation through on site and in-kind mitigation, and lastly e. Permittee-responsible mitigation through off site and/or out-of-kind mitigation. The impact project area is within the Puyallup-White Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 10. King County has one Ecology approved Mitigation Bank in the vicinity within WRIA 9, not WRIA 10, Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank. The Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank is used for Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) projects and cannot be utilized for private projects. The Upper Clear Creek Wetland Mitigation Bank is located within WRIA 10, but has not yet been approved. It is also unclear whether or not this service area would include the proposed project. As stated above, there are no Corps-certified wetland mitigation banks in the vicinity of the Project or in WRIA 10. The only Corps-certified In-Lieu Fee (ILF) program that services WRIA 10 is the King County ILF mitigation program. The King County ILF program will provide mitigation within the watershed of the project. The current King County mitigation project that would be the recipient of credits purchased by the proposed project will result in wetlands that are higher quality in terms of water quality functions, hydrologic functions, and habitat functions compared to the impacted wetlands’ current functional values. If it is determined that purchasing ILF credits is the preferred mitigation plan, the project would propose using the King County ILF Program. All required documentation for the use of an ILF program would be provided at a later date. This would include avoidance and minimization to aquatic resources, an analysis of mitigation alternatives, appropriate credit-debit analysis to ensure sufficient compensation is provided, and any other documentation provided in a ILF Plan. 9.7 Proposed Wetland Buffer Mitigation Details Mitigation measures for the proposed development impacting wetland buffers include wetland buffer creation, wetland buffer replacement, and wetland buffer restoration (Appendix E, Sheets W1.3 – W2.2): • Wetland Buffer Creation 27,113 square feet • Wetland Buffer Replacement 3,184 square feet • Wetland Buffer Restoration 29,819 square feet 9.7.1 Wetland Buffer Creation Wetland buffer creation is proposed around the wetland creation area (Appendix E, Sheets W3.0 – W4.0). Wetland buffer enhancement will include the following measures: 1) Clearing and grubbing all toxic and invasive species; 2) Removal of man-made features, where necessary; Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 28 3) Placement of topsoil where necessary; 4) Placement of habitat features such as rootwads, down logs, stumps, and snags with bird nesting and bat roosting boxes; 5) Installation of three inches of bark mulch in all bare soil areas; 6) Planting a variety of native deciduous and evergreen tree and shrub species; and 7) Installing critical area fencing and signs at buffer boundaries where required. 9.7.2 Wetland Buffer Restoration Buffer restoration will occur around the on-site remaining stream and wetlands through the removal of an existing gravel road and by restoring buffer temporarily impacted through site grading activities. Wetland buffer restoration will include the following measures: 1) Remove passive recreational trail/gravel access road; 2) Scarify soils and amend with topsoil from on-site sources as necessary; 3) Installation of habitat features such as rootwads, down logs, stumps, and snags with bird nesting and bat roosting boxes; 4) Installation of three inches of bark mulch in all bare soil areas; 5) Planting a variety of native deciduous and evergreen tree and shrub species; and 6) Installing critical area fencing and signs at buffer boundaries where required. 9.8 Performance Monitoring and Maintenance All mitigation components will be monitored for a minimum of five (5) years, consistent with agency requirements to ensure compliance with detailed performance objectives. Upon preliminary approval of this proposed mitigation design, a final mitigation plan will be prepared that outlines the performance objectives, as well as detailed elements of the mitigation plan installation, long-term monitoring and maintenance, contingency plans, and others. Critical area fencing will be placed at the perimeter of the mitigation areas as needed to ensure pedestrian and pet traffic is restricted into the designated mitigation areas. CHAPTER 10. SUMMARY The Woodbridge Business Park Site is an approximately 136-acre assemblage of five parcels located within the City of Federal Way in King County, Washington. The (former) Weyerhaeuser Tech Center already occurs within the Site, along with associated parking, paved roads, existing gravel access roads, and trails for passive recreation. Talasaea Consultants performed an initial delineation of on-site wetlands beginning in December 2015. Talasaea re-verified the wetland boundaries in April 2016 as the initial delineations were completed after several atypically high rainfall events. Forty-eight (48) wetlands were identified on the Site. North Lake occurs adjacent to the Site. One man-made stream (Stream AC) connects the existing stormwater pond to Weyerhaeuser Pond off-site to the south. Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 29 Development on the property is governed by the Weyerhaeuser Company Concomitant Pre-Annexation Zoning Agreement (Concomitant Agreement). While the project would be allowed under the Concomitant Agreement, the Applicant has also analyzed the project under the critical area regulations of the FWRC in effect when the project application was submitted (2015 Critical Areas Regulations). The applicant is performing this analysis voluntarily at the request of the City, although it is under no obligation to do so, and does not waive its rights under the Concomitant Agreement. The analysis, which follows, demonstrates that the project meets the requirements of the 2015 Critical Areas Regulations. Wetlands and other critical areas in Federal Way located outside of the Shoreline Management Zone (SMZ) are regulated under the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145. Wetlands identified within the Shoreline Management Zone are addressed under FWRC Chapter 15.10. The Applicant proposes to construct a new business park with three (3) new warehouses with office space and associated infrastructure. The Weyerhaeuser Tech Center will remain, but the existing parking lots will be reconfigured to a more compact arrangement around the Tech Center. Associated infrastructure to be constructed includes five (5) new stormwater detention facilities, including reconfiguring the existing stormwater pond, parking for both cars and trucks, and enough maneuvering space for the truck traffic anticipated around these buildings. Due to the size of the proposed buildings, required parking and stormwater infrastructure, direct and indirect impacts to some wetlands and buffer encroachments are unavoidable. Portions of 48 wetlands, one (1) stream, and North Lake are located on or adjacent to the Site. Construction of the proposed development would directly impact (fill) 12,070 square feet (0.28 acre s) of wetlands for the buildings, parking, and stormwater facilities. Four (4) wetlands will have buffer impacts, resulting in an additional 7,840 square feet (0.18 acres) of wetland as being considered indirect wetland impacts due to site development encroachments. Two options are being proposed as mitigation for direct and indirect impacts to wetlands: Potential wetland creation or purchase of credits from a King County In-Lieu Fee (ILF) program. The Applicant will determine which mitigation option is preferred at a later date. Wetland buffer impacts will be mitigated through a multi-part mitigation plan including wetland buffer creation, wetland buffer replacement, and wetland buffer enhancement. Temporary construction impacts resulting from site grading will be restored post- construction. All critical area mitigation will be constructed prior to or concurrent with site development activities. A final mitigation plan will be prepared and submitted once preliminary concurrence has been provided for this proposed mitigation plan. Performance monitoring will extend for a minimum of five (5) years over all elements of the mitigation plan. Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 30 CHAPTER 11. REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. 2014 Update. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-029. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed [September 2017]. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Wetland Regulatory Assistance Program. ERDC/EL TR-10-3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Poverty Bay Quadrangle. Washington State Department of Ecology. March 1997. Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology. Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List. 2016. www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d (accessed September 2017). Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife [Map Online], Olympia (WA): SalmonScape [September 2017]. URL: <http//wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html> Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Priority Habitats and Species Database [online], Olympia, WA. [accessed September 2017]. <www.wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/> Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Page 31 FIGURES Figure 1 – Vicinity Map & Driving Directions Figure 2 – National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 3 – NRCS Map Figure 4 – Hydrologic Connections Overview     Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Appendix A APPENDIX A WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, 2016 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federall Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: AV-UPL1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.306750 Long: -122.298169 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Located uphill from wetland VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum 40 Y FACU 2. Populus tremuloides 35 Y FACU 3. 4. 75 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 45 Y FAC 2. Rubus armeniacus 25 Y FAC 3. Oemleria cerasiformis 10 N FACU 4. 5. 80 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Dicentra formosa 20 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 20 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 80 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: AV-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 Duff 1-10 10YR 2/2 100 Loam 10-16 10YR 3/2 100 Loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: No redox features present HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 16 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Record rainfall in recent months. Saturation occurred below 12" depth. 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federall Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: AV-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial Till Plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave depression Slope (%): <1 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.306750 Long: -122.298169 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Wetland is a disturbed area flanked by roads on 3 sides which has slowed drainage of the area. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 70 Yes FAC 2. Populus tremuloides 20 Yes FACU 3. 4. 90 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 50 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 50 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. None 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species 100 x 3 = 300 FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 100 (A) 300 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: AV-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-13 10YR 2/1 100 silty loam OM present 13-16 10YR 5/1 80 10YR 5/8 20 C M Silt Prominent 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: OM present in upper horizon but insufficient qualities to be muck. Carbon content doesn't feel high enough-no organic carbon testing done. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: TAL-1572 City/County: Federal Way/King County Sampling Date:12/19/2015 Applicant/Owner: IRG/Weyerhauser State: WA Sampling Point: BA-UPL1 Investigator(s): JMM, DRT Section, Township, Range: S15 T21N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 8-10% Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.309777 Long: -122.289189 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravel sandy loam, 0-8% slopes NWI classification: PFO/PSS Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 20 Y FAC 2. Pseudotsuga menziesii 15 Y FACU 3. Thuja plicata 5 N FAC 4. 40 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15) 1. Gaultheria shallon 75 Y FACU 2. Alnus rubra 5 N FAC 3. 4. 5. 80 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 30 x 3 = 90 FACU species 90 x 4 = 360 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 120 (A) 450 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.75 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: BA-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy loam Digging around rocks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology despite unusually wet conditions. 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: TAL-1572 City/County: Federal Way/King County Sampling Date:12/19/2015 Applicant/Owner: IRG/Weyerhauser State: WA Sampling Point: BA-WET1 Investigator(s): JMM, DRT Section, Township, Range: S15 T21N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depressional Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.309768 Long: -122.289239 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravel sandy loam, 0-8% slopes NWI classification: PFO/PSS Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 15 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 15 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15) 1. Alnus rubra 45 Y FAC 2. Spiraea douglasii 40 Y FACW 3. Rubus spectabilis 5 N FAC 4. 5. 90 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: BA-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Cannot dig within the feature, soils look dark but disperses into the ponded water and turn to mud before they can be describ ed. Indicators are assumed from strong hydrologic indicators. Soils too wet. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 8 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Unusually wet weather. 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: TAL-1572 City/County: Federal Way/King County Sampling Date:12/19/2015 Applicant/Owner: IRG/Weyerhauser State: WA Sampling Point: BB-UPL1 Investigator(s): JMM, DRT Section, Township, Range: S15 T21N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 2-3 Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.309067 Long: -122.289319 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravel sandy loam, 0-8% slopes NWI classification: PFO Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30) % Cover Species? Status 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 60 Y FACU 2. Alnus rubra 15 N FAC 3. Acer circinatum 10 N FAC 4. 85 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15) 1. Acer circinatum 10 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 10 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5) 1. Polystichum munitum 2 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 2 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 37 x 3 = 111 FACU species 62 x 4 = 248 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 99 (A) 359 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.63 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: BB-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Despite a lack of a clean hydric soil indicator, this soil could be either. It was assumed not hydric based on the other two indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 3 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Hydrology indicator likely result of recent unusually wet weather; despite presence of saturation, this does not reflect wetland hydrology. 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: TAL-1572 City/County: Federal Way/King County Sampling Date:12/19/2015 Applicant/Owner: IRG/Weyerhauser State: WA Sampling Point: BB-WET1 Investigator(s): JMM, DRT Section, Township, Range: S15 T21N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depressional Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1-2% Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.309056 Long: -122.289374 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravel sandy loam, 0-8% slopes NWI classification: PFO Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 50 Y FAC 2. Populus balsamifera 15 Y FAC 3. 4. 65 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15) 1. Rubus spectabilis 45 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 45 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: BB-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 2/2 100 Sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Cannot pull sample because feature is completely under water, soil pit was dug where it was drier near the wetland boundary. Assumed hydric soils from strong hydrologic indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 2 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1-2 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: BD-UPL1 Investigator(s): JMM, DRT Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0-1 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.308979 Long: -122.290309 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 40 Yes FAC 2. Acer circinatum 35 Yes FAC 3. Populus balsamifera 20 No FAC 4. Pseudotsuga menziesii 5 No FACU 90 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 3. 4. 5. 0 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 20 Yes FACU 2. Lamiastrum galeobdolon 1 No NL 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 21 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus armeniacus 30 Yes FACU 2. Rubus laciniatus 5 No FACU 35 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 79 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: BD-UPL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Impossible to dig - extremely compact and suspected old logging road HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Record rainfall in recent months. 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:12/19/2015 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: BD-WET1 Investigator(s): JMM, DRT Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1-3 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.308804 Long: -122.28969 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Fraxinus latifolia 65 Yes FACW 2. 3. 4. 65 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 60 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 60 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 15 Yes FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 15 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus armeniacus 2 Yes FAC 2. 2 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 65 x 2 = 130 FAC species 62 x 3 = 186 FACU species 15 x 4 = 60 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 142 (A) 376 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.64 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: BD-WET Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 100 Loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Structure obliterated because of surrounding ponded water. Difficult to describe but assumed hydric from hydrologic indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1-2 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1-2 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Record rainfall in recent months. 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: BS (N)-UPL Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.309008 Long: -122.295682 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: SP located within generally flat area around wetland. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Thuja plicata 30 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. 30 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Gaultheria shallon 40 Yes FACU 2. Rubus spectabilis 30 Yes FAC 3. Oemleria cerasiformis 20 Yes FACU 4. 5. 90 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 30 Yes FACU 2. Rubus ursinus 20 Yes FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 50 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 50 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species 60 x 3 = 180 FACU species 110 x 4 = 440 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 170 (A) 620 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.6 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: BS-UPL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 Duff 2-8 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy loam 8-16 10YR 4/3 100 Silty loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: No hydric soil indicators identified HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 9 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Record rainfall in recent months. Saturation observed within 12 in of soil subsurface 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: BS (N)-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 4 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.309008 Long: -122.295682 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Wetland located adjacent to parking lot. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. None 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 5 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 5 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Glyceria elata 5 N FACW 2. Juncus effusus 5 N FACW 3. Veronica anagallis-aquatica 2 N OBL 4. Ranunculus repens 25 Y FAC 5. 6. 7. 8. 37 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 63 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: BS(N)-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-9 10YR 2/1 100 Muck 9-16 10YR 6/1 50 10YR 4/6 50 C M Silt Prominent feature 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 5 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King County Sampling Date:12/19/2015 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: CB-UPL1 Investigator(s): JMM, DRT Section, Township, Range: S15 T21N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 2-5% Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: Long: Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravel sandy loam, 0-8% slopes NWI classification: PSS Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30) % Cover Species? Status 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 40 Y FACU 2. Thuja plicata 15 Y FAC 3. Alnus rubra 5 N FAC 4. 60 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15) 1. Acer circinatum 40 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 40 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5) 1. Polystichum munitum 50 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 50 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 50 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 60 x 3 = 180 FACU species 90 x 4 = 360 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 150 (A) 540 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.6 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: CB-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR 4-2 100 Silt loam 2-16 7.5YR 4/4 100 Silt loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King County Sampling Date:12/22/2015 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: CB-WET1 Investigator(s): JMM, DRT Section, Township, Range: S15 T21N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0-3 Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.304053 Long: -122.293896 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravel sandy loam, 0-8% slopes NWI classification: PFO Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 40 Y FAC 2. Fraxinius latifolia 15 Y FACW 3. 4. 55 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15) 1. None 2. 3. 4. 5. 0 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5) 1. None 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: CB-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Stream substrate within the braided channels made acquiring a soil sample difficult. Soils that were identified were a 2/1 sa ndy loam but could not dig very deep. Assumed hydric from strong hydrologic indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4-6 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Braided channels 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King County Sampling Date:12/19/2015 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: CD-UPL1 Investigator(s): JMM, DRT Section, Township, Range: S15 T21N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): non Slope (%): 2-5% Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.310362 Long: -122.288643 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravel sandy loam, 0-8% slopes NWI classification: PFO/PSS Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30) % Cover Species? Status 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 50 Y FACU 2. Thuja plicata 15 Y FAC 3. 4. 65 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15) 1. Gaultheria shallon 80 Y FACU 2. Thuja plicata 10 N FAC 3. Ilex aquifolium 1 N FACU 4. Arbutus menziesii 1 N NL 5. 92 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5) 1. None 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30) 1. Rubus armeniacus 2 Y FACU 2. 2 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 25 x 3 = 75 FACU species 133 x 4 = 532 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 158 (A) 607 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Mountain beaver burrows present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: CD-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR 2/1 100 Silt loam 2-8 7.5YR 4/4 100 Silt loam 8-10 10YR 2/1 100 Silt loam 10-16+ 7.5YR 4/6 100 Silt loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King County Sampling Date:12/19/2015 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: CD-WET1 Investigator(s): JMM, DRT Section, Township, Range: S15 T21N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0-2% Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.310326 Long: -122.288310 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravel sandy loam, 0-8% slopes NWI classification: PFO/PSS 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30) % Cover Species? Status 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 10 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 10 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15) 1. Alnus rubra 60 Y FAC 2. Rubus spectabilis 40 Y FAC 3. 4. 5. 100 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5) 1. None 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Mountain beaver burrows inside feature US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: CD-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR 2/1 100 Silt loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydric indicators assumed, as hydrologic indicators are strong. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1-2 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 2 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: TAL-1572 City/County: Federal Way/King County Sampling Date:12/19/2015 Applicant/Owner: IRG/Weyerhauser State: WA Sampling Point: CE-UPL1 Investigator(s): JMM, DRT Section, Township, Range: S15 T21N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 5+% Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.310529 Long: -122.289913 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravel sandy loam, 0-8% slopes NWI classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30) % Cover Species? Status 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 30 Y FACU 2. Thuja plicata 10 Y FAC 3. 4. 40 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15) 1. Gaultheria shallon 75 Y FACU 2. Pseudotsuga menziesii 10 N FACU 3. Mahonia aquifolium 5 N FACU 4. Ilex aquifolium 2 N FACU 5. 92 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5) 1. Polystichum munitum 10 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 10 x 3 = 30 FACU species 132 x 4 = 528 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 142 (A) 558 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.93 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: CE-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-3 10YR 4/2 100 3-18 7.5 YR 4/4 100 Sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: TAL-1572 City/County: Federal Way/King County Sampling Date:12/19/2015 Applicant/Owner: IRG/Weyerhauser State: WA Sampling Point: CE-WET1 Investigator(s): JMM, DRT Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depressional Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1-3% Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.310580 Long: -122.289874 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravel sandy loam, 0-8% slopes NWI classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5) 1. Carexsp. 30 Y FACW* 2. Ranunculus repens 25 Y FAC 3. Urtica dioica 15 Y FAC 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 70 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Carex sp. assumed FAC or wetter, unable to ID to species. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: CE-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-13 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy loam Cannot dig deeper than 13 inches 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydric indicators assumed based on other indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1-4 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:7/19/2016 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DE-UPL1 Investigator(s): Jennifer Marriott Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.308117 Long: -122.297907 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus tremuloides 40 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 40 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Populus tremuloides 30 Y FACU 2. Gaultheria shallon 25 Y FACU 3. 4. 5. 55 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 5 N FACU 2. Rubus ursinus 70 Y FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 75 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 25 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DE-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1-16 10YR 3/3 100 loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: No hydric soil indicators identified HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hyrology indicators identified 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:7/19/2016 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DE-WET1 Investigator(s): Jennifer Marriott Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.308117 Long: -122.297907 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: This atypical wetland occurs within a broad area where the till is shallow; the delineation includes area of upland as the wetland winds through the trees. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera 30 Y FAC 2. Fraxinus excelsior 60 Y NL 3. 4. 90 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Fraxinus excelsior 80 Y NL 2. Rubus spectabilis 20 Y FAC 3. 4. 5. 100 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. None 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species 50 x 3 = 150 FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 50 (A) 150 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Fraxinus excelsior (European ash) is considered to be a wetland plant in Europe. We can safely assume this test plot represents hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DE-WET Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/1 100 Silty loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Soil was very dry, hardpan at 12 inches. Soil is assumed to be hydric based on hydrology and hydrophytic plants. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface ponding and saturation within the upper 12" was previously noted in January 2016 though wetland hydrology was not present at our evaluation in April 2016. 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/8/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DF-UPL1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.308059 Long: -122.297303 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Abies grandis 40 Yes FACU 2. Fraxinus excelsior 40 Yes NL 3. 4. 80 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Oemleria cerasiformis 20 Yes FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 20 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 20 Yes FACU 2. Rubus spectabilis 40 Yes FAC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 60 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 20 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species 120 x 4 = 480 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 120 (A) 480 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: F. excelsior (European ash) is not listed in the US, but is considered a wetland tree in its home territory. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DF-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 Duff 1-16 10YR 2/2 100 Loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Soil appears to have been disturbed at some point. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 9 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Record rainfall in recent months. 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/8/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DF-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave depressiom Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.308059 Long: -122.297303 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil Yes, 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Soils disturbed at some point many years ago. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Fraxinus excelsior 30 Yes NL 2. Populus balsamifera 50 Yes FAC 3. 4. 80 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Spiraea douglasii 20 Yes FACW 2. Rubus spectabilis 20 Yes FAC 3. 4. 5. 40 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Carex obnupta 10 Yes OBL 2. Carex deweyana 10 Yes FAC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 20 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 80 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 83 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Fraxinus excelsior (European ash) is considered to be a wetland plant in Europe We can safely assume this test plot represents hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DF-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-9 10YR 2/1 100 Muck 9-16 10YR 6/4 100 Silt sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 3 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/8/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DG -UPL Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 3 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.308021 Long: -122.297457 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Thuja plicata 30 Yes FAC 2. Acer macrophyllum 40 Yes FACU 3. Pseudotsuga menziesii 30 Yes FACU 4. 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus armeniacus 30 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Rubus ursinus 20 Yes FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 20 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 80 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DG-UPL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 Duff 1-9 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy loam 9-16 10YR 3/3 100 Sandy loam gravelly 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: No hydric soil indicators HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hyrology indicators identified 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/8/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DG-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.308021 Long: -122.297457 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Wetlands located within disturbed woods near wetlands DE and DF VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. None 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 30 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Carex deweyana 15 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 15 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DG-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 Duff 1-11 10YR 2/1 100 Muck 11-16 10YR 5/2 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Silt prominent feature 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 9 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/8/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DH UPL 1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): gentle slope Slope (%): 3 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.307786 Long: -122.297435 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Thuja plicata 30 Yes FAC 2. Acer macrophyllum 40 Yes FACU 3. Psuedotsuga menziesii 30 Yes FACU 4. 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus armeniacus 30 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Rubus ursinus 20 Yes FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 20 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 80 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DH UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 Duff 1-9 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy loam 9-16 10YR 3/3 100 Sandy loam gravelly 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/8/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DH-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.307786 Long: -122.297435 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. None 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 30 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Carex deweyana 15 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 15 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DH-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 Duff 1-11 10YR 2/1 100 Muck 11-16 10YR 5/2 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Silt 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 9 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/8/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DI UPL1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): gentle slope Slope (%): 3 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 43.307767 Long: -122.297341 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Thuja plicata 30 Yes FAC 2. Acer macrophyllum 40 Yes FACU 3. Psuedotsuga menziesii 30 Yes FACU 4. 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus armeniacus 30 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Rubus ursinus 20 Yes FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 20 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 80-litter % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DI-UPL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 Duff 1-9 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy loam 9-16 10YR 3/3 100 Sandy loam gravelly 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: No hydric soil indicators HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators identified 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/8/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DI-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 43.307767 Long: -122.297341 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. None 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 30 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Carex deweyana 15 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 15 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DI-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 Duff 1-11 10YR 2/1 100 Muck 11-16 10YR 5/2 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Silt 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 9 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DJ-UPL1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): 3 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.307429 Long: -122.297907 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil Yes, 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Soils graded at somepoint in the past. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Abies grandis 40 Yes FACU 2. Fraxinus excelsior 40 Yes NL 3. Acer macrophyllum 20 Yes FACU 4. 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Oemleria cerasiformis 20 Yes FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 20 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 20 Yes FACU 2. Dicentra formosa 30 Yes FACU 3. Rubus ursinus 20 Yes FACU 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 70 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: F. excelsior (European ash) is not listed in the US, but it is recognized as a wetland tree in its home territory. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DJ-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR 3/3 100 Gravelly loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: No hydric soil indicators HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/6/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DJ-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.307429 Long: -122.297907 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil Yes, 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera 50 Yes FAC 2. Fraxinus excelsior 50 Yes NL 3. 4. 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 3. 4. 5. 0 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Carex deweyana 10 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 90 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: F. excelsior (European ash) is recognized as a wetland tree in its hom e territory. It is not listed in the US. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DJ-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 2/2 100 Mucky loam 8-12 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky loam 12-16 10YR 6/2 80 10YR 5/6 20 C M Gravel sand Redox features prominent 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 5 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: EI-UPL1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.309559 Long: -122.298034 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 90 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 90 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Sambucus racemosa 15 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 15 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 15 Y FACU 2. Rubus ursinus 30 Y FACU 3. Galium aparine 20 Y FACU 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 65 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0- moss % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: EI-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 Duff 1-4 10YR 2/2 100 loam gravelly 4-16 10YR 4/3 100 loam gravelly 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: No hyrics soil indicators HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators observed 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: EI-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <1 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.309559 Long: -122.298034 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. None 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 30 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Stellaria crispa 30 Y FAC 2. Carex deweyana 15 Y FAC 3. Claytonia sibirica 20 Y FAC 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 65 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0-moss % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: EI-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 10-16 10YR 5/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M silt Gravelly, prominent feature 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 8 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: EJ-UPL1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 2 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.309238 Long: -122.297874 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Fraxinus excelsior 30 Y NL 2. Pseudotsuga menziesii 30 Y FACU 3. Thuja plicata 20 Y FAC 4. 80 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Oemleria cerasiformis 15 Y FACU 2. Rubus spectabilis 25 Y FAC 3. 4. 5. 40 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 20 Y FACU 2. Rubus ursinus 15 Y FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 35 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 65 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 28.6 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Fraxinus excelsior (European ash) is not listed in the US, but is recognized as a wetland tree in its home territory. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: EJ-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/3 100 Loam 8-16 10YR 3/4 100 Silty loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: No hydric soil indicators observed HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators observed 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: EJ-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.309238 Long: -122.297874 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Fraxinus latifolia 40 Y FACW 2. 3. 4. 40 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 35 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 35 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. None 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: EJ-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 Duff 2-6 10YR 3/2 100 Mucky loam 6-10 Duff, roots, and wood 10-16 10YR 6/1 100 Sandy silt 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 6 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: EK-UPL1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 2 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.309099 Long: -122.297926 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 20 Y FACU 2. Thuja plicata 15 Y FAC 3. Fraxinus excelsior 35 Y NL 4. 70 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Oemleria cerasiformis 15 Y FACU 2. Rubus spectabilis 5 N FAC 3. Acer circinatum 10 Y FAC 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 20 Y FACU 2. Rubus ursinus 10 Y FACU 3. Rubus armeniacus 10 Y FAC 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 40 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 8 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 37.5 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Fraxinus excelsior (European ash) is considered a wetland tree in Europe. Not listed in US. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: EK-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 Duff 1-3 10YR 3/3 100 Loam 3-7 10YR 6/3 90 10YR 5/8 10 C M Silt Prominent feature 7-16 10YR 3/3 100 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: It appears soils were disturbed from 3-7", having come from Wetland EK. No hydric soil indicators identified HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydology indicators identified 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: EK-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.309099 Long: -122.297926 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. None 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Spiraea douglasii 45 Y FACW 2. Rubus spectabilis 25 Y FAC 3. 4. 5. 70 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. None 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: EK-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 Duff 2-11 10YR 3/2 100 Mucky loam 11-16 10YR 5/2 80 5YR 5/6 20 C M silt gravelly 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 7 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: EL-UPL1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 2 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.309049 Long: -122.297756 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Fraxinus excelsior 30 Y NL 2. Pseudotsuga menziesii 30 Y FACU 3. Thuja plicata 20 Y FAC 4. 80 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Oemleria cerasiformis 15 Y FACU 2. Rubus spectabilis 25 Y FAC 3. 4. 5. 40 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 20 Y FACU 2. Rubus ursinus 15 Y FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 35 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 65 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 28.6 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: F. excelsior (European ash) is not listed in the US, but is considered a wetland tree in its home territory. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: EL-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/3 100 Loam 8-16 10YR 3/4 100 Silty loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: No hydric soil indicators identified HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology present 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: Weyerhauser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: EL-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.309049 Long: -122.297756 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Fraxinus latifolia 40 Y FACW 2. 3. 4. 40 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 35 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 35 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. None 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: EL-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 Duff 2-6 10YR 3/2 100 Mucky loam 6-10 Duff, roots, and wood 10-16 10YR 6/1 100 Sandy silt 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 6 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: EM-UPL1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 2 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.308991 Long: -122.298042 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 20 Y FACU 2. Thuja plicata 15 Y FAC 3. Fraxinus excelsior 35 Y NL 4. 70 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Oemleria cerasiformis 15 Y FACU 2. Rubus spectabilis 5 N FAC 3. Acer circinatum 10 Y FAC 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 20 Y FACU 2. Rubus ursinus 10 Y FACU 3. Rubus armeniacus 10 Y FAC 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 40 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 8 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 37.5 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Fraxinus excelsior (European ash) is not listed in the US, but is recognized as a wetland tree in its home territory. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: EM-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 Duff 1-3 10YR 3/3 100 Loam 3-7 10YR 6/3 90 10YR 5/8 10 Silt Prominent feature 7-16 10YR 3/3 100 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: It appears soils were disturbed from 3-7", having come from wetland EK.No hydric soil indicators observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators were oberved 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: EM-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.308991 Long: -122.298042 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. None 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Spiraea douglasii 45 Y FACW 2. Rubus spectabilis 25 Y FAC 3. 4. 5. 70 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. None 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: EM-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 Duff 2-11 10YR 3/2 100 Mucky loam 11-16 10YR 5/2 80 5YR 5/6 20 C M silt gravelly 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 7 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/16/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: FA-UPL1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Till Plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 10 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.310939 Long: -122.291696 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Record rainfall in recent months. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 40 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 40 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Cytisus scoparius 60 Y NL 2. Rubus armeniacus 20 Y FAC 3. 4. 5. 80 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Rubus ursinus 60 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 60 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species 60 x 3 = 180 FACU species 60 x 4 = 240 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 120 (A) 420 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: FA-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 4/2 100 Gravel loam 4-16 10YR 5/2 100 Gravel loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 2 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Record rainfall in recent months. 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/16/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: FA-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Till Plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.310939 Long: -122.293696 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 30 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 30 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 60 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 60 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Alopecurus sp. 30 Y FAC 2. Epilobium ciliatum ssp. watsonii 2 N FACW 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 32 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 68 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: FA-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 Litter 1-3 10YR 2/2 100 Sandy loam 3-18 10YR 6/1 100 Sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 6 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/16/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: FB-UPL1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Till Plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 15 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.310897 Long: -122.290114 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Tsuga heterophylla 70 Y FACU 2. Alnus rubra 30 Y FAC 3. 4. 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 60 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 60 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 30 Y FACU 2. Pteridium aquilinum 10 Y FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 40 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: FB-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-7 10YR 2/2 100 Duff 7-16 10YR 3/4 100 Gravel sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/16/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: FB-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.310897 Long: -122.290114 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Fraxinus latifolia 20 Y FACW 2. 3. 4. 20 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 5 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 5 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 10 Y FACU 2. Athyrium filix-femina 5 Y FAC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 15 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: FB-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/1 Duff/litter 4-13 10YR 2/1 100 Gravel muck 13-16 10YR 2/1 100 Muck 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 6 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: FD-UPL1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Road prism in Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): west slope Slope (%): 20 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.310030 Long: -122.292461 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil Yes, or Hydrology Yes 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: At some point decades ago a utility line was buried and a road way was built on top of it. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum 60 Y FACU 2. Alnus rubra 40 Y FAC 3. 4. 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 15 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 15 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 10 N FACU 2. Dicentra formosa 30 Y FACU 3. Rubus ursinus 20 Y FACU 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 60 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40 Litter % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species 55 x 3 = 165 FACU species 120 x 4 = 480 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 175 (A) 645 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.7 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: FD-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR 3/3 100 Gravel loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Fill for buried utility corridor. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: FD-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 3 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.310030 Long: -122.292461 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology Yes significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation No, Soil Yes, 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Drainage blocked by utility corridor fill. Soil originally not hydric but changing due to blocked drained and prolonged innundation. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: .30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Thuja plicata 30 Y FAC 2. Alnus rubra 10 Y FAC 3. 4. 40 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 45 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 45 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Athyrium filix-femina 10 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 90 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Mostly open water US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: FD-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 Rotting leaves 1-7 10YR 3/2 100 Silt loam 7-16 10YR 4/3 90 10R 4/8 10 Silt loam Prominent feature 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Strong hydrogen sulfide odor. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/8/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: FE-UPL1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 4-7 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.310379 Long: -122.296255 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum 30 Y FACU 2. Populus balsamifera 30 Y FAC 3. Alnus rubra 15 Y FAC 4. 75 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Oemleria cerasiformis 20 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 20 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 25 Y FACU 2. Rubus ursinus 10 Y FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 35 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 65 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: FE-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 Duff 1-16 10YR 3/3 Loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/8/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: FE-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.310379 Long: -122.296255 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera 45 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 45 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 60 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 60 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Ranunculus repens 45 Y FAC 2. Carex deweyana 15 Y FAC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 60 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: FE-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-13 10YR 2/2 100 Mucky loam 13-16 10YR 5/1 40 10YR 4/6 60 Sandy silt Prominent feature 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 9 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: FF-UPL1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Road prism in Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): west slope Slope (%): 20 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.309731 Long: -122.292461 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil Yes, or Hydrology Yes 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: At some point decades ago a utility line was buried and a road way was built on top of it. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum 60 Y FACU 2. Alnus rubra 40 Y FAC 3. 4. 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 15 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 15 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 10 N FACU 2. Dicentra formosa 30 Y FACU 3. Rubus ursinus 20 Y FACU 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 60 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40 litter % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: FF-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR 3/3 100 Gravel loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Fill for buried utility corridor. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: FF-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): closed depression Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.309731 Long: -122.292461 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology Yes significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation No, Soil Yes, 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Drainage blocked by utility corridor fill. Soil originally not hydric but changing due to blocked drained and prolonged innundation. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: .30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 90 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 90 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 10 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 10 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Athyrium filix-femina 10 Y FAC 2. Polystichum munitum 10 Y FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 20 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Mostly open water US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: FF-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 Rotting leaves 1-7 10YR 3/2 100 Silt loam 7-16 10YR 4/3 90 10R 4/8 10 Silt loam Prominent feature 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Strong hydrogen sulfide odor. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: GB-UPL1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.308279 Long: -122.298501 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Record rainfall in recent months. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Thuja plicata 30 Y FAC 2. Fraxinus excelsior 60 Y NL 3. 4. 90 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 20 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 20 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 15 Y FACU 2. Rubus ursinus 25 Y FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 40 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60 litter % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species 50 x 3 = 150 FACU species 40 x 4 = 160 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 90 (A) 310 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: GB-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 3/4 100 Sandy loam 10-16 10YR 3/4 100 Sandy loam With charcoal 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 10 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Record rainfall in previous months. 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: GB-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Glacial till plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): drainage channel Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.308279 Long: -122.298501 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology Yes 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Soils probably disturbed in past logging probably contributing to topographic - Perhaps skid trail. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. None 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Cornus sericea 15 Y FACW 2. 3. 4. 5. 15 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 30 Y FACW 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 30 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 70 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: GB-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 3/3 100 Loam 4-16 10YR 5/1 80 10YR 5/8 20 Silty sand Prominent feature 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Soils probably disturbed in past logging probably contributing to topographic - Perhaps skid trail. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 6 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: PG-UPL1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 3-5 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.305356 Long: -122.292863 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 70 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. 70 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 40 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 40 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 70 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 70 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species 110 x 3 = 330 FACU species 70 x 4 = 280 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 180 (A) 610 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.39 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: PG-UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-9 10YR 3/1 100 SiL 9-13 10YR 4/1 100 No redox 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Weyerhaeuser City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:4/9/16 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: PG-WET1 Investigator(s): Richard Tveten Section, Township, Range: Section 16, T21N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1-2 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.304224 Long: -122.293305 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 25 Yes FAC 2. Populus balsamifera 5 N FAC 3. 4. 30 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 80 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 80 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. None 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: GB-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 3/1 100 Loam 6-8 10YR 4/1 100 SiL 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 6-8 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Appendix B APPENDIX B FEATURE SUMMARY TABLE, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, 2020 Greenline Business Park FEATURE SUMMARY TABLE Category Habitat Score 1 AE PEM Depressional III 4 0.0055 239 60 2 AF PEM Depressional III 4 0.0109 473 60 3 AG PFO Depressional III 4 0.1469 6,397 60 4 AH PSS Depressional III 4 0.0163 712 60 5 AI PEM Slope IV 3 0.0699 3,044 40 6 AJ PEM Slope IV 3 0.0012 51 40 7 AL PEM Slope IV 3 0.0246 1,072 40 8 AM PEM Slope IV 3 0.0303 1,319 40 9 AO PEM Slope IV 3 0.0018 79 40 10 AR PEM Slope IV 3 0.0006 26 40 11 AS PEM Slope IV 3 0.0068 295 40 12 AV PFO Depressional III 4 0.2831 12,332 60 13 BA-2 PSS Depressional III 4 0.0154 670 60 14 BR PEM Depressional III 5 0.0508 2,211 105 15 BS (N)PFO Depressional III 4 0.0616 2,683 60 16 BS (S)PEM Depressional IV 3 0.0044 192 40 17 CG PFO Depressional IV 4 0.0794 3,458 40 18 DE PFO Depressional III 3 0.4948 21,554 60 19 DF PFO Depressional III 3 0.0019 81 60 20 DG PFO Depressional III 3 0.0253 1,103 60 21 DH PFO Depressional III 3 0.0062 271 60 22 DI PFO Depressional III 3 0.0052 227 60 23 DK PFO Depressional III 3 0.1454 6,332 60 24 EI PFO Depressional IV 3 0.0040 175 40 25 EJ PSS Depressional III 3 0.0053 231 60 26 EK PSS Depressional III 3 0.0041 179 60 27 EL PSS Depressional III 3 0.0085 372 60 #Wetland ID Cowardin HGM Acreage Square Footage** Standard Buffer (feet), FWRC Ch.19 2014 DOE Wetland Rating ** Reflects on-site acreage for wetlands that continue off-site 3/20/2020 9:12 AM Greenline Business Park FEATURE SUMMARY TABLE Category Habitat Score #Wetland ID Cowardin HGM Acreage Square Footage** Standard Buffer (feet), FWRC Ch.19 2014 DOE Wetland Rating 28 EM PSS Depressional III 3 0.0070 306 60 29 FB PSS Depressional III 4 0.1688 7,353 60 30 FD PFO Depressional IV 3 0.0157 686 40 31 FE PFO Depressional III 5 0.0074 324 105 32 FF PSS Depressional IV 3 0.0225 978 40 33 GB (N)PSS Depressional III 3 0.0775 3,377 60 34 IA PEM Slope IV 3 0.0603 2,625 40 35 KA PEM Slope IV 4 0.0238 1,038 40 36 KB PEM Slope IV 5 0.0003 15 40 37 KC PEM Slope IV 6 0.0072 314 40 38 KD PEM Slope IV 7 0.0407 1,771 40 39 KF PEM Slope IV 8 0.0087 378 40 40 KN PEM Slope IV 10 0.0156 678 40 41 KT PEM Slope IV 11 0.0055 239 40 42 KU PEM Slope IV 12 0.0013 55 40 43 KV PEM Slope IV 13 0.0017 74 40 44 KW PEM Slope IV 14 0.0176 765 40 45 PK PFO Depressional III 4 0.0310 1,350 60 ** Reflects on-site acreage for wetlands that continue off-site 3/20/2020 9:12 AM Greenline Business Park FEATURE SUMMARY TABLE WETLANDS WITHIN SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ZONE 46 BA PFO Depressional 0.1980 8,626 47 BB PFO Depressional 0.0687 2,992 48 BD (N)PFO/PSS Depressional 2.6667 116,160 #Wetland ID 100 100 Standard Buffer (feet), FWRC Ch.15 25 Cowardin HGM Square Footage**Acreage 3/20/2020 9:12 AM Greenline Business Park FEATURE SUMMARY TABLE LINEAR FEATURES - STREAMS/LAKES 1 Stream AC F 2 North Lake Lake Standard Buffer (feet), FWRC Ch.15/19 100 50 #Waterbody ID Type 3/20/2020 9:12 AM Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Appendix C APPENDIX C PHOTODOCUMENT, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, 2017 Federal Way Campus, LLC Existing Conditions Report 26 January 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Photodocument (01-27-2017) Page 1 The following is a compilation of photos taken between December 2015 and May of 2016 by employees of Talasaea Consultants on various site visits. Wetlands delineated on-site were part of a larger effort to document all wetlands found throughout the Federal Way Campus, LLC property in Federal Way (formerly owned by Weyerhaeuser), which explains the irregular wetland labels. Included in this photodocument are photos of typical wetland vegetation, typical coniferous and deciduous upland, and gravel access roads throughout the site. Federal Way Campus, LLC Existing Conditions Report 26 January 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Photodocument (01-27-2017) Page 2 Typical Herbaceous Wetland (Photo 1) Photo 1. Typical herbaceous wetland – salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, red alder, reed canarygrass, and creeping buttercup. Federal Way Campus, LLC Existing Conditions Report 26 January 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Photodocument (01-27-2017) Page 3 Typical Forested Wetlands (Photos 2 - 4) Photo 2. Typical forested wetland: black cottonwood, European ash, and salmonberry. Photo 3. Typical wetland canopy consists of European ash. Federal Way Campus, LLC Existing Conditions Report 26 January 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Photodocument (01-27-2017) Page 4 Photo 4. Typical salmonberry wetland with European Ash planted in rows. Federal Way Campus, LLC Existing Conditions Report 26 January 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Photodocument (01-27-2017) Page 5 Typical Open Field (Photos 5 – 7) Photo 5. Panorama of open field from the east side. Photo 6. Typical emergent wetland vegetation within the open field. Federal Way Campus, LLC Existing Conditions Report 26 January 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Photodocument (01-27-2017) Page 6 Photo 7. Typical wetland vegetation within open field. Federal Way Campus, LLC Existing Conditions Report 26 January 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Photodocument (01-27-2017) Page 7 Stream Channel (Photos 8 – 9) Photo 8. Stream channel looking north from the access road. Photo 9. Stream channel looking south from the access road. Federal Way Campus, LLC Existing Conditions Report 26 January 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Photodocument (01-27-2017) Page 8 Stormwater (Photo 10) Photo 10. Stormwater pond located on site. Federal Way Campus, LLC Existing Conditions Report 26 January 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Photodocument (01-27-2017) Page 9 Forested Uplands (Photo 11) Photo 11. Typical conifer forested upland: Douglas fir, salmonberry, and sword fern. Federal Way Campus, LLC Existing Conditions Report 26 January 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Photodocument (01-27-2017) Page 10 Upland Understory (Photo 12) Photo 12. Typical herbaceous understory in uplands: sword fern and creeping buttercup. Federal Way Campus, LLC Existing Conditions Report 26 January 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Photodocument (01-27-2017) Page 11 Access Roads (Photo 13) Photo 13. Along the access road in the northwest corner of the property, facing south. Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Appendix D APPENDIX D WETLAND RATING FORMS, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, 2016 & 2017 Meadow Wetlands 400 ft N➤➤N Meadow Wetlands 1km 3000 ft N➤➤N Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Appendix E APPENDIX E MITIGATION PLAN SHEETS Sheet W1.0. Site Overview Plan Sheet W1.1. Existing Conditions Plan Sheet W1.2. Existing Conditions Plan Sheet W1.3. Proposed Site Plan, Impacts, & Mitigation Overview Plan Sheet W1.4. Proposed Site Plan, Impacts, & Mitigation Overview Plan Sheet W2.0. Potential Mitigation Grading Plan Sheet W2.1. Fencing Plan & Details Sheet W2.2. Grading Specifications Sheet W3.0. Proposed Plant Community Plan Sheet W3.1. Proposed Plant Community Plan Sheet W4.0. Planting Specifications Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig.THIS AREA IS PROTECTEDTO PROVIDE WILDLIFE HABITATAND TO MAINTAIN CRITICALAREA(S) FUNCTIONS/VALUES.PLEASE DO NOT DISTURB THISVALUABLE RESOURCECRITICAL AREAPROTECTION AREACONTACT CITY OF FEDERAL WAYFOR MORE INFORMATION Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig.¼ Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. Know what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig.½½¼½½¾½ ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 2018 Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) (Code this Project follows) 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 1/34 The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/http://www.codepublishing.com:80/WA/… Division V. Environmentally Critical Areas Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS1 Sections: Article I. Administrative 19.145.010 Purpose. 19.145.015 Administration. 19.145.020 Applicable provisions. 19.145.030 Jurisdiction. 19.145.040 Relationship to other regulations. 19.145.050 Liability. 19.145.060 Unauthorized alterations and enforcement. 19.145.070 Maps and inventories. 19.145.080 Critical area report. 19.145.090 Reasonable use of the subject property. 19.145.100 Bonds. 19.145.110 Exemptions. 19.145.120 Partial exemptions. 19.145.130 Mitigation sequencing. 19.145.140 Mitigation plan requirements. 19.145.150 Critical area tracts and designation on site plans. 19.145.160 Building setbacks. 19.145.170 Notice on title. 19.145.180 Critical area markers, signs, and fences. 19.145.190 Physical barriers. 19.145.200 Time limitation. 19.145.210 Other requirements. Article II. Geologically Hazardous Areas 19.145.220 Applicability and designation. 19.145.230 Landslide hazard areas protection measures. 19.145.240 Erosion and seismic hazard areas protection measures. 19.145.250 Additional report requirements – Geologically hazardous areas. Article III. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 19.145.260 Applicability, designation, and classification. 19.145.270 Stream buffers. 19.145.280 Stream relocation. 19.145.290 Streambank stabilization. 19.145.300 Culverts. 19.145.310 Removal of streams from culverts. 19.145.320 Stream crossings. 19.145.330 Intrusion into stream buffers. 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 2/34 19.145.340 Requirements for clearing and grading. 19.145.350 Regulated lake buffers. 19.145.360 Development waterward of the ordinary high water mark of regulated lakes. 19.145.370 Development within regulated lake buffers. 19.145.380 Regulated lake bulkheads. 19.145.390 Fish protection measures. 19.145.400 Endangered, threatened, and sensitive species protection measures. Article IV. Wetlands 19.145.410 Wetland identification and delineation. 19.145.420 Wetland rating and buffers. 19.145.430 Development within wetlands. 19.145.440 Development within wetland buffers. Article V. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas 19.145.450 Designation. 19.145.460 Classification of capture zones. 19.145.470 General requirements. 19.145.480 Prohibited development in six-month and one-year capture zones. 19.145.490 Development within critical aquifer recharge areas. 19.145.500 Capture zone protection measures. 19.145.510 Use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in critical aquifer recharge areas. Article VI. Frequently Flooded Areas 19.145.520 Frequently flooded areas. Article I. Administrative 19.145.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect the environment, human life, and property from harm and degradation. This is to be achieved by precluding or limiting development in areas where development poses serious or special hazards; by preserving and protecting the quality of drinking water; and by preserving important ecological areas such as steep slopes, streams, lakes and wetlands. The public purposes to be achieved by this chapter include protection of water quality, groundwater recharge, stream flow maintenance, stability of slope areas, wildlife and fisheries habitat maintenance, protection of human life and property and maintenance of natural stormwater storage and filter systems. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 17, 6-16-15; Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Exh. A(10)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 04-468, § 3, 11-16-04; Ord. No. 91- 123, § 3(80.10), 12-17-91; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.10), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.10), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22- 1221.) 19.145.015 Administration. Except as otherwise established in this chapter, if a proposed development activity requires city approval, this chapter will be implemented and enforced as part of that process. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 18, 6-16-15.) 19.145.020 Applicable provisions. 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 3/34 The provisions of this division apply throughout the city and must be complied with regardless of any other conflicting provisions of this title. The provisions of this title that do not conflict with the provisions of this division apply to the subject property. (Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Exh. A(10)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 04-468, § 3, 11-16-04; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.15), 12-17-91; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.15), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.15), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22-1222.) 19.145.030 Jurisdiction. (1) The city shall regulate all uses, activities, and development within critical areas and the corresponding buffers and setbacks. (2) Critical areas regulated by the city include the following areas and their corresponding buffers: (a) Geologically hazardous areas; (b) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (c) Wetlands; (d) Critical aquifer recharge areas; and (e) Frequently flooded areas. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 19, 6-16-15; Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Exh. A(10)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 04-468, § 3, 11-16-04; Ord. No. 99- 353, § 3, 11-16-99; Ord. No. 91-123, § 3(80.20), 12-17-91; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.20), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.20), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22-1223.) 19.145.040 Relationship to other regulations. (1) Nothing in this chapter in any way limits, or may be construed to limit, the authority of the city under any other applicable law, nor in any way decreases the responsibility of the applicant to comply with all other applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. (2) These critical areas regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition to zoning and other regulations adopted by the city. (3) When any provision of this title or any existing regulation, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflicts with regulations in this chapter, the regulations that provide greater protection to the critical areas shall apply. (4) Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required. The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in this chapter. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 20, 6-16-15; Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Exh. A(10)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 04-468, § 3, 11-16-04; Ord. No. 91- 123, § 3(80.25), 12-17-91; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.25), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.25), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22- 1224.) 19.145.050 Liability. (1) The city is not liable for any damage resulting from development activities within critical areas. Prior to issuance of any building permit or other permit by the building official, use process, or subdivision approval, the applicant may be required to enter into an agreement with the city, in a form acceptable to the city attorney, releasing and indemnifying the city from and for any damage or liability resulting from any development activity on 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 4/34 the subject property that is related to the physical condition of the critical area. This agreement shall be recorded with the King County recorder’s office at the applicant’s expense and shall run with the property. (2) The city may also require the applicant to obtain insurance coverage for damage to city or private property and/or city liability related to any such development activity. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 21, 6-16-15; Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Exh. A(10)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 04-468, § 3, 11-16-04; Ord. No. 91- 123, § 3(80.55), 12-17-91; Ord. No. 91-105, § 4(80.55), 8-20-91; Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(80.55), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22- 1225.) 19.145.060 Unauthorized alterations and enforcement. (1) When a critical area or its buffer has been altered in violation of this chapter, all ongoing development work shall stop and the critical area shall be restored. The city shall have the authority to issue a stop work order to cease all ongoing development work, and order restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement measures at the owner’s or violator’s expense to compensate for violation of provisions of this chapter. (2) Restoration plan. All development work shall remain stopped until a restoration plan is prepared at the expense of the owner or violator and approved by the city. The plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional using the best available science and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in subsections (2)(a) and (b) of this section. The director may, at the owner or violator’s expense, seek expert advice in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the owner or violator for revision and resubmittal. (a) For alterations to critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a critical area: (i) The historic structural and functional values shall be restored, including water quality and habitat functions; (ii) The historic soil types and configuration shall be replicated; (iii) The critical area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values should be replicated at the location of the alteration; and (iv) Information demonstrating compliance with FWRC 19.145.140 (Mitigation plan requirements) shall be submitted to the director. (b) For alterations to frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas, the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of critical area: (i) The hazard shall be reduced to a level equal to, or less than, the predevelopment hazard; (ii) Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration shall be eliminated or minimized; and (iii) The hazard area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation sufficient to minimize the hazard. (3) Minimum performance standards identified in subsections (2)(a) and (b) of this section may be modified if the owner or violator can demonstrate that greater functional and habitat values can be obtained. 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 5/34 (4) Site investigations. Site investigations necessary to enforce this chapter are authorized pursuant to FWRC 7.03.070. (5) Penalties. Any development carried out contrary to the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a public nuisance and be subject to provisions of Chapter 7.03 FWRC. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.070 Maps and inventories. (1) Critical areas maps and inventories generally designate the location of critical areas within the city and are adopted by reference. (2) Area-wide inventories and documents identifying critical areas may not identify all critical areas designated under this chapter. The provisions of this chapter will apply to all designated critical areas located within the city, including those critical areas not identified on a map or inventory. Whenever there is evidence of a critical area located within or in proximity to a nonexempt action, the director may require a critical area report to determine the extent to which such critical area may exist. (3) Critical area maps and inventories are to be used for planning level purposes only and the actual presence/absence, type, extent, and boundaries of critical areas shall be identified in the field by a qualified professional according to the procedures and criteria established in this chapter. In the event of any conflict between the critical area location and designation shown on the city’s map and the criteria or standards of this chapter, the criteria and standards shall prevail. (4) The following maps and inventories, as amended, are used for identifying possible critical areas and their buffers: (a) Federal Way critical areas map; (b) Lakehaven Utility District capture zone map; (c) Federal Way final wetland inventory report prepared by Sheldon and Associates, Inc., July 19, 1999; (d) Preliminary stream inventory, Federal Way gap analysis, November 29, 2001; (e) Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitat and species maps; and (f) Additional state and federal maps and inventories may be used if necessary. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.080 Critical area report. (1) Unless waived or modified by the director in accordance with subsection (4) of this section, an applicant proposing activities where impacts or alteration of a critical area or its associated buffer and/or setback shall submit a critical areas report that adequately evaluates the proposal and probable impacts. (2) The critical area report shall be prepared by a qualified professional, incorporate best available science, and include the following items: (a) The name and contact information of the applicant, a description of the proposal, and identification of the type of approval (use process, subdivision, building permit) requested; (b) Vicinity map; 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 6/34 (c) The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of any reconnaissance on site; (d) A scaled site plan depicting critical areas, buffers, setbacks, and proposed improvements; (e) Photographs of the site and critical areas; (f) Identification and characterization of all critical areas adjacent to the proposed improvements; (g) A description of efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to FWRC 19.145.130 to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas; (h) A copy of the Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) if applicable; (i) Additional information required for the individual critical area; and (j) Any additional information determined by the director to adequately review the proposed activity. (3) Critical area reports may be reviewed by the city’s third party consultant at the applicant’s expense. (4) The critical area report may be waived or modified if the director determines: (a) There will be no alteration of the critical area or buffer; or (b) The applicant cannot obtain permission to access off-site critical areas or buffers. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.090 Reasonable use of the subject property. (1) The provisions of this section establish a mechanism whereby the provisions of this chapter may be modified or waived on a case-by-case basis if their implementation would deprive an applicant of all reasonable use of the subject property. (2) An applicant may apply for a modification or waiver of the provisions of this chapter using process IV; except, that applications for projects on single-family residential lots may use process III. (3) The city may approve a modification or waiver of the requirements of this chapter on a case-by-case basis based on the following criteria: (a) The application of the provisions of this chapter eliminates all reasonable use of the subject property; (b) No feasible and reasonable on-site alternatives to the proposal are possible, such as changes to site layout and/or reduction of impervious improvements; (c) It is solely the implementation of this chapter, and not other factors, that preclude all reasonable use of the subject property; (d) The applicant has in no way created or exacerbated the condition that forms the limitation on the use of the subject property, nor in any way contributed to such limitation; and (e) The waiver or modification will not lead to, create nor significantly increase the risk of injury or death to any person or damage to improvements on or off the subject property. (4) If the city grants a request under this section, it shall grant the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with some reasonable use of the subject property, considering the factors described in subsections (3)(a) through 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 7/34 (e) of this section. Any approval or waiver of requirements shall result in the minimum possible impacts to the function and values and/or risks associated with proposed improvements on affected critical areas. The city may impose limitations, mitigation under an approved mitigation plan, conditions and/or restrictions it considers appropriate to reduce or eliminate any undesirable effects or adverse impacts of granting a request under this section. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.100 Bonds. The city may require a bond under Chapter 19.25 FWRC to ensure compliance with any aspect of this chapter. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.110 Exemptions. The following activities and developments are exempt from the provisions of this chapter. All exempted activities shall use reasonable methods to avoid potential impacts to critical areas. An exemption from this chapter is not an endorsement to degrade a critical area; ignore risk from natural hazards; or otherwise limit the ability of the director to identify and abate such actions that may cause degradation to a critical area. (1) Activities and development in response to emergencies that, in the opinion of the director, threaten public health, safety or welfare; or that pose an immediate risk of damage to property and that require remedial or preventative action in a timeframe too short to allow for compliance with the requirements of this chapter. In the event a person determines that the need to take emergency action is so urgent that there is insufficient time for review by the department, such emergency action may be taken immediately. The person undertaking such action shall notify the department within one working day of the commencement of the emergency activity. The director will determine what, if any, mitigation shall be required to protect health, safety, welfare, and environment and to repair any resource damage. (2) Operation, maintenance, or repair of existing public improvements, utilities, public or private roads, parks, trails, or drainage systems if the activity does not further alter or increase impact to, or encroach further within, the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed operation, maintenance, or repair, and no new clearing of native vegetation beyond routine pruning. (3) Development involving or near artificially created wetlands or streams intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including but not limited to grass-lined swales, irrigation and drainage ditches, detention facilities, and landscape features, except wetlands, streams, or swales created as mitigation or that provide habitat for salmonids. (4) Normal maintenance and repair, reconstruction or remodeling, and additions to existing structures that do not increase the previously approved building footprint. (5) Development within the footprint of existing paved surfaces that were previously approved. (6) Recreation, education, and scientific research activities that do not require grading or placement of structures. (7) Removal by hand of invasive and noxious vegetation. Removal by hand does not include using mechanical equipment or the use of herbicides. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.120 Partial exemptions. 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 8/34 The following activities are partial exemptions to the provisions of this chapter and require written approval from the director: (1) Essential public facilities, public utilities and other public improvements. The director may permit the placement of an essential public facility, public utility or other public improvements in a critical area if no practical alternative with less impact on the critical area(s) exists. The specific location and extent of the intrusion into the critical area must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of the public facility or utility and not pose an unreasonable threat to the health, safety, or welfare on or off the subject property. The intrusion shall attempt to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area function and values. The “public utility and other public improvements” shall not include improvements whose primary purpose is to benefit a private development, including without limitation interior roads or privately owned detention facilities installed within or during the construction of a residential subdivision, binding site plan, or other commercial development. The director may require supporting documentation to demonstrate compliance with partial exemptions. (2) Site reconnaissance necessary for preparing land use or building permit applications. Any disturbance of the critical area shall be the minimum necessary to conduct the site reconnaissance and the area shall be restored to its previous condition immediately. (3) Normal maintenance and continuation of existing landscaping and gardens that were legally established prior to city incorporation. This partial exemption shall be documented by photographs, statements, and/or other evidence provided by the applicant. (4) Demolition of structures. The applicant shall submit a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan and apply for applicable demolition permit(s). (5) Restoration and enhancement that does not alter the location, dimensions, or size of the critical area or buffer and does not reduce the existing quality or functions of the critical area or buffer. The applicant shall submit a restoration and/or enhancement plan prepared by a qualified professional or as determined by the director. (6) Removal of invasive and noxious vegetation with mechanized equipment and/or with the use of herbicides. (7) Vegetation maintenance such as hazard tree removal, removal of nuisance vegetation, and limited pruning for view preservation. The applicant shall submit a vegetation maintenance plan prepared by a certified arborist or registered landscape architect that includes the following: (a) A site plan at appropriate scale denoting the extent of the proposed vegetation maintenance activity; (b) Tree and vegetation location, type, and caliper of each tree within the area subject to the proposed vegetation maintenance activity; (c) Identification of methods of vegetation maintenance (limited to hand tools and hand powered tools); and (d) Proposed tree and/or vegetation replacement shown on the site plan. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.130 Mitigation sequencing. Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas. When alteration to a critical area is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated in the following order of preference: (1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 9/34 (2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts; (3) Rectifying the impact to the critical area by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; (4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and (6) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.140 Mitigation plan requirements. When mitigation is required, the applicant shall submit for approval by the city a mitigation plan as a component of the critical area report. The mitigation plan shall include the following as determined to be applicable by the director: (1) Existing conditions and proposed impacts. A description of existing critical area and/or buffer conditions, functions, and values and a description of the anticipated impacts; (2) Proposed mitigation. A description of the proposed mitigation actions and mitigation site selection criteria; (3) Environmental goals and objectives. A description of the goals and objectives of proposed mitigation. The goals and objectives shall be related to the function and values of the impacted critical area and provide an analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project; (4) Best available science. A review of the best available science supporting the proposed mitigation and a description of the report author’s experience to date in restoring or creating the type of critical area proposed; (5) Performance standards. A description of specific measurable criteria for evaluating whether the goals and objectives of the mitigation project have been successfully attained and whether the requirements of this chapter have been met; (6) Timing. Mitigation shall be completed concurrently with project construction, unless a phased schedule that assures completion has been approved by the director; (7) Detailed construction plans. Detailed site diagrams, scaled cross-sectional drawings, topographic maps with slope percentage and final grade elevations, and any other drawing appropriate to show construction techniques or anticipated final outcome. The plans shall include specifications and descriptions of the following: (a) Proposed construction sequence, timing, and duration; (b) Grading and excavation details; (c) Erosion and sediment control features; (d) Planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; and (e) Measures to protect and maintain plants until established; 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 10/34 (8) Monitoring program. The mitigation plan shall include a program for monitoring construction of the compensation project and for assessing a completed project. A protocol shall be included outlining the schedule for site monitoring and how the monitoring data will be evaluated to determine if the performance standards are being met. A monitoring report shall be submitted as needed to document milestones, success, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The monitoring period shall be five years. The director may require a greater or lesser monitoring period depending on the overall scope of mitigation; (9) Contingency plan. The mitigation plan shall include identification of potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken if monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met; and (10) Financial guarantees. The mitigation plan shall include financial guarantees, if necessary, to ensure that the mitigation plan is fully implemented. Financial guarantees ensuring fulfillment of the compensation project, monitoring program, and any contingency measures shall be posted in accordance with Chapter 19.25 FWRC. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.150 Critical area tracts and designation on site plans. (1) Critical area tracts shall be used to delineate and protect critical areas and buffers for subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan proposals. The tracts shall also be recorded on all documents of title of record for the affected lots. The following critical areas are subject to this section: (a) All landslide hazard areas and buffers, except those subdivisions utilizing lot size averaging methods pursuant to FWRC 19.120.110; (b) All wetlands and buffers; and (c) All fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and buffers. (2) Critical area tracts shall be designated on the plat. A plat note shall include the following restriction: Native preservation shall be preserved for the purpose of preventing harm to property and the environment, including but not limited to, controlling surface water runoff and erosion, maintaining slope stability, buffering, and protecting plants, fish, and animal habitat. Removal or disturbance vegetation and landscaping within the tract is prohibited, except as necessary for maintenance or replacement with approval by the City of Federal Way. (3) The city may require that any required critical area tract be dedicated to the city; held in an undivided interest by each property owner within the development with the ownership interest passing with the ownership of the lot; or held by an incorporated homeowners’ association or other legal entity that ensures the ownership, maintenance, and protection of the tract. (4) Site plans submitted as part of development proposals use processes I through V and building permits shall include and delineate all critical areas with their associated buffers and building setbacks. Site plans shall be attached to the notice on title required by FWRC 19.145.170. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.160 Building setbacks. Unless otherwise provided, structures shall be set back a distance of five feet from the edges of a critical area buffer. The following may be allowed in the building setback area: 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 11/34 (1) Landscaping; (2) Building overhangs; and (3) Fences and railings six feet and less in height. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.170 Notice on title. The owner of any property containing critical areas or buffers on which a development proposal is submitted or any property on which mitigation is established as a result of development, except a public right-of-way or the site of a permanent public facility, shall file a notice approved by the city with the King County recorder’s office. The required contents and form of the notice shall be determined by the director. The notice shall inform the public of the presence of critical areas, buffers or mitigation sites on the property, and that limitations on actions in or affecting such critical areas or buffers may exist. The notice shall run with the land. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.180 Critical area markers, signs, and fences. (1) Markers. Permanent survey stakes delineating the boundary between adjoining property and critical area tracts shall be set, using markers capable of being magnetically located and as established by current survey standards. (2) Signs. Development proposals approved by the city shall require that the boundary between a critical area buffer and contiguous land shall be identified with permanent signs. Permanent signs shall be a city-approved type designed for high durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 150 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner or homeowners’ association in perpetuity. The wording, number and placement of the signs may be modified by the director based on specific site conditions. (3) Fencing. Permanent fencing shall be required at the outer edge of the critical area buffer under the following circumstances: (a) As part of any development proposal for: (i) Plats; (ii) Short plats; (iii) Parks; (iv) Other development proposals, including but not limited to multifamily, mixed use, and commercial development where the director determines that such fencing is necessary to protect the functions of the critical area; (b) When buffer reductions are employed as part of a development proposal; (c) When buffer averaging is employed as part of a development proposal; and (d) At the director’s discretion to protect the values and functions of a critical area. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.190 Physical barriers. 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 12/34 The applicant shall install a berm, curb, or other physical barrier during construction to prevent direct runoff and erosion from any disturbed area onto or into a critical area. If necessary, the applicant shall install a berm, curb, or other physical barrier following completion of development of the subject property to prevent direct runoff and erosion from any disturbed area onto or into a critical area. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.200 Time limitation. The city may limit development activities that involve any clearing and grading to specific months of the year and to a maximum number of continuous days or hours in order to minimize adverse impacts. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.210 Other requirements. The city may require other construction techniques, conditions, and restrictions on development in order to minimize adverse impacts on critical areas. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) Article II. Geologically Hazardous Areas 19.145.220 Applicability and designation. (1) This article regulates development activities on or within 50 feet of a geologically hazardous area. (2) Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, land sliding, seismic, or other geological events. Areas susceptible to one or more of the following types of hazards shall be designated as geologically hazardous areas: (a) Landslide hazard; (b) Erosion hazard; and (c) Seismic hazard. (3) The director may permit development activities on or within 50 feet of a geologically hazardous area if the development will not be at risk of damage due to the geologic hazard and will not lead to or create any increased slide, seismic or erosion hazard. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.230 Landslide hazard areas protection measures. (1) Landslide hazard areas shall have a standard buffer of 50 feet. (2) Landslide hazard area buffers shall be measured from the top and toe, and along the sides of the slope. (3) The width of the buffer shall reflect the sensitivity of the landslide hazard area and the types and density of uses proposed on or adjacent to the hazard. In determining the appropriate buffer width, the director shall consider the recommendations contained in the critical areas report. (4) Buffers and setbacks may be reduced or improvements may be located in a landslide hazard area when a qualified professional demonstrates to the director’s satisfaction that the improvements will not lead to or create any increased slide hazard or be at risk of damage by the landslide hazard. 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 13/34 (5) The buffer may be increased where the director determines a larger buffer is necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and existing improvements. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.240 Erosion and seismic hazard areas protection measures. (1) Erosion hazard areas and seismic hazard areas do not contain standard buffers. (2) All proposed improvements within an erosion hazard area or seismic hazard area shall follow the recommendations within the critical area report to ensure the improvements will not adversely affect geologic hazards and the improvements are at minimal risk by the geologic hazard as stated by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist licensed in the state, as designed under anticipated conditions. (3) Proposed improvements within an erosion hazard area shall also demonstrate all of the following via the critical area report: (a) The improvement will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties and/or stormwater systems beyond predevelopment conditions; (b) The improvement will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and (c) The improvement will not adversely impact other critical areas. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.250 Additional report requirements – Geologically hazardous areas. (1) Before approving any development under this article, the city may require the applicant to submit the following information in addition to the critical areas report: (a) A geotechnical report prepared by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist licensed in the state that describes how the proposed development will impact or be impacted by each of the following on the subject property and nearby properties: (i) Slope stability, landslide hazard, and sloughing; (ii) Seismic hazards; (iii) Groundwater; (iv) Seeps, springs and other surface waters; and (v) Existing vegetation. (b) A site plan, in two-foot contours, that identifies the type and extent of geologically hazardous areas on site and off site that are likely to impact or be impacted by the proposal. (c) Recommended foundation design and optimal location for roadway improvements. (d) Recommended methods for mitigating identified impacts and a description of how these mitigating measures may impact adjacent properties. (e) Any other information the city determines is reasonably necessary to evaluate the proposal. 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 14/34 (2) If the city approves any development under this section, it may, among other appropriate conditions, impose the following conditions of approval: (a) The recommendations of the geotechnical report are followed; (b) A geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist be present on site during all development activities. As an alternative, the city may require minimal site visits by the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist to establish proper methods, techniques and adherence to plan drawings; (c) Trees, shrubs and groundcover are retained except where necessary for approved development activities on the subject property; (d) Additional vegetation is planted in disturbed areas; and (e) Submit a letter by the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist stating that they have reviewed the project plan drawings and in their opinion the plans and specifications meet the intent of the geotechnical report. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) Article III. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 19.145.260 Applicability, designation, and classification. (1) This article regulates development in fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (“FWHCA”) and their associated buffers. FWHCAs in the city include subsections (2) through (6) of this section. All areas within the city meeting one or more of these criteria, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this chapter and shall be managed consistent with best available science, such as the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Management Recommendations for Priority Habitats and Species. (2) Streams. Streams shall be classified in accordance with the Washington Department of Natural Resources water typing system (WAC 222-16-030), which is hereby adopted in its entirety by reference and summarized as follows: (a) Type S: streams inventoried as “shorelines of the state” under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW; (b) Type F: streams that contain fish habitat; (c) Type Np: perennial non-fish habitat streams; and (d) Type Ns: seasonal non-fish habitat streams. (3) Regulated lakes. Those lakes that are less than 20 acres in size and not regulated as shorelines of the state. (4) Areas with state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association. (a) Federally designated endangered and threatened species are those fish and wildlife species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NOAA Fisheries that are in danger of extinction or threatened to become endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service should be consulted for current listing status. 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 15/34 (b) State-designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are those fish and wildlife species native to the state of Washington identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife that are in danger of extinction, threatened to become endangered, vulnerable, or declining and are likely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their range within the state without cooperative management or removal of threats. State-designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are periodically recorded in WAC 232-12-014 (state endangered species) and WAC 232-12-011 (state threatened and sensitive species). The State Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains the most current listing and should be consulted for current listing status. (5) State priority habitats and areas associated with state priority species. Priority habitats and species are considered to be priorities for conservation and management. Priority species require protective measures for their perpetuation due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Priority habitats are those habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type or dominant plant species, a described successional stage, or a specific structural element. Priority habitats and species are identified by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. (6) Habitats and species of local importance. Habitats and species of local importance are those identified by the city of Federal Way, including but not limited to those habitats and species that, due to their population status or sensitivity to habitat manipulation, warrant protection. Habitats may include a seasonal range or habitat element where a species has a primary association, and, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.270 Stream buffers. (1) No development may take place within a stream or within the following buffer areas except as allowed within this chapter. Buffer widths shall be measured outward on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark or top of bank if the ordinary high water mark cannot be identified: (a) Type F stream – 100 feet. (b) Type Np stream – 50 feet. (c) Type Ns stream – 35 feet. (2) The buffer areas established by this section do not apply to any segment of a stream that is presently within a culvert, unless that stream will be taken out of the culvert as part of development of the subject property. (3) Trails. The director may provide written approval for passive pedestrian recreation facilities designed in accordance with an approved critical area report and the following standards: (a) Trails are composed of pervious surfaces no more than five feet in width. Raised boardwalks and wildlife viewing structures composed of nontreated pilings may also be considered; (b) Trails are generally located within the outer 25 percent of the buffer; and (c) Trails shall avoid the removal of mature trees. (4) Permanently altered buffer. The director may provide written approval for a buffer reduction when existing conditions are such that portions of the required buffer exist in a permanently altered state (e.g., roadways, paved 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 16/34 parking lots, and permanent structures) and do not provide any buffer function. The buffer may be reduced up to the area where the altered conditions exist. (5) The director may require increased buffer widths that are necessary to protect habitat, health, safety, and welfare on site specific areas as follows: (a) When the director determines that the buffer width is insufficient to prevent habitat degradation; (b) When a channel migration zone is present. The stream buffer width shall be measured from the outer edge of the channel migration zone; or (c) When the stream buffer area is within an erosion or landslide hazard area. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.280 Stream relocation. (1) Relocation of a stream will be permitted only as part of a public project for which an essential public facility, public utilities, or other public improvements have been granted a partial exemption from the director or if the relocation is associated with compensatory mitigation or restoration project. Any proposed relocation is subject to all of the conditions and restrictions of this section. (2) As part of any request under this section, the applicant must submit a stream relocation plan with the critical areas report that shows the following: (a) The creation of a natural meander pattern; (b) The formation of gentle side slopes, at least two feet horizontally to one foot vertically, and the installation of erosion control features for stream side slopes; (c) The creation of a narrow sub-channel, where feasible, against the south or west bank; (d) The utilization of natural materials, wherever possible; (e) The use of vegetation normally associated with streams, including primarily native riparian vegetation; (f) The creation of spawning and nesting areas, wherever appropriate; (g) The re-establishment of the fish population, wherever feasible; (h) The restoration of water flow characteristics compatible with fish habitat areas, wherever feasible; (i) The filling and revegetation of the prior channel; and (j) A proposed phasing plan specifying time of year for all project phases. (3) The city will allow a stream to be relocated only if water quality, habitat and stormwater retention capability of the streams will be the equivalent or improved by the relocation. Convenience to the applicant in order to facilitate general site design shall not be considered. (4) Prior to diverting water into the new channel, a qualified professional shall inspect the new channel following its completion and issue a written report to the director stating that the channel complies with the requirements of this section. 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 17/34 (5) The amount of flow and velocity of the stream may not be increased or decreased as the stream enters or leaves the subject property. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.290 Streambank stabilization. (1) Streambank stabilization may not be located in or along a stream except as established in this section. (2) A request for streambank stabilization in or along the stream will be reviewed and decided upon using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC. (3) A request to install streambank stabilization in or along the stream will only be granted if the naturally occurring movement threatens existing improvements, unique natural resources, or the only feasible access to the subject property. (4) Streambank stabilization shall be achieved through bioengineering or soft armoring techniques in accordance with an approved critical area report. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.300 Culverts. (1) Culverts are permitted in streams only if approved under this section. This section applies to culverts not associated with a stream crossing that is regulated under FWRC 19.145.320. (2) The city will review and decide upon applications under this section using process IV in Chapter 19.70 FWRC. Responses to decisional criteria and design requirements within this section shall be included in the critical areas report. (3) The city will allow a stream to be put in a culvert only if: (a) Mitigation habitat is equivalent or improved from the preexisting condition; and (b) It is necessary for some reasonable use of the subject property. Convenience to the applicant in order to facilitate general site design will not be considered. The applicant must demonstrate, by submitting alternative site plans showing the stream in an open condition, that no other reasonable site design exists. (4) The culvert must be designed and installed consistent with the requirements of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW, 2013, Water Crossing Design Guidelines, as amended). The culvert must be large enough to accommodate a 100-year storm. (5) The applicant shall, at all times, keep all culverts on the subject property free of debris so as to allow free passage of water and, if applicable, fish. The city may require a bond under Chapter 19.25 FWRC to ensure maintenance of the culvert approved under this section. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.310 Removal of streams from culverts. If development of the subject property requires city approval, the city may require the stream to be taken out of the culvert and restored to a natural-like configuration as part of the city’s approval of development of the subject property. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 18/34 19.145.320 Stream crossings. (1) Stream crossings will be reviewed and decided upon using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC. Responses to decisional criteria and design requirements in this section shall be included in the critical areas report. (2) The use of existing crossings across streams or buffers is preferred to new crossings. New stream crossings may be allowed and may encroach on the required stream buffer if: (a) Bridges, stream simulation culverts, or other appropriate methods demonstrated to provide fisheries protection shall be used for stream crossings and the applicant shall demonstrate that such methods and their implementation will pose no harm to the stream habitat or inhibit migration of fish; (b) All crossings are constructed during the summer low flow and are timed to avoid stream disturbance during periods when use is critical to salmonids, if present; (c) Crossings do not occur over spawning areas used by salmonids unless the city determines that no other possible crossing site exists; (d) Bridge piers or abutments are not placed within the ordinary high water mark; (e) Crossings do not diminish the flood-carrying capacity of the stream; (f) Crossings are consistent with design requirements of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW, 2013, Water Crossing Design Guidelines, as amended); (g) Underground utility crossings are laterally drilled and located at a depth of four feet below the maximum depth of scour for the base flood predicted by a civil engineer licensed in the state of Washington. Temporary bore pits to perform such crossings may be permitted within the stream buffer established in this chapter; (h) The number of crossings is minimized and consolidated to serve multiple purposes and properties whenever possible; (i) Disturbances to the stream buffer are adequately compensated by a stream buffer enhancement plan; and (j) No reasonable alternative exists to access the subject property. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.330 Intrusion into stream buffers. (1) A request for an intrusion into a stream buffer will be reviewed and decided upon using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC. Responses to decisional criteria and design requirements in this section shall be included in the critical areas report. (2) Stream buffer intrusions may be permitted with a buffer enhancement plan. The applicant shall demonstrate that the remaining and enhanced reduced buffer will function at an equivalent or higher level than the standard buffer. The plan shall provide an assessment of the following existing functions and conditions of the buffer and the effects of the proposed modification on those functions: (a) Habitat; (b) Water quality; 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 19/34 (c) Stormwater retention capabilities; (d) Groundwater recharge; and (e) Erosion protection. (3) The city may approve a stream buffer intrusion based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or buffer area; (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole; and (f) It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.340 Requirements for clearing and grading. Any permitted clearing and grading activities within a stream or stream buffer area shall also comply with following requirements of this section. (1) Grading is allowed only during the dry season (May 1st to October 1st). The director may extend or shorten the dry season on a case-by-case basis, determined on actual weather conditions. (2) The soil duff layer shall remain undisturbed to the maximum extent possible. Where feasible, any soil disturbed shall be redistributed to other areas of the project area. (3) The moisture-holding capacity of the topsoil layer shall be maintained by minimizing soil compaction or reestablishing natural soil structure and infiltrative capacity on all areas of the project area not covered by impervious surfaces. (4) Erosion and sediment control that meets requirements of FWRC Title 16. (5) All fill material used must be nondissolving and nondecomposing. The fill material must not contain organic or inorganic material that would be detrimental to water quality or the existing habitat. (6) The applicant may deposit dredge spoils on the subject property only if part of an approved development on the subject property. (7) The applicant shall stabilize all areas left exposed after clearing and grading activities with native vegetation normally associated with the stream or buffer area. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.350 Regulated lake buffers. (1) No development may take place within regulated lakes or within buffer areas from regulated lakes except as allowed in this chapter. 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 20/34 (2) All areas landward 25 feet in every direction from the ordinary high water mark of a regulated lake are within the buffer area from a regulated lake. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.360 Development waterward of the ordinary high water mark of regulated lakes. This section regulates structures, improvements and activities waterward of the ordinary high water mark of regulated lakes. Responses to decisional criteria and design requirements within this section shall be included in the critical areas report. (1) Dredging and filling. Dredging activities necessary to prevent eutrophication may be authorized by the director with a critical areas report that demonstrates the appropriate need and method of dredging. (2) Structures and improvements. The only structures or improvements that may be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark of a regulated lake are moorage structures. The city will review and decide upon any proposal for a moorage structure waterward of the ordinary high water mark using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC. The city may grant a request under this section if the moorage structure is accessory to a dwelling unit or public park on the subject property and no significant habitat area will be damaged by its construction or use. A moorage structure, if permitted, may not extend waterward further than is reasonably necessary to function properly, but in no event more than 200 feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Moorage structures may not be treated with creosote, oil base or other toxic substances. The top of the moorage structure may not be more than two feet above the elevation of the ordinary high water mark. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.370 Development within regulated lake buffers. No development may be located or take place within the buffer area from a regulated lake except as allowed in this section. Responses to decisional criteria and design requirements within this section shall be included in the critical areas report. (1) Landscaping and clearing and grading. Except as otherwise specifically permitted in this section, the buffer area from a regulated lake may not be covered with an impervious surface. Installation and maintenance of normal residential or park-like landscaping may take place within the required buffer area; provided, that no fertilizers, pesticides or other chemicals or substances are applied within the buffer area that will degrade water quality or hasten eutrophication of the lake. Development beyond installation and maintenance of normal residential or park-like landscaping may only be permitted within the buffer area if approved through use process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC based on the following criteria: (a) The proposed development is necessary for the reasonable use of the subject property. (b) The proposed development will not increase or decrease the size of the regulated lake. (c) The proposed development will not change the points where any water enters or leaves the subject property nor in any way change drainage patterns to or from adjacent properties. (d) The proposed development will not be detrimental to water quality or habitats in or around the lake. (2) Minor structures and improvements. Minor improvements such as walkways, benches, platforms for storage of boats and storage lockers for paddles, oars, life preservers and similar boating equipment may be located within the buffer area if approved through use process I in Chapter 19.55 FWRC based on the following criteria: 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 21/34 (a) The minor improvement will not adversely affect water quality. (b) The minor improvement will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat area. (c) The minor improvement will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. (d) The minor improvement will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole. (3) Other intrusions. (a) Where the properties immediately abutting the subject property have dwelling units that extend into the buffer area, the applicant may construct a dwelling unit on the subject property that extends into this buffer area to the extent permitted in subsection (3)(b) of this section. (b) Where subsection (3)(a) of this section applies, the dwelling unit on the subject property may be no closer to the ordinary high water mark of the regulated lake than the average of the distance of the two dwelling units on the properties immediately abutting the subject property. If one of the properties immediately abutting the subject property does not contain a dwelling unit or the dwelling unit on that abutting property is more than 25 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the regulated lake, the setback of the dwelling unit on that lot will be presumed to be 25 feet for the purposes of calculating the permissible location for the dwelling unit on the subject property under this section. (4) Revegetation. The applicant shall stabilize all areas left exposed after land surface modification with appropriate vegetation. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.380 Regulated lake bulkheads. (1) General. A bulkhead is permitted within or adjacent to a regulated lake subject to the provisions of this section. (2) Required permit. The city will review and decide upon an application under this section using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC. Responses to decisional criteria and design requirements within this section shall be included in the critical areas report. (3) Criteria. The city may permit a bulkhead to be constructed only if: (a) The bulkhead is needed to prevent significant erosion. (b) The use of vegetation or soft stabilization techniques will not sufficiently stabilize the shoreline to prevent the significant erosion. (4) Design features. A bulkhead may not be located between a regulated lake and a wetland. Changes in the horizontal or vertical configuration of the land must be kept to a minimum. The bulkhead must be designed to minimize the transmittal of wave energy to other properties. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.390 Fish protection measures. (1) All activities, uses, and alterations proposed to be located in water bodies used by fish or in areas that affect such water bodies shall give special consideration to the preservation and enhancement of anadromous fish habitat, including, but not limited to, the following standards: 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 22/34 (a) Activities shall be timed to occur only during the allowable work window as designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; (b) The activity is designed so that it will not degrade the functions or values of the fish habitat or other critical areas; (c) Any impacts to the functions or values of the habitat conservation area are mitigated in accordance with an approved critical area report. (2) Structures that prevent the migration of fish shall not be allowed in the portion of water bodies currently or historically used by fish. Fish bypass facilities shall be provided that allow the upstream migration of adult fish and shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being trapped or harmed. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.400 Endangered, threatened, and sensitive species protection measures. (1) No development shall be allowed within a habitat conservation area or buffer where state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, except that which is provided for by a management plan established by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or applicable state or federal agency. (2) Whenever activities are proposed adjacent to a habitat conservation area where state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, such area shall be protected through the application of protection measures in accordance with a critical area report prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the city. Approval for alteration of land adjacent to the habitat conservation area or its buffer shall not occur prior to consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and other appropriate federal or state agencies. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) Article IV. Wetlands 19.145.410 Wetland identification and delineation. (1) Generally. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries pursuant to this chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. All areas within the city meeting the wetland designation criteria are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this chapter. Wetland delineations are valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary. (2) Evaluation. If the city determines that a wetland may exist on or within 225 feet of the subject property, the director may require the applicant to submit a wetland report prepared by a qualified professional. The written report and the accompanying plan sheets shall contain the following information: (a) Critical area report information identified in FWRC 19.145.080. (b) Identification of all local, state, and/or federal wetland related permit(s) required for the proposal. (c) Documentation of fieldwork, including field data sheets, rating system forms, and baseline hydrologic data. (d) Description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland delineations, rating system forms, or impact analyses, including references. 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 23/34 (e) Identification and characterization of all wetlands and buffers on and within 225 feet of the subject property. For off-site areas with limited or no access, estimate conditions using best available information. (f) Provide the following for each wetland identified on and/or within 225 feet of the subject property. Acreage estimates, classifications, and ratings shall be based on entire wetland complexes, not only the portion present on the subject property: (i) Wetland rating and score for each function; (ii) Required buffers; (iii) Hydrogeomorphic classification; (iv) Wetland acreage; (v) Cowardin classification of vegetation communities; (vi) Habitat elements; (vii) Soil conditions based on site assessment and/or soil survey information; and (viii) To the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlet/ outlets, estimated water depths within the wetland, and estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g., algal mats, drift lines, and flood debris). (g) An evaluation of the functions of the wetland and adjacent buffer. Include reference for the method used and data sheets. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.420 Wetland rating and buffers. (1) Rating. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington Department of Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – 2014 Update (Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for determining whether the criteria below are met: (a) 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: (i) Wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/Department of Natural Resources; (ii) Bogs; (iii) Wetlands with mature and old growth forests larger than one acre; and (iv) Wetlands that perform functions at high levels (wetlands that score 23 points or more based on functions). (b) 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. 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 24/34 (c) Category III wetlands are wetlands with a moderate level of functions that score between 16 and 19 points based on functions. (d) Category IV wetlands are wetlands with the lowest level of functions (scoring less than 16 points based on functions) and are often heavily disturbed. (2) Wetland buffers shall be measured perpendicular from the wetland boundary as delineated and marked in the field. Buffer widths are established as follows: Wetland Category Minimum Buffer Width (wetland scores 3 – 4 habitat points) Buffer Width (wetland scores 5 habitat points) Buffer Width (wetland scores 6 – 7 habitat points) Buffer Width (wetland scores 8 – 9 habitat points) Category I: Bogs and wetlands of high conservation value 190 feet 190 feet 190 feet 225 feet Category I: Forested and based on function score 75 feet 105 feet 165 feet 225 feet Category II 75 feet 105 feet 165 feet 225 feet Category III 60 feet 105 feet 165 feet 225 feet Category IV 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet (3) No wetland buffer is required for those isolated wetlands 1,000 square feet or less in total area. (4) All compensatory mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this section. Buffers shall be based on the expected or target category of the proposed wetland mitigation site. (5) Lighting shall be directed away from wetland buffers unless otherwise determined by the director. (6) All lots approved in a recorded subdivision or binding site plan that contain wetlands and their associated buffer in a native growth protection easement or tract may be improved pursuant to easement or tract boundaries established in the plat regardless of subsequent regulatory buffer increases or natural migration. (7) All wetland and wetland buffer boundaries shown on an approved use process decision and/or building permit shall be honored regardless of subsequent regulatory buffer increases or natural migration. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.430 Development within wetlands. (1) Generally. No development or improvement may be located within a wetland except as provided in this section. (2) Development within wetlands. The specific location and extent of development within a wetland must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment as determined through application of mitigation sequencing set forth in FWRC 19.145.130. The city will review and decide upon development within a wetland using process IV in Chapter 19.70 FWRC, based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 25/34 (b) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; (c) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space; (d) It will result in no net loss of wetland area, function or value upon completion of compensatory mitigation; (e) The project is in the best interest of the public health, safety or welfare; (f) The applicant has demonstrated sufficient scientific expertise and supervisory capability to carry out the project; and (g) The applicant is committed to monitoring the project and to making corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals. (3) Requirements for compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation shall be used only for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized and shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be consistent with Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans – Version 1 (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011b or as revised), and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington) (Ecology Publication No. 09-06-32). (4) Mitigation. Acceptable methods to mitigate wetland impacts include creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement of in-kind wetland types within the same drainage basin that results in no net loss of wetland area, function, or value. If approved by the city, the applicant may locate a portion or all of the compensatory mitigation using alternative mitigation including, but not limited to, an approved and certified in-lieu fee program or mitigation bank, and/or advanced mitigation if it is determined that off-site, out-of-basin, and/or out-of-kind mitigation would provide a greater overall benefit to the watershed and not result in adverse impacts to the city’s stormwater management system and/or wildlife habitat. Alternative mitigation methods are discretionary and may become an option following an operating agreement between the city and mitigation receiving area. (a) In-lieu fee. Credits from an in-lieu fee program approved under state and federal rules may be used at the discretion of the city and when all of the following are met: (i) The city determines that it would provide environmentally appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts; (ii) The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the approved in-lieu fee program instrument; and (iii) The compensatory mitigation agreement occurs in advance of the authorized impacts. (b) Mitigation bank. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank that is certified under state rules may be used at the discretion of the city and when all of the following are met: (i) The city determines that it would provide environmentally appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts; (ii) The proposed use of credits and replacement ratios are consistent with the terms and conditions of the certified bank instrument; and (iii) The compensatory mitigation agreement occurs in advance of the authorized impacts. 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 26/34 (c) Advance mitigation. Mitigation for projects with pre-identified impacts to wetlands may be constructed in advance of the impacts at the discretion of the city and if the mitigation is implemented according to federal rules, state policy on advance mitigation, and state water quality regulations. (5) Wetland mitigation ratios. The following are ratios for providing creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation, or enhancement of impacted wetlands. Ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement may be reduced when combined with 1:1 replacement through creation or re-establishment pursuant to Table 1a, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance –Version 1 (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011a, or as revised). Creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement definitions and intent shall be pursuant to Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011a, or as revised. Category and Type of Wetland Creation or Re-establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement Category I: High conservation value and bogs Not considered possible Case-by-case Case-by-case Category I: Mature and old growth forests greater than one acre 6:1 12:1 24:1 Category I: Based on functions 4:1 8:1 16:1 Category II 3:1 6:1 12:1 Category III 2:1 4:1 8:1 Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1 Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the credit/debit tool described in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication No. 10-06-011, or as revised) if approved by the director. (6) Compensatory mitigation plan. As part of any request under this section, the applicant shall submit a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional that includes the following minimum standards: (a) Contents of wetland delineation report identified in FWRC 19.145.410(2). (b) Compensatory mitigation written report and plan sheets. Full guidance on the following report requirements can be found in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1) (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011b, or as revised): (i) Description of how the project design has been modified to avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse impacts to wetlands; (ii) Description of the existing wetland and buffer areas proposed to be altered. Include acreage, water regime, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions. Describe impacts in terms of acreage by Cowardin classification, hydrogeomorphic classification, and wetland rating; (iii) Description of the compensatory mitigation site, including location and rationale for selection. Include an assessment of existing condition: acreage of wetlands and uplands, water regime, sources of water, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions; (iv) Description of the proposed actions for compensation of wetland and upland areas affected by the project. Include overall goals of the proposed mitigation, including a description of the targeted 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 27/34 functions, hydrogeomorphic classification, and categories of wetlands; (v) Description of the proposed mitigation construction activities and timing of activities; (vi) Discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect wetlands after the subject property has been developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs; and (vii) Bond estimate for the entire compensatory mitigation project, including the following elements: site preparation, plant materials, construction materials, installation oversight, maintenance twice per year for up to five years, annual monitoring field work and reporting, and contingency action for a maximum of the total required number of years for monitoring. (c) Scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation that contains the following contents: (i) Surveyed edges of the existing wetland and buffer, proposed areas of wetland impacts, location of proposed wetland compensation actions. (ii) Existing and proposed topography measured at two-foot intervals in the proposed compensation area. Existing and proposed cross sections of the proposed compensation area and impact area measured in one-foot intervals. (iii) Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, including an analysis of existing and proposed hydrologic regimes for enhanced, created, or restored compensatory mitigation areas. Illustrations of how data for existing hydrologic conditions were used to determine the estimates of future hydrologic conditions. (iv) Conditions expected from the proposed actions on site, including hydrogeomorphic types, vegetation community types by dominant species (wetland and upland), and future water regimes. (v) Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed compensation areas. (vi) Plant schedule for compensation area, including all species by proposed community type and water regime, size and type of plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, typical clustering patterns, total number of each species by community type, and timing of installation. (vii) Performance standards that provide measurable benchmarks reflective of years post-installation for upland and wetland communities, monitoring schedule, and maintenance schedule. (d) Alternative mitigation plans (in-lieu fee, mitigation banks, and advanced mitigation) shall provide items (6) (a), (b)(i) and (ii) from this section, responses to subsection (4)(a), (b), or (c) of this section, and any other information deemed necessary by the city to adequately consider the alternative mitigation proposal. (7) Monitoring. Mitigation monitoring shall be required for a minimum of five years to establish that performance standards have been met. The mitigation plan shall include monitoring elements that ensure certainty of success for the proposal’s natural resource values and functions. The applicant remains responsible for restoration of the natural resource values and functions if the mitigation goals are not obtained with the five-year monitoring period. Additional monitoring and corrective actions may be required by the director in order to meet goals within the approved mitigation plan. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.440 Development within wetland buffers. 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 28/34 (1) Generally. Except as allowed in this section, no development or improvement may be located within a wetland buffer. (2) Trails. The director may provide written approval for passive pedestrian recreation facilities designed in accordance with an approved critical area report and the following standards: (a) Trails are composed of pervious surfaces no more than five feet in width. Raised boardwalks and wildlife viewing structures composed of non-treated pilings may also be considered; (b) Trails are generally located parallel to the perimeter of the wetland and within the outer 25 percent of the buffer; and (c) Trails shall avoid the removal of mature trees. (3) Stormwater management facilities. The director may provide written approval for stormwater management facilities limited to stormwater dispersion outfalls and bioswales within the outer 25 percent of the buffer of category III and IV wetlands if the location of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland. (4) Permanently altered buffer. The director may provide written approval for a buffer reduction when existing conditions are such that portions of the required buffer exist in a permanently altered state (e.g., roadways, paved parking lots, and permanent structures) and do not provide any buffer function. The buffer may be reduced up to the area where the altered conditions exist. (5) Buffer averaging. The city will review and decide upon buffer averaging using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC, based on the following criteria that shall be added to the critical areas report: (a) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; (b) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion; (c) The buffer at its narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required width; and (d) Unless authorized in writing by a consenting neighboring property owner, the averaging will remain on the subject property. (6) Buffer reduction with enhancement. Buffers may be reduced by up to 25 percent on a case-by-case basis if the project includes a buffer enhancement plan that clearly substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve and provide additional protection of wetland functions and values. Buffer reductions may not be used in combination with buffer averaging. The city will review and decide upon buffer reductions using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC, based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland or buffer wildlife habitat; (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property or the city as a whole; and (f) All exposed areas are stabilized with native vegetation, as appropriate. 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 29/34 A buffer enhancement plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be incorporated into the critical area report. The plan shall assess the habitat, water quality, stormwater retention, groundwater recharge, and erosion protection functions of the existing buffer; assess the effects of the proposed modification on those functions; and address the six approval criteria of this section. (7) Buffer increases. The director shall require increased buffer widths, on a case-by-case basis, when a larger buffer is necessary to protect functions, values or hazards based on site-specific conditions. This determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing that additional buffer width is reasonably related to protection of the functions and values of the wetland, and/or protection of public health, safety and welfare. Such determination shall be attached as permit conditions. The determination must include but not be limited to the following criteria: (a) The wetland contains habitat for species listed as threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive, monitored, or documented priority species or habitats by state or federal agencies, and additional buffer is necessary to maintain viable functional habitat; (b) The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion, and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or (c) The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than 30 percent. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) Article V. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas 19.145.450 Designation. This article regulates development located within designated capture zones. Six-month, one-year, five-year, and 10-year capture zones are designated as critical aquifer recharge areas under the provisions of the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) and are established based on proximity to and travel time of groundwater to the city’s public water source wells. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.460 Classification of capture zones. The Lakehaven Utility District (“LUD”) has designated four capture zones based on proximity to and travel time of groundwater to the city’s public water source wells. (1) Six-month capture zone represents the land area overlaying the six-month time-of-travel zone of any public water source well owned by LUD. (2) One-year capture zone represents the land area overlaying the one-year time-of-travel zone of any public water source well owned by LUD, excluding the land area contained in the six-month capture zone. (3) Five-year capture zone represents the land area overlaying the five-year time-of-travel zone of any public water source well owned by LUD, excluding the land area contained in the six-month and one-year capture zones. (4) Ten-year capture zone represents the land area overlaying the 10-year time-of-travel zone of any public water source well owned by LUD, excluding the land area contained in the six-month, one-year, and five-year capture zones. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 30/34 19.145.470 General requirements. (1) Development that will not cause contaminants to enter the aquifer may be permitted in critical aquifer recharge areas. (2) The city shall impose development conditions to prevent degradation of critical aquifer recharge areas. Development conditions shall be based on all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment (“AKART”). (3) The proposed activity must comply with the water source protection requirements and recommendations of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, State Department of Ecology, State Department of Health, and Public Health – Seattle and King County. (4) The proposed activity must be designed and constructed in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual (“KCSWDM”), the Federal Way Addendum to the KCSWDM, and the King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual (“BMP Manual”), as amended. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.480 Prohibited development in six-month and one-year capture zones. (1) Development that poses a significant hazard to the city’s groundwater resources resulting from storing, handling, treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances shall be prohibited in six-month and one-year capture zones, except as specified in FWRC 19.30.170. These land uses and activities include, but are not limited to: (a) On-site community sewage disposal systems as defined in Chapter 248-272 WAC; (b) Hazardous liquid pipelines as defined in Chapter 81.88 RCW; (c) Solid waste landfills; (d) Solid waste transfer stations; (e) Liquid petroleum refining, reprocessing, and storage; (f) The storage or distribution of gasoline treated with the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether; (g) Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (except those defined under permit by rule for industrial wastewater treatment processes per WAC 173-303-802(5)(c)); (h) Chemical manufacturing, including but not limited to organic and inorganic chemicals, plastics and resins, pharmaceuticals, cleaning compounds, paints and lacquers, and agricultural chemicals; (i) Dry cleaning establishments using the solvent perchloroethylene; (j) Primary and secondary metal industries that manufacture, produce, smelt, or refine ferrous and nonferrous metals from molten materials; (k) Wood treatment facilities, including wood preserving and wood products preserving; (l) Mobile fleet fueling operations; (m) Mining (metal, sand, and gravel); and 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 31/34 (n) Other land uses and activities that the city determines would pose a significant groundwater hazard to the city’s groundwater supply. (2) The uses listed in subsection (1)(a) through (n) of this section represent the state of present knowledge and most common description of said uses. As other polluting uses are discovered, or other terms of description become necessary, they will be added to the list of uses prohibited within these zones. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.490 Development within critical aquifer recharge areas. (1) Any proposed development located in critical aquifer recharge areas shall submit a hazardous materials inventory statement with a permit, land use, or business license application. Ongoing operation and maintenance activities of public wells by public water providers are exempt from these requirements. (2) The city will review the hazardous materials inventory statement along with the permit, land use, or business license application to determine whether hazardous materials will be used, stored, transported or disposed of in connection with the proposed activity. The city shall make the following determinations and apply the appropriate capture zone protection measures: (a) No hazardous materials are involved; (b) Hazardous materials are involved; however, existing laws or regulations adequately mitigate any potential impact, and documentation is provided to demonstrate compliance; or (c) Hazardous materials are involved and the proposal has the potential to significantly impact critical aquifer recharge areas. The city may require a hydrogeologic assessment with a critical areas report to be prepared by a qualified professional in order to determine the potential impacts of contamination on the aquifer. The report shall include the following site and proposal-related information: (i) Information regarding geologic and hydrogeologic characteristics of the site, including the surface location of the capture zone in which it is located and the type of infiltration of the site. (ii) Groundwater depth, flow direction, and gradient. (iii) Location of other critical areas, including surface waters, within 200 feet of the site. (iv) Best management practices and integrated pest management proposed to be used, including: (A) Predictive evaluation of groundwater withdrawal effects on nearby wells and surface water features; (B) Predictive evaluation of contaminant transport based on potential releases to groundwater; and (C) Predictive evaluation of changes in the infiltration/recharge rate. (3) A spill containment and response plan may be required to identify equipment and/or structures that could fail, and shall include provisions for inspection as required by the applicable state regulations. (4) A groundwater monitoring plan may be required to monitor quality and quantity of groundwater, surface water runoff, and/or site soils. The city may require the owner of a facility to install one or more groundwater monitoring wells to accommodate the required groundwater monitoring. Criteria used to determine the need for site monitoring shall include, but not be limited to, the proximity of the facility to production or monitoring wells, the 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 32/34 type and quantity of hazardous materials on site, and whether or not the hazardous materials are stored in underground vessels. (5) The city may employ an outside consultant at the applicant’s expense for third-party review of the critical areas report, hydrogeologic assessment, the spill containment and response plan, and the groundwater monitoring plan. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.500 Capture zone protection measures. (1) Any new or existing use applying for a building permit, land use, or subdivision approval within six-month and one-year capture zones that involves storing, handling, treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances shall comply with the following standards: (a) Secondary containment. (i) The owner or operator of any facility or activity shall provide secondary containment for hazardous materials or other deleterious substances in quantities specified in the International Fire Code. (ii) Hazardous materials stored in tanks that are subject to regulation by the Washington State Department of Ecology under Chapter 173-360 WAC (Underground Storage Tank Regulations) are exempt from the secondary containment requirements of this section; provided, that documentation is provided to demonstrate compliance with those regulations. (b) Design and construction of new stormwater infiltration systems must address site-specific risks of releases posed by all hazardous materials on site. These risks may be mitigated by physical design means, or equivalent best management practices, in accordance with an approved hazardous materials management plan. Design and construction of said stormwater infiltration systems shall also be in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual, as amended by the city of Federal Way, and shall be certified for compliance with the requirements of this section by a professional engineer or engineering geologist registered in the state of Washington. (c) The following standards shall apply to construction activities occurring where construction vehicles will be refueled on site, and/or hazardous materials will be stored, dispensed, used, or handled on the construction site. As part of the city’s project permitting process, the city may require any or all of the following items: (i) Detailed monitoring and construction standards; (ii) Designation of a person on site during operating hours who is responsible for supervising the use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials, and who has appropriate knowledge and training to take mitigating actions necessary in the event of a fire or spill; (iii) Hazardous material storage, dispensing, refueling areas, and use and handling areas shall be provided with secondary containment adequate to contain the maximum release from the largest volume container of hazardous materials stored at the construction site; (iv) Practices and procedures to ensure that hazardous materials left on site when the site is unsupervised are inaccessible to the public. Locked storage sheds, locked fencing, locked fuel tanks on construction vehicles, or other techniques may be used to preclude access; (v) Practices and procedures to ensure that construction vehicles and stationary equipment that are found to be leaking fuel, hydraulic fluid, and/or other hazardous materials will be removed immediately, 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 33/34 or repaired on site immediately. The vehicle or equipment may be repaired in place, provided the leakage is completely contained; (vi) Practices and procedures to ensure that storage and dispensing of flammable and combustible liquids from tanks, containers, and tank trucks into the fuel and fluid reservoirs of construction vehicles or stationary equipment on the construction site are in accordance with the International Fire Code; and (vii) Practices and procedures, and/or on-site materials adequate to ensure the immediate containment and cleanup of any release of hazardous substances stored at the construction site. On-site cleanup materials may suffice for smaller spills, whereas cleanup of larger spills may require a subcontract with a qualified cleanup contractor. Releases shall immediately be contained, cleaned up, and reported if required according to state requirements. (2) Development within all capture zones, that involves storing, handling, treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials, or other deleterious substances, shall comply with the following standards: (a) Fleet and automotive service station fueling, equipment maintenance, and vehicle washing areas shall have a containment system for collecting and treating all runoff from such areas and preventing release of fuels, oils, lubricants, and other automotive fluids into the soil, surface water, or groundwater. Appropriate emergency response equipment shall be kept on site during the transfer, handling, treatment, use, production, recycling, or disposal of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances. (b) Secondary containment or equivalent best management practices, as approved by the director, shall be required at loading and unloading areas that store, handle, treat, use, produce, recycle, or dispose of hazardous materials, or other deleterious substances. (c) Fill material shall not contain concentration of contaminants that exceed cleanup standards for soil as specified in the Model Toxics Control Act. An imported fill source statement is required for all projects where more than 100 cubic yards of fill will be imported to a site. The city may require analytical results to demonstrate that fill materials do not exceed cleanup standards. The imported fill source statement shall include: (i) Source location of imported fill; (ii) Previous land uses of the source location; and (iii) Whether or not fill to be imported is native, undisturbed soil. (d) All development or redevelopment shall implement best management practices (“BMPs”) for water quality and quantity, as approved by the director. Such practices include biofiltration swales and use of oil- water separators, BMPs appropriate to the particular use proposed, cluster development, and limited impervious surfaces. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.510 Use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in critical aquifer recharge areas. Proposed developments with maintained landscaped areas greater than 10,000 square feet in area shall prepare an operations and management manual using best management practices (“BMPs”) and integrated pest management for fertilizer and pesticide/herbicide applications. The BMPs shall include recommendations on the quantity, timing, and type of fertilizers applied to lawns and gardens to protect groundwater quality. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 12/13/22, 1:26 PM Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS https://web.archive.org/web/20180317104037/https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/html/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html 34/34 1 Article VI. Frequently Flooded Areas 19.145.520 Frequently flooded areas. (1) Frequently flooded areas include all areas of special flood hazard as mapped within the city, and other areas that could be threatened by flooding. The areas of special flood hazard are identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in a scientific and engineering report entitled “The Flood Insurance Study for Federal Way,” dated May 16, 1995, and any revisions thereto, with an accompanying flood insurance rate map, and any revisions thereto. Based on the landscape of the city, frequently flooded areas occur only along the Puget Sound shoreline and are within the jurisdiction of the shoreline master program, Chapter 15.05 FWRC, Shoreline Management. (2) Development in frequently flooded areas shall be subject to the provisions in FWRC Title 15. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) Cross references: Environmental policy of the city, FWRC Title 14; water quality requirements and surface water, stormwater and other waterways, Chapter 16.45 FWRC; public use easements, FWRC 19.05.330; rezoning of this district to be conducted under the quasi-judicial rezoning procedure, FWRC 19.35.050 et seq.; land modifications, Chapter 19.120 FWRC. The Federal Way Revised Code is current through Ordinance 19- 863, passed January 2, 2019. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Federal Way Revised Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: http://cityoffederalway.com/ (//web.archive.org/web/20190331113100/https://cityo City Telephone: (253) 835-2540 Code Publishing Company (//web.archive.org/web/20190331113100/https://www ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 Revised Critical Areas Plan sheets, by Wet.land, LLC Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonCRITICAL AREAS OVERVIEWVICINITY MAP (NTS) SOURCE: ESRI WORLD TOPOGRAPHIC MAP AND HILLSHADE ACCESSED 01-04-2023 Project Site REVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W1.0 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/20230 190 380 57095 Feet SCALE: 1" = 190' CONTACTS APPLICANT/OWNER NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: CONTACT: EMAIL: ARCHITECT NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: CONTACT: EMAIL: SURVEYOR/ENGINEER NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: CONTACT: EMAIL: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: CONTACT: EMAIL: FEDERAL WAY CAMPUS, LLC 4020 KINROSS LAKES PARKWAY, SUITE 200 RICHFIELD, OH 44286 (330) 659 - 4060 COBY HOLLEY CHOLLEY@IRGRA.COM NELSON 1200 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206) 408 - 8500 KATHY CRAFT KCRAFT@NELSONWW.COM ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS 33400 8TH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 205 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 (253) 838 - 6113 ERIC LABRIE, AICP ERIC.LABRIE@ESMCIVIL.COM WET.LAND 8201 164TH AVE NE, SUITE 200 REDMOND, WA 98052 (206) 309 - 8100 JENNIFER MARRIOTT, PWS JEN@WET.LAND SHEET INDEX SHEET NUMBER AND SHEET TITLE W1.0 W1.1 W1.2 W1.3 W1.4 W1.5 W1.6 W1.7 W1.8 W1.9 W1.10 W1.11 W2.0 W2.1 W3.0 W3.1 W4.0 CRITICAL AREAS OVERVIEW PLAN PROJECT SITE OVERVIEW EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION OVERVIEW PLAN PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION OVERVIEW PLAN PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION ENLARGEMENT PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION ENLARGEMENT PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION ENLARGEMENT PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION SUMMARY TABLE FENCING PLAN & DETAILS GRADING SPECIFICATIONS PLANT SCHEDULE AND DETAILS PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,WL-EI WL-EJ WL-EK WL-EM WL-EL WL-FE WL-GB NORTH WL-DE WL-DK WL-DG WL-DF WL-DH WL-DI WL-AV WL-BS NORTH WL-FD WL-FF WL-FB WL-CG WL-BA WL-BD NORTH WL-BK WL-BF WL-BEWL-BL WL-BN WL-BJ WL-CN WL-AG WL-BR WL-BS SOUTH WL-AH WL-AF WL-AE STREAM AC STREAM GC WL-GB SOUTH WL-AI WL-KH WL-KMWL-KL WL-KIWL-KJ WL-KK WL-AJ WL-KF WL-AO WL-KN WL-AL WL-KD WL-KC WL-KB WL-AR WL-AS WL-AM WL-KA WL-KT WL-KU WL-KV WL-KW WL-IA WL-FC WL-CB WL-CD WL-BA 2 WL-PK WL-BB NORTH LAKEExisting Stormwater Pond Surveyed OHWMWEYERHAEUSER WAY SS 336TH STREETINTERSTATE 5LEGEND Project Site 2 ft Contours Parcel Boundaries Shoreline Management Zone (200') Wetlands Standard Wetland Buffer Stream OHWM ,,,Stream Centerline Standard Stream Buffer ,,,Ditch Centerline North Lake Ordinary High Water Mark North Lake (25' Buffer not shown) Managed Forest Buffer CRITICAL AREAS OVERVIEW PLAN PARCEL 1621049056 PARCEL 1621049036 PARCEL 1621049013 PARCEL 1621049030 PARCEL 2285000010 PARCEL 1521049178 PARCEL 7978200515 PARCEL 2121049002 PARCEL 2154650170 PARCEL 2154650080 PARCEL 2154650110 PARCEL 2154650160 PARCEL 7978200480 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonPROJET SITE OVERVIEWREVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W1.1 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/2023 0 300 600 900150 Feet SCALE: 1" = 300' LEGEND Previous Project Site (Before BLA) Easements Stream OHWM ,,,Stream Centerline ,,,Ditch Centerline North Lake Ordinary High Water Mark Wetlands Stormwater Pond North Lake (25' Buffer not shown) PROJECT SITE OVERVIEW LEGEND Project Site Study Area (225') Easements Stream OHWM ,,,Stream Centerline ,,,Ditch Centerline North Lake Ordinary High Water Mark Wetlands Stormwater Pond North Lake (25' Buffer not shown) Wetlands No Longer in Project Site or Study Area NORTH LAKE WEYERHAEUSER WAY SS 336TH STREETINTERSTATE 5NORTH LAKEINTERSTATE 5WEYERHAEUSER WAY SS 336TH STREET Previous Project Site This previous project site reflected old property boundaries prior to approval of Boundary Line Adjustments (BLA) through the City of Federal Way. Wetlands previously identified within the "Previous Project Site" are marked with an "X" on the table to the right. Current Project Site This current project site reflects current parcel boundaries following BLA approvals. Wetlands identified within the "Current Project Site" and " Current Study Area (225')" are marked with an "X" on the table to the right. CRITICAL AREAS COMPARISON TABLE NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019. 2017 (USACE) 2018 (City) 2019 (Resub to City) April 2020 (Resub to City) May 2020 (Resub to USACE) 2021 (Resub to City) Current Project Site (Feb 2023) Current Study Area (225') AE X X X X X X X AF X X X X X X X AG X X X X X X X AH X X X X X X X AI X X X X X X AJ X X X X X X AL X X X X X X AM X X X X X X AO X X X X X X AR X X X X X X AS X X X X X X AV X X X X X X X BA X X X X X BA 2 X X X X X X BB X X X X X BD (N)X X X X X X BE X X X X BF X X X X BJ X (now PG) X X X BK X X X X BL X X X X BN X BR X X X X X X X BS (N)X X X X X X X BS (S)X X X X X X X CB X X X X CG X X X X X X X CN X DE X X X X X X X DF X X X X X X X DG X X X X X X X DH X X X X X X X DI X X X X X X X DK X X X X X X X EI X X X X X X X EJ X X X X X X X EK X X X X X X X EL X X X X X X X EM X X X X X X X FB X X X X X X X X FC X X X X FD X X X X X X X FE X X X X X X X FF X X X X X X X GB (N)X X X X X X X GB (S)X IA X X X X X X KA X X X X X X KB X X X X X X KC X X X X X X KD X X X X X X KF X X X X X X KH X KI X KJ X X KL X X KK X KM X KN X X X X X X KT X X X X X X KU X X X X X X KV X X X X X X KW X X X X X X PK X X X X X X STREAM AC X X X X X X STREAM GC X X X LOCATION Wetland Referenced in the Report Referenced in Report but as outside of Project Area OR referenced in Appendix ,,,,,,999999 99999 9999999 99999999 99 99 99 9999 99 999 999 9 999 9999 99 9 99 999 99 9999 999999 11'11' 13' 16' 22'25'3 8 ' 40' 40' 40' 47' 50'60'60'60'60'60'60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60'60'60' 6 0 '80'8 0 ' 80' 80'100'105'105'150' 165 'Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonEXISTING CONDITIONS PLANREVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W1.2 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/2023 0 100 200 30050 Feet SCALE: 1" = 100' LEGEND Project Site 2 ft Contours Utility Easements Shoreline Management Zone (200') Wetlands Standard Wetland Buffer Stream OHWM ,,,Stream Centerline Standard Stream Buffer ,,,Ditch Centerline North Lake Ordinary High Water Mark North Lake Managed Forest Buffer EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN MATCHLINE TO W1.3 WL-EI 175 SF Flags 1-4 40' Standard NA Reduced WL-EJ 231 SF Flags 1-5 60' Standard NA Reduced WL-EK 179 SF Flags 1-5 60' Standard NA Reduced WL-EM 306 SF Flags 1-5 60' Standard NA Reduced WL-EL 372 SF Flags 1-3, 97-100 60' Standard NA Reduced WL-FE 324 SF Flags 1-6 105' Standard NA Reduced WL-GB NORTH 3,377 SF Flags 1-12 60' Standard 45' Reduced WL-DE 21,554 SF Flags 1-81 60' Standard 45' Reduced WL-DK 6,332 SF Flags 1-40 60' Standard 45' Reduced WL-DG 1,103 SF Flags 1-8 60' Standard 45' Reduced WL-DF 81 SF Flags 1-5 60' Standard 45' Reduced WL-DH 271 SF Flags 1-5 60' Standard 45' Reduced WL-DI 227 SF Flags 1-4 60' Standard 45' Reduced WL-AV 12,332 SF Flags 1-77 60' Standard 45' Reduced WL-BS NORTH 2,683 SF Flags 1-9 60' Standard NA Reduced WL-FD 686 SF Flags 1-6 40' Standard NA Reduced WL-FF 978 SF Flags 1-5 40' Standard NA Reduced WL-FB 7,353 SF Flags 1-14 60' Standard 45' Reduced WL-CB 105' Standard NORTH LAKE Existing trails WEYERHAEUSER WAY SINTERSTATE 5Existing parking lotsExisting parking lotsExisting parking lots INSET MAP SCALE: 1" = 1,000' W1.2 W1.3 NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,99 99 99 999999 9999 9999 9 9999 999999999999 9 9 99 99999 99999 99 9 99 940' 40' 22' 40' 36' 40' 40' 40' 40' 45' 50'52'60'60'60 ' 60'80'80' 100' 105' 1 3 8 ' 15 0 ' 150'Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonEXISTING CONDITIONS PLANREVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W1.3 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/2023 0 100 200 30050 Feet SCALE: 1" = 100' LEGEND Project Site 2 ft Contours Utility Easements Shoreline Management Zone (200') Wetlands Standard Wetland Buffer Stream OHWM ,,,Stream Centerline Standard Stream Buffer ,,,Ditch Centerline North Lake Ordinary High Water Mark North Lake Managed Forest Buffer EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN MATCHLINE TO W1.2 WL-AG 7,291 SF Flags 1-41 60' Standard 45' Reduced WL-BR 2,211 SF Flags 1-15 105' Standard 78.75' Reduced WL-AH 711 SF Flags 1-10 60' Standard 45' Reduced WL-AF 473 SF Flags 1-6 60' Standard 45' Reduced WL-AE 239 SF Flags 1-6 60' Standard 45' Reduced STREAM AC 100' Standard NA Reduced WL-BL 80' Standard WL-CN 80' Standard NORTH LAKE Existing Stormwater Pond Surveyed OHWMWEYERHAEUSER WAY SS 336TH STREET Existing trails Existing parking lotsExisting parking lotsExisting parking lots Standard Buffer (feet)25% Reduced Buffer (feet) 1 AE 60 45 2 AF 60 45 3 AG 60 45 4 AH 60 45 5 AV 60 45 6 BR 105 78.75 7 BS (N)60 NA 8 DE 60 45 9 DF 60 45 10 DG 60 45 11 DH 60 45 12 DI 60 45 13 DK 60 45 14 EI 40 NA 15 EJ 60 NA 16 EK 60 NA 17 EL 60 NA 18 EM 60 NA 19 FB 60 45 20 FD 40 NA 21 FE 105 NA 22 FF 40 NA 23 GB (N)60 45 24 STREAM AC 100 75 FWRC Chapter 19.145#Critical Area CRITICAL AREAS SUMMARY TABLE INSET MAP SCALE: 1" = 1,000' W1.2 W1.3 NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019. ,,,,,, 99 999999 999999 9 99999 99 9999 999999 99992' 12' 3 1 ' 35'45'45'47' 47'50'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'105'Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonPROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION OVERVIEW PLANREVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W1.4 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/2023 0 100 200 30050 Feet SCALE: 1" = 100' LEGEND Project Site Wetlands (Post Construction) Post Construction Critical Areas Buffer ,,,Ditch Centerline ,,,Stream Centerline Stream OHWM Standard Stream Buffer Managed Forest Buffer Clear and Grade Limits Culverts PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION OVERVIEW PLAN IMPACTS LEGEND Direct Wetland Impacts Inadequately Buffered Wetland Buffer Reductions MITIGATION LEGEND Buffer Replacements Buffer Re-Establishment Buffer Restoration Upland Restoration & Buffer Replacements Stream Buffer Enhancement Stream Channel Restoration MATCHLINE TO W1.5 WL-EI WL-EJ WL-EK WL-EM WL-EL WL-FE WL-GB NORTH WL-DE WL-DK WL-DG WL-DF WL-DH WL-DI WL-AV WL-BS NORTH WL-FD WL-FF WL-FB WL-CB NORTH LAKE Vault 1B Detention WEYERHAEUSER WAY S With ROW Improvements BUILDING 1INTERSTATE 5INSET MAP SCALE: 1" = 1,000',,,,W1.4 W1.5 Vault 1A Detention EXISTING BUILDING Detention Pond #2 Detention Pond #3 NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019.Per FWRC 19.145.160 a 5-foot building setback is required from the edges of critical area buffers. This building setback line is not shown on these plan sheets due to the scale, but at no point are buildings or structures proposed within the 5-foot building setback. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9999 999999 9 99999 99 99 9999 9999 14'45'53'54'60' 65' 68'80'80'89'100' 150 'Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonPROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION OVERVIEW PLANREVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W1.5 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/2023 0 100 200 30050 Feet SCALE: 1" = 100' MATCHLINE TO W1.4 WL-BL WL-CN WL-AG WL-BR WL-AH WL-AF WL-AE STREAM AC NORTH LAKEWEYERHAEUSER WAY S With ROW Improvements BUILDING 2 See Sheet W1.9 for Stream Restoration INSET MAP SCALE: 1" = 1,000',,,,W1.4 W1.5 Detention Pond #3 Detention Pond #4 Detention Pond #5 BUILDING 3 Surveyed OHWM S 336TH STREET WETLAND IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019. LEGEND Project Site Wetlands (Post Construction) Post Construction Critical Areas Buffer ,,,Ditch Centerline ,,,Stream Centerline Stream OHWM Standard Stream Buffer Managed Forest Buffer Clear and Grade Limits Culverts PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION OVERVIEW PLAN IMPACTS LEGEND Direct Wetland Impacts Inadequately Buffered Wetland Buffer Reductions MITIGATION LEGEND Buffer Replacements Buffer Re-Establishment Buffer Restoration Upland Restoration & Buffer Replacements Stream Buffer Enhancement Stream Channel Restoration Pond #2 Outfall Pond #3 Outfall Pond #4 Outfall Pond #5 Outfall Per FWRC 19.145.160 a 5-foot building setback is required from the edges of critical area buffers. This building setback line is not shown on these plan sheets due to the scale, but at no point are buildings or structures proposed within the 5-foot building setback. Direct (square feet) Indirect (square feet)(square feet) (acre) AE III 231 8 239 0.0055 AF III 473 473 0.011 AG III 2,061 361 2,422 0.056 AH III 95 616 711 0.016 AV III 580 580 0.013 BS (N)III 2,683 2,683 0.062 DE III 264 4,302 4,566 0.10 EI IV 175 175 0.0040 EJ III 231 231 0.0053 EK III 179 179 0.0041 EL III 372 372 0.0085 EM III 306 306 0.0070 FD IV 686 686 0.016 FE III 324 324 0.0074 FF IV 978 978 0.022 GB (N)III 13 13 0.00030 (square feet)8,585 6,353 (acre)0.20 0.15 TOTAL See W1.11 for full proposed impacts and summary table. Critical Area 2014 ECY Rating Category Wetland Impact TOTAL 99 993 1 '60'999999 999999 9 99999 99 999999 9912' 35'41'45'45'47' 47'50'60'60'60'60'60'60',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,999999 9 99999 99 45'53'54'60' 68'89'100'Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonPROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATIONREVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W1.6 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/2023 VIEWPORT A Scale: 1" = 40" VIEWPORTS B (LEFT) Scale: 1" = 50"; VIEWPORTS C (BELOW) Scale: 1" = 70" NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019. LEGEND Project Site Wetlands (Post Construction) Post Construction Critical Areas Buffer ,,,Ditch Centerline ,,,Stream Centerline Stream OHWM Standard Stream Buffer Managed Forest Buffer Clear and Grade Limits Culverts PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION IMPACTS LEGEND Direct Wetland Impacts Inadequately Buffered Wetland Buffer Reductions MITIGATION LEGEND Buffer Replacements Buffer Re-Establishment Buffer Restoration Upland Restoration & Buffer Replacements Stream Buffer Enhancement Stream Channel Restoration INSET MAP SCALE: 1" = 400' VIEWPORT A VIEWPORT B VIEWPORT C VIEWPORT D VIEWPORT E VIEWPORT F 9 99 992'105'99 9999 65'80'15 0 '99 9914'80'Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonPROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATIONREVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W1.7 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/2023 INSET MAP SCALE: 1" = 400' VIEWPORT A VIEWPORT B VIEWPORT C VIEWPORT D VIEWPORT E VIEWPORT F VIEWPORT D Scale: 1" = 50" VIEWPORT F Scale: 1" = 40" NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019. LEGEND Project Site Wetlands (Post Construction) Post Construction Critical Areas Buffer ,,,Ditch Centerline ,,,Stream Centerline Stream OHWM Standard Stream Buffer Managed Forest Buffer Clear and Grade Limits Culverts PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION IMPACTS LEGEND Direct Wetland Impacts Inadequately Buffered Wetland Buffer Reductions MITIGATION LEGEND Buffer Replacements Buffer Re-Establishment Buffer Restoration Upland Restoration & Buffer Replacements Stream Buffer Enhancement Stream Channel Restoration VIEWPORT E Scale: 1" = 40" Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonPROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION ENLARGEMENTREVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W1.8 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/2023 VIEWPORT 1 - WETLAND FB Scale: 1" = 50" Wetland FB Buffer Reduction: 783 sf Buffer Replacement: 1,608 sf Ratio: 2.1:1.0 Wetland Buffer Net Gain: +825 sf 99 993 1 '60'Buffer Replacement Buffer Reduction VIEWPORT 2 - WETLAND GB - NORTH Scale: 1" = 50" Wetland GB - NORTH Indirect Wetland Impact: 13 sf Buffer Reduction: 3,702 sf (1,701 sf - proposed project; 2,001 sf utilities) Buffer Replacement: 5,286 sf Upland Restoration and Buffer Replacement: 271 sf Ratio: 1.5:1.0 Wetland Buffer Net Gain: +1,584 sf Buffer Restoration (Trail): 1,602 sf 999999 999941'45'47'50'60'Buffer Replacement Buffer Reduction Upland Restoration & Buffer Replacement VIEWPORT 3 - WETLAND DK Scale: 1" = 50" Wetland DK Buffer Reduction: 3,468 sf Buffer Replacement: 8,858 sf Upland Restoration and Buffer Replacement (in Kind): 109 sf Ratio: 2.6:1.0 Wetland Buffer Net Gain: +5,499 sf Buffer Restoration (Trail): 2,153 sf 9 960' Buffer ReplacementBuffer Replacement Buffer Replacement Buffer Replacement Upland Restoration & Buffer Replacement 99999945'60'60' VIEWPORT 4 - WETLAND DE Scale: 1" = 50" Wetland DE Direct Wetland Impact: 264 sf Indirect Wetland Impact: 4,302 sf Buffer Reduction: 4,523 sf Buffer Replacement: 11,504 sf Ratio: 2.5:1.0 Wetland Buffer Net Gain: +11,775 sf Buffer Restoration (Trail): 4,723 sf Buffer Replacement Buffer Reduction NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019. LEGEND Project Site Post Construction Critical Areas Buffer ,,,Stream Centerline Stream OHWM Standard Stream Buffer Managed Forest Buffer Clear and Grade Limits Culverts PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION ENLARGEMENT IMPACTS LEGEND Direct Wetland Impacts Inadequately Buffered Wetlands (45' Setback) Buffer Reductions MITIGATION LEGEND Buffer Replacements Buffer Re-Establishment Buffer Restoration Upland Restoration & Buffer Replacements Stream Buffer Enhancement Stream Channel Restoration INSET MAP SCALE: 1" = 400' VIEWPORT 1 VIEWPORT 2 VIEWPORT 3 VIEWPORT 4 VIEWPORT 5 VIEWPORTS 6 & 7 VIEWPORTS 8 & 9 VIEWPORT 10 VIEWPORT 11 VIEWPORT 12 Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonPROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION ENLARGEMENTREVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W1.9 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/2023 VIEWPORT 5 - WETLAND AV Scale: 1" = 60" Wetland AV Indirect Wetland Impact: 580 sf Buffer Reduction: 4,594 sf (73 sf proposed project; 2,642 sf stormwater ponds; 1,879 sf utility corridor) Buffer Replacement: 2,727 sf Buffer Re-Establishment: 4,754 sf Upland Restoration and Buffer Replacement: 155 sf Ratio: 1.6:1.0 Wetland Buffer Net Gain: +3,042 sf Buffer Restoration (Trail): 4,022 sf99999912' 35'60'Buffer Replacement Buffer Reduction Buffer Replacement Buffer Replacement Buffer Replacement Buffer Reduction Buffer Re-Establishment Upland Restoration & Buffer Replacement VIEWPORT 6 - WETLAND BR Scale: 1" = 60" Wetland BR Buffer Reduction: 284 sf Buffer Replacement: 704 sf Ratio: 2.5:1.0 Wetland Buffer Net Gain: +420 sf Buffer Restoration (Trail): 438 sf99,,,,,,89'Buffer Replacement Buffer Reduction VIEWPORT 7 - WETLAND AG Scale: 1" = 60" Wetland AG Direct Wetland Impacts: 2,061 sf Indirect Wetland Impacts: 361 sf Buffer Reduction: 3,432 sf (2,519 sf proposed project; 913 sf stormwater ponds) Buffer Replacement: 20,427 sf Ratio: 6.0:1.0 Wetland Buffer Net Gain: +16,995 sf Buffer Restoration (Trail): 1,034 sf999999,,,,,,,45'60' 68' Buffer Replacement Buffer Replacement Buffer Replacement Buffer Reduction Buffer Reduction Buffer Reduction 9999 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,54'100' VIEWPORT 8 - STREAM AC Scale: 1" = 70" Stream AC Buffer Reduction: 6,525 sf Buffer Enhancement (Culvert Removal): 6,610 sf Culvert Removal Downstream: see Viewport 9 below Ratio (Enhancement:Reduction): 1.1:1.0 No net gain of stream buffer area, but increased biodiversity and functionality. Buffer Enhancement (Stormwater Outfall): 9,167 sf Buffer Restoration (Trail): 1,493 sf Buffer Replacement Buffer Reduction NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019.,,,,,,99 412.5 ft 415 ft 415.5 ft 414 ft413.5 ft 41 4 f t 413 ft413.5 ft416 ft414.5 ft414.5 ft414 ft4 1 3 f t416.5 ft412 ft 413.5 ft 411.5 ft 415.5 ft 410 ft410.5 ft414 ft 411 ft 413 ft411.5 f t 412 ft412.5 ft414 ft412.5 ft413 ft413 ft 413 ft 41 3 . 5 f t 412.5 ft VIEWPORT 9 - STREAM AC CULVERT REMOVAL Scale: 1" = 20" Stream AC Culvert Removal Culvert to be Removed: 26' Stream Channel Restoration: 98 sf Cross Section (Below) A A1 STREAM AC CROSS SECTION - CULVERT REMOVAL LEGEND Project Site Wetlands (Post Construction) Post Construction Critical Areas Buffer ,,,Stream Centerline Stream OHWM Standard Stream Buffer Managed Forest Buffer Culverts Clear and Grade Limits PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION ENLARGEMENT IMPACTS LEGEND Direct Wetland Impacts Inadequately Buffered Wetlands (45' Setback) Buffer Reductions MITIGATION LEGEND Buffer Replacements Buffer Re-Establishment Buffer Restoration Upland Restoration & Buffer Replacements Stream Buffer Enhancement Stream Channel Restoration INSET MAP SCALE: 1" = 400' VIEWPORT 1 VIEWPORT 2 VIEWPORT 3 VIEWPORT 4 VIEWPORT 5 VIEWPORTS 6 & 7 VIEWPORTS 8 & 9 VIEWPORT 10 VIEWPORT 11 VIEWPORT 12 Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonPROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION ENLARGEMENTREVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W1.10 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/2023 INSET MAP SCALE: 1" = 400' VIEWPORT 1 VIEWPORT 2 VIEWPORT 3 VIEWPORT 4 VIEWPORT 5 VIEWPORTS 6 & 7 VIEWPORTS 8 & 9 VIEWPORT 10 VIEWPORT 11 VIEWPORT 12 VIEWPORT 10 - WETLAND CB Scale: 1" = 80" Wetland CB Buffer Reduction: 4,280 sf Buffer Replacement: 4,795 sf Ratio: 1.1:1.0 Wetland Buffer Net Gain: +515 sf 99 99 992' 3 1 '105'Buffer Replacement Buffer Reduction Wetland CB continues to the east VIEWPORT 11 - WETLAND BL Scale: 1" = 40" Wetland BL Buffer Reduction: 960 sf Buffer Replacement: 986 sf Ratio: 1.0:1.0 Wetland Buffer Net Gain: +26 sf 99 9999 65'80'150 ' Buffer Replacement Buffer Reduction Wetland BD-North standard buffer does not cross proposed ROW improvements 99 9914'80' VIEWPORT 12 - WETLAND CN Scale: 1" = 50" Wetland CN Buffer Reduction: 4,170 sf Buffer Replacement: 4,459 sf Ratio: 1.0:1.0 Wetland Buffer Net Gain: +289 sf Buffer Replacement Buffer Reduction NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019. LEGEND Project Site Shoreline Management Zone (200') Wetlands (Post Construction) Post Construction Critical Areas Buffer ,,,Stream Centerline Stream OHWM Standard Stream Buffer Managed Forest Buffer Clear and Grade Limits Culverts PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION ENLARGEMENT IMPACTS LEGEND Direct Wetland Impacts Inadequately Buffered Wetlands (45' Setback) Buffer Reductions MITIGATION LEGEND Buffer Replacements Buffer Re-Establishment Buffer Restoration Upland Restoration & Buffer Replacements Stream Buffer Enhancement Stream Channel Restoration Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonPROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION SUMMARY TABLEREVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W1.11 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/2023NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019. PROPOSED IMPACTS & MITIGATION SUMMARY TABLE Direct Impact (square feet) Indirect Impact (square feet) Minimum Buffer Width (feet) Buffer Reduction (square feet) Buffer Replacement (square feet) Buffer Re- Establishment (square feet) Buffer Enhancement (square feet) Upland Restoration & Buffer Replacement (square feet) Ratio (Replacement:Reduction) Buffer Net Gain (square feet) Buffer Restoration (Trail) (square feet)² Stream Channel Restoration (square feet) 1 AE 60 45 Fill 231 8 2 AF 60 45 Indirect Impact 473 3 AG 60 45 Partial Fill 2,061 361 0¹3,432 20,427 6.0:1.0 16,995 1,034 4 AH 60 45 Partial Fill 95 616 5 AV 60 45 Indirect Impact 580 12¹4,594 2,727 4,754 155 1.6:1.0 3,042 4,022 6 BL 80 60 No Impact 65 960 986 1.0:1.0 26 7 BR 105 78.75 No Impact 89 284 704 2.5:1.0 420 438 8 BS (N)60 NA Fill 2,683 9 CB 105 78.75 No Impact 2 4,280 4,795 1.1:1.0 515 10 CN 80 60 No Impact 4 4,170 4,459 1.0:1.0 289 11 DE 60 45 Partial Fill 264 4,302 0¹4,523 11,504 2.5:1.0 11,775 4,723 12 DF 60 45 No Impact 60 13 DG 60 45 No Impact 60 14 DH 60 45 No Impact 60 15 DI 60 45 No Impact 47 16 DK 60 45 No Impact 60 3,468 8,858 109 2.6:1.0 5,499 2,153 17 EI 40 NA Fill 175 18 EJ 60 NA Fill 231 19 EK 60 NA Fill 179 20 EL 60 NA Fill 372 21 EM 60 NA Fill 306 22 FB 60 45 No Impact 31 783 1,608 2.1:1.0 825 23 FD 40 NA Fill 686 FE 105 NA Fill 324 FF 40 NA Fill 978 25 GB (N)60 45 Indirect Impact 13 41¹3,702 5,286 271 1.5:1.0 1,584 1,602 Culvert Removal 6,525 6,610 1.1:1.0 None; only enhancement provided 1,493 98 Stormwater Outfall 9,167 8,585 6,353 36,721 61,354 4,754 15,777 535 40,970 NA ³98 24 TOTAL 1 - Area within minimum critical area buffer has been mitigated through the ILF program 2 - Buffer restoration from trail restoration has not been used to mitigate for wetland buffer impacts. 3 - Sum not appropriate; some buffer restoration takes place within multiple wetland buffers #Impact StatusCritical Area Standard Buffer (feet) FWRC 19.145 25% Reduced Buffer (feet) FWRC 19.145 Post-Development Wetland Impacts Post-Development Critical Areas and Buffers 26 STREAM AC 100 75 54 Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonFENCING PLAN & DETAILSREVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W2.0 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/20230 200 400 600100 Feet NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019. LEGEND Project Site Wetlands (Post Construction) Inadequately Buffered Wetland Direct Wetland Impacts Critical Area Sign (See Detail) 2-Rail Fence (See Detail) FENCING PLAN Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonGRADING SPECIFICATIONSREVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W2.1 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/2023NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019. GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. GENERAL 1.1. Sequencing 1.1.1. General Construction 1.1.1.1. Contractor shall give the project biologist or ecologist a minimum of ten (10) days notice prior to beginning of construction. 1.1.1.2. No construction work shall commence until there is a meeting between the client, the project biologist or ecologist, general, clearing, and/or earthwork contractors, and the landscape contractor. The approved plans and specifications shall be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved understand the intent and the specific details related to the construction documents, specifications, and site constraints. 1.1.1.3. Locations of existing utilities have been established by field survey or obtained from available records and should be considered approximate only and not necessarily complete. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to: (1) independently verify the accuracy of utility locations and (2) discover and avoid any utilities within the mitigation plan area(s) that are not shown, but which may be affected by implementation of the plan. Such area(s) are to be clearly marked in the field. The project biologist or ecologist shall review any conflicts with the approved grading plan prior to start of construction. 1.1.1.4. A copy of the approved plans must be on-site whenever construction is in progress, and shall remain on-site until project completion. 1.1.1.5. Construction must be performed in accordance with all agency standards, rules, codes, permit conditions, and/or other applicable ordinances and policies. 1.1.1.6. Work below the ordinary high water line shall occur within the authorized window of the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) and other permits. 1.1.1.7. The project owner/applicant is responsible for obtaining any other related or required permits prior to the start of construction. 1.1.1.8. A qualified wetland consultant shall be on-site, as necessary, to monitor construction and approve minor revisions to the plan, to be included in as-built drawings. 1.1.1.9. Topographic elevations represented on mitigation plans are based upon topographic maps supplied by the surveyor. Final elevations may vary depending on site-specific conditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to verify pre-construction topographic elevations for accuracy prior to grading. Contractor shall notify the project biologist or ecologist immediately if any modifications to the plans may be necessary due to inaccuracies of the original survey. 1.1.1.10. During construction, the contractor must use materials and construction methods that prevent toxic substances and other pollutants from entering mitigation areas or other natural waters of the state. 1.1.1.11. Preventative measures shall be used to protect existing storm drainage systems, existing utilities, and roads. 1.1.1.12. The contractor shall provide sediment and erosion controls around the project area prior to soil disturbance from construction activity. 1.1.2. Mitigation Construction: The following provides the general sequence of activities anticipated to be necessary to complete this mitigation project. Some of these activities may be conducted concurrently as the project progresses. 1.1.2.1. Conduct a site meeting between the contractor, the project biologist or ecologist, and the owner’s representative to review the project plans, work areas, staging/stockpile areas, material disposal areas, and existing vegetation to be retained. 1.1.2.2. Survey clearing/grading limits. 1.1.2.3. Project biologist and/or ecologist shall review clearing limits and shall flag trees and other existing vegetation to remain within the work area. The project biologist or ecologist shall also flag any woody material to be saved and stockpiled for later use as habitat features (stumps, down logs). 1.1.2.4. Install silt fence and any other erosion and sedimentation control BMPs necessary for work in the project areas. 1.1.2.5. Working within the approved HPA in-water work window, install temporary stream bypass and sandbag dams. 1.1.2.5.1. Culvert removal will only be done in the summer months. 1.1.2.5.2. Install fish exclusion devices in Stream AC at either end of the in-stream work area, if needed, pending presence of water (which may run dry in the summer months). 1.1.2.5.3. Install dam at upstream end of culvert work area. 1.1.2.5.4. Install dam at downstream end of culvert work area. 1.1.2.5.5. Divert stream flows around the culvert work area. 1.1.2.5.6. Use seine nets to capture and remove fish from the Project Area, if water is present. 1.1.2.5.7. Dewater culvert work area. 1.1.2.5.8. Remove culvert. 1.1.2.5.9. Regrade new stream channel to match up and downstream elevations and cross section/profile. 1.1.2.5.10. Install coir fabric in new stream channel to cover disturbed soils. 1.1.2.5.11. Place stream aggregate in new channel per WDFW guidance and specifications. 1.1.2.5.12. Plant per the planting typicals/plans. 1.1.2.5.13. Slowly reintroduce water into the new stream channel until water level within the new channel is roughly equal to the water levels immediately downstream of the Project Area. If no water in stream, then skip to next step. 1.1.2.5.14. Remove the lower dam. 1.1.2.5.15. Remove the upper dam. 1.1.2.5.16. Remove the stream diversion system. 1.1.2.5.17. Remove fish exclusion devices. 1.1.2.6. Install tree protection fencing around existing trees and vegetation to remain (see civil plans). 1.1.2.7. Clear and grub grading areas. 1.1.2.8. Grub out all invasive species from buffer enhancement areas shown in plans. 1.1.2.9. Survey earthwork areas and set grade stakes as required. 1.1.2.10. Complete excavation of mitigation areas to subgrade per grading plan. 1.1.2.11. Install streambed aggregate. 1.1.2.12. Decompact subgrade as necessary and place topsoil. 1.1.2.13. Place woody debris (long & short down logs, rootwads, stumps). 1.1.2.14. Mulch all cleared/graded buffer areas. 1.1.2.15. Complete site cleanup and install plant material as indicated on the mitigation plan. 1.1.2.16. Install temporary irrigation. 1.1.2.17. Install critical area fence & signs. 1.2. Project Conditions 1.2.1. Protection and Maintenance of Off-Site Areas: Contractor shall ensure that construction related activities do not damage off-site features or adjacent vegetation. The project biologist or ecologist shall be notified immediately if accidental damage occurs. Contractor shall ensure that adjacent roads are maintained and kept clear of soil and/or other debris at all times during construction. Contractor shall comply with the governing jurisdiction’s codes regarding street maintenance/cleaning during construction. 1.2.2. Plan Changes and Modifications: Any changes or modifications to the mitigation plans or specifications must receive prior approval from the owner’s representative, the project biologist or ecologist, and applicable agencies. 1.3. Warranty 1.3.1. Warranty Terms and Conditions: A contractor-provided warranty shall extend for a period of one year from the date of physical completion. Physical completion for the work of this section is the date when all grading, planting, irrigation, and related phases of such work have been completed and are accepted by the owner’s representative, the project biologist or ecologist, and applicable agencies. Contractor’s warranty shall include grading corrections. 2. PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS 2.1. Habitat Features 2.1.1. Down Logs: Down logs shall be cedar or fir species, have a 12 foot minimum length, with or without roots, and a minimum diameter of 15 inches. Bark shall be kept intact. Ends that have been cut shall be distressed and not blunt. 2.2. In-Stream Structures 2.2.1. Fix Mix/Streambed Aggregate: Fix mix shall be streambed “streambed sediment” per WSS 903.11 (1). Project biologist or ecologist shall approve rock mix placement. Aggregates available from the following suppliers: Cadman (425) 867 – 1234 or Washington Rock Quarries, Inc. (253) 252 - 5612 2.3. Temporary Bypass and Sandbag Dam 2.3.1. Temporary Bypass: The temporary bypass shall be a flexible pipe composed of PVC or ADS N 12. The pipe shall be of sufficient size to pass all flows and debris, this shall be determined by the contractor. Temporary bypass shall be in place until all work in the mitigation areas, including irrigation, planting, and mulching are complete. 2.4. Topsoil 2.4.1. Topsoil: topsoil that has been stockpiled on-site for reuse in project area(s) or imported from off-site sources shall be fertile, friable, sandy loam surface soil, free of subsoil, clay lumps, brush, weeds, roots, stumps, stones larger than one (1) inch in any dimension, litter, or any other extraneous or toxic matter harmful to plant growth. 2.4.2. Organic Content: Imported topsoil shall consist of organic materials amended as necessary to produce a bulk organic content of at least 10 percent and not greater than 20 percent, as determined by AASHTO-T-194. 2.5. Mulch 2.5.1. Bark or woodchip mulch shall be derived from Douglas fir, pine, or hemlock species. The mulch shall not contain resin, tannin, or other compounds in quantities that would be detrimental to animal, plant life, or water quality. Sawdust shall not be used as mulch. 2.5.2. Mulch size shall be medium-coarse ground with an approximately 3-inch minus particle size. Fine particles shall be minimized so that not more than 30% by loose volume, will pass through a US No. 4 sieve. 3. EXECUTION 3.1. Survey/Stake/Flag Limits of Clearing 3.1.1. Prior to any construction, a licensed surveyor shall survey, stake, and flag clearing limits. Clearing limits are depicted on the mitigation plans. The project biologist or ecologist shall review and approve flagging of clearing limits prior to any vegetation removal. It is the responsibility of the contractor to verify actual locations of vegetation to be saved and request that the project biologist or ecologist modify the grading plan as necessary to avoid all significant native vegetation. 3.2. Flag and Protect Existing Vegetation to Remain 3.2.1. Contractor shall be responsible for avoiding disturbance to existing vegetation located outside the clearing limits. No removal of any vegetation shall occur without prior approval by the project biologist or ecologist. 3.2.2. The project biologist or ecologist shall flag existing vegetation to remain located within the project area(s). Prior to grading, contractor shall install orange barrier fencing two (2) feet beyond the dripline of flagged existing vegetation. Flagged vegetation shall not be disturbed, unless approved in writing by the project biologist or ecologist. Fencing shall remain in place until the completion of earthwork. 3.2.3. Contractor shall exercise care to prevent injury to the trunk, roots, and branches of trees and shrubs to remain. Any woody plant to remain that is damaged during construction shall be treated immediately after damage occurs, and the project biologist or ecologist shall be notified of incident. Damage treatment shall include evenly cutting broken branches, broken roots, and damaged tree bark. Injured plants shall be thoroughly watered and additional measures shall be taken, as appropriate, to aid in plant survival. 3.3. Flag Vegetation & Woody Material for Future Use as Habitat Features 3.3.1. The project biologist or ecologist shall flag existing vegetation and woody material (rootwads, stumps, down logs, and boulders), if available, to be relocated b the contractor from within the development footprint for used as habitat features in the mitigation area(s). Whenever possible, habitat features shall be moved directly to permanent locations. If necessary, habitat features shall be placed in stockpile areas as near to permanent locations as possible. The project biologist or ecologist shall designate stockpile areas. 3.3.2. Contractor shall exercise care when moving habitat features to avoid breaking branches, scuffing bark, or breaking roots. It is the responsibility of the contractor to break pieces into usable sizes. 3.3.3. If habitat features are not available from any portion of the development footprint, then features shall be provided by the contractor. 3.4. Place Erosion Control Measures: 3.4.1. Contractor shall install silt fencing downslope of the clearing limits depicted on the mitigation grading plans prior to any construction activity. Contractor shall maintain erosion control facilities until completion of construction. The project biologist or ecologist shall verify and approve locations of erosion control measures prior to site grading. 3.4.2. Site areas exposed during grading and construction must be covered with straw (maximum depth 3 inches), erosion control netting, plastic sheeting, or permanent erosion control within 48 hours of disturbance, or as required for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or local jurisdiction compliance. 3.4.3. Contractor shall maintain erosion control measures for the duration of the project. These measures shall remain in place until authorization is given by the project biologist or ecologist for removal or location adjustment. It is the responsibility of the contractor to remove all erosion control measures adjacent to sensitive areas when authorized by the project biologist or ecologist. 3.4.4. As construction progresses and seasonal conditions dictate, erosion control facilities shall be maintained and/or altered as required be the project biologist or ecologist to ensure continued erosion/sedimentation control. 3.4.5. Where possible, natural ground cover vegetation shall be maintained for silt control. 3.5. Install Temporary Bypass and Sandbag Dam: Shall be performed only during the HPA window (contractor shall verify with permitting agency) 3.5.1. Prior to any earthwork activity for the new stream channel, a temporary stream bypass shall be constructed to connect between the sandbag dam locations shown on the plan. Contractor may construct the bypass anywhere between the two locations where the bypass will be minimally disturbed. Project biologist or ecologist shall verify points of bypass locations prior to installation. For all areas, contractor shall take care to maximize erosion control measures to prevent sediment from entering the stream channel. 3.6. Clear and Grub Site 3.6.1. Contractor shall clear and grub areas within the clearing limits shown on the mitigation plans, with the exception of flagged existing vegetation to remain. In areas of existing vegetation, contractor shall remove blackberry and other invasive species by hand, with minimal disturbance to the existing vegetation. All roots shall be removed to the maximum extent practicable. Cleared and grubbed vegetation shall be exported from the site. Invasive/exotic plant species to be removed and treated in the mitigation area(s) include, but are not limited to: Scot’s broom, English ivy, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed (morning glory), Japanese knotweed, thistle, and creeping nightshade. For reed canarygrass, roots shall be removed down to a minimum depth of 12 inches. 3.6.2. The project biologist or ecologist shall designate any additional plan species to be removed prior to construction. 3.7. Survey/Stake/Flag Proposed Grades: A licensed surveyor shall survey, stake, and flag proposed grades within the mitigation area(s). Grades shall be staked and flagged at 25’ intervals and at all high and low points. The project biologist or ecologist shall approve grade staking prior to excavation and shall monitor during construction. 3.8. Stockpile Topsoil 3.8.1. Contractor shall salvage and stockpile topsoil at appropriate locations adjacent to mitigation areas. 3.8.2. If topsoil contains debris, or is determined unsuitable by the project biologist or ecologist, contractor shall dispose of material off-site and import suitable material. 3.9. Excavate Mitigation Areas 3.9.1. Contractor shall excavate graded areas per grading plan without removing grade stakes. The project biologist or ecologist to make minor field adjustments to grading plan, as necessary, to ensure proper function of the mitigation area(s). 3.9.2. In the mitigation area(s), over-excavate nine (9) inches below finished grades shown on plans to allow for placement of nine (9) inches of stockpiled or imported topsoil. Excavated soils shall be used on-site, if possible, otherwise they shall be exported off-site. 3.9.3. Fill soils proposed for use within the mitigation area(s) shall be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for analysis and approval prior to use, and shall meet all applicable specifications for fill soils per the project geotechnical engineer. In areas of fill placement, contractor shall compact soil in lifts according to geotechnical engineer specifications. Geotechnical engineer shall approve all areas of fill placement to ensure adequacy of compaction. Contractor shall be notified by the general contractor as to who the geotechnical engineer will be. 3.9.4. Upon completion of excavation, the project biologist or ecologist shall review and approve subgrade in relation to original grade stakes. If grade stakes are removed prior to approve by the project biologist or ecologist, as as-built survey will be required. The as-built survey, by a licensed surveyor, will include one-foot contour intervals with spot elevations of high and low points, and pond surface elevations. 3.9.5. After subgrade approval, the contractor shall remove grade stakes and proceed with topsoil and habitat feature placement. 3.10. Place Fish Mix in Primary Channel: 3.10.1. Contractor shall place rock mix in channel including within box culvert, per stream profiles on mitigation plans. Project biologist or ecologist shall approve rock mix placement. 3.11. Place Topsoil: See Planting Specifications 3.11.1. In all graded project areas, nine (9) inches of stockpiled or imported topsoil shall be placed over subgrade. NOTE: Prior to placing topsoil, subgrade shall be decompacted or scarified to a minimum depth of six (6) inches if subsoil is excessively compacted and unsuitable for plant growth. 3.12. Place Habitat Features: Place habitat features upon completion of topsoil placement, as depicted on the mitigation plans and details. The project biologist or ecologist shall approve locations prior to placement. 3.12.1. Down logs: To cut/break down logs, first score the log at the desired length by mechanical means, then snap the log at the scored location to create a natural look to the break. Twist broken ends to disguise saw cuts. Habitat features that have been cut shall have no blunt ends. 3.13. Mulch Graded Buffers: The project biologist or ecologist shall be provided a mulch sample prior to delivery to site. No buffer areas shall be seeded unless specified in the mitigation plan. 3.13.1. Contactor shall spread mulch over all graded buffer areas to achieve a uniform depth of three (3) inches. NOTE: 3-inch depth is the minimum after settling. If mulch is installed by blower truck it shall be installed at a 4-inch depth to ensure a minimum 3-inch depth after settling. 3.14. Grading Inspections: Prior to plant installation the project biologist or ecologist shall approve all grading work, and all structure and habitat feature placement. If items are to be corrected, a punch list shall be prepared by the project biologist or ecologist and submitted to the contractor for completion. After punch list items have been completed, the project biologist or ecologist shall review the project for final internal acceptance of grading plan implementation, and planting may then proceed. 3.15. Soils Stabilization: If there is a delay in construction for any reason, contractor shall be responsible for maintenance of erosion control measures, drainage, and temporary irrigation during construction delay period, unless otherwise stated in writing. 3.16. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Approval of New Stream Corridor: 3.16.1. The area habitat biologist shall be contacted within seven (7) days of the completion of the new channel to arrange for compliance inspection. Upon review and approval, project biologist or ecologist will notify the (City) of said approval from WDFW. 3.16.2. Stream diversion shall be removed only after inspection and approval of new channel by the area habitat biologist per the HPA requirements. Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonPLANT SCHEDULE & DETAILSREVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W3.0 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/2023NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019. LEGEND Project Site Post Construction Critical Areas Buffer Wetlands (Post Construction) Inadequately Buffered Wetlands (45' Setback) Direct Wetland Impacts Stream OHWM ,,,Stream Centerline Buffer Replacements Buffer Re-Establishment Buffer Restoration Upland Restoration & Buffer Replacements Stream Buffer Enhancement Stream Channel Restoration FENCING PLAN INSET MAP SCALE: 1" = 400',,,,,VIEWPORT 1 VIEWPORT 2 VIEWPORT 1 - PLANTING AREA (NORTH) Scale: 1" = 100" Trail #1 (5,831 sf) Trail #2 (1,661 sf) Upland #1 (271 sf) Upland #2 (109 sf) Upland #3 (64 sf) Upland #4 (91 sf)Trail #3 (2,352 sf) Re-establishment #1 (4,754 sf),,,,,,,,,,,VIEWPORT 2 - PLANTING AREA (SOUTH) Scale: 1" = 100" Trail #4 (600 sf) Trail #5 (893 sf) Enhancement #1 (6,610 sf) Enhancement #2 (9,167 sf) Trail #1 Trail #2 Trail #3 Trail #4 Trail #5 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf maple FACU 12 9 5 2 2 10'OC 2 - 3' 2 gal, full & bushy Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir FACU 24 9 10 2 4 10'OC 2 - 3' 2 gal, full & bushy Tsuga heterophylla Western hemlock FACU 24 10 2 4 10'OC 2 - 3' 2 gal, full & bushy Corylus cornuta Beaked hazelnut FACU 15 4 6 2 2 9'OC 1 gal Full & bushy Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray FACU 15 4 6 2 2 9'OC 1 gal Full & bushy Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry FACU 10 2 2 1 1 9'OC 1 gal Full & bushy Symphoricarpos albus Common snowberry FACU 50 15 20 6 5 6'OC 1 gal Multi-cane (3 min) Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry FACU 30 10 15 3 3 6'OC 1 gal Multi-cane (3 min) 180 53 74 20 23 PLANT SCHEDULE NOTES TREES SMALL TREES/LARGE SHRUBS SHRUBS TOTAL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME WIS QUANTITY SPACING SIZE (MIN) Upland #1 Upland #2 Upland #3 Upland #4 Re-establishment #1 Enhancement #1 Enhancement #2 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf maple FACU 1 10 15 10'OC 2 - 3' 2 gal, full & bushy Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir FACU 1 1 1 1 20 25 46 10'OC 2 - 3' 2 gal, full & bushy Tsuga heterophylla Western hemlock FACU 1 20 30 46 10'OC 2 - 3' 2 gal, full & bushy Corylus cornuta Beaked hazelnut FACU 1 1 1 1 12 16 22 9'OC 1 gal Full & bushy Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray FACU 1 12 16 22 9'OC 1 gal Full & bushy Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry FACU 6 8 11 9'OC 1 gal Full & bushy Symphoricarpos albus Common snowberry FACU 2 1 1 1 40 55 80 6'OC 1 gal Multi-cane (3 min) Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry FACU 2 1 30 40 50 6'OC 1 gal Multi-cane (3 min) 9 4 3 3 150 205 277 NOTES TREES SMALL TREES/LARGE SHRUBS SHRUBS TOTAL QUANTITYSCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME WIS SPACING SIZE (MIN) Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonPLANT SPECIFICATIONSREVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W3.1 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/2023NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019. PLANT SPECIFICATIONS 1. GENERAL 1.1. Sequencing 1.1.1. General Construction 1.1.1.1. Contractor shall give the project biologist or ecologist a minimum of ten (10) days notice prior to beginning of construction. 1.1.1.2. No construction work shall commence until there is a meeting between the client, the project biologist or ecologist, general, clearing, and/or earthwork contractors, and the landscape contractor. The approved plans and specifications shall be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved understand the intent and the specific details related to the construction documents, specifications, and site constraints. 1.1.1.3. Locations of existing utilities have been established by field survey or obtained from available records and should be considered approximate only and not necessarily complete. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to: (1) independently verify the accuracy of utility locations and (2) discover and avoid any utilities within the mitigation plan area(s) that are not shown, but which may be affected by implementation of the plan. Such area(s) are to be clearly marked in the field. The project biologist or ecologist shall review any conflicts with the approved grading plan prior to start of construction. 1.1.1.4. A copy of the approved plans must be on-site whenever construction is in progress, and shall remain on-site until project completion. 1.1.1.5. Construction must be performed in accordance with all agency standards, rules, codes, permit conditions, and/or other applicable ordinances and policies. 1.1.1.6. The project owner/applicant is responsible for obtaining any other related or required permits prior to the start of construction. 1.1.1.7. A qualified wetland consultant shall be on-site, as necessary, to monitor construction and approve minor revisions to the plan, to be included in as-built drawings. 1.1.1.8. During construction, the contractor must use materials and construction methods that prevent toxic substances and other pollutants from entering mitigation areas or other natural waters of the state. 1.1.1.9. Preventative measures shall be used to protect existing storm drainage systems, existing utilities, and roads. 1.1.1.10. The contractor shall provide sediment and erosion controls around the project area prior to soil disturbance from construction activity. 1.1.2. Mitigation Construction: The following provides the general sequence of activities anticipated to be necessary to complete this mitigation project. Some of these activities may be conducted concurrently as the project progresses. 1.1.2.1. Conduct a site meeting between the contractor, the project biologist or ecologist, and the owner’s representative to review the project plans, work areas, staging/stockpile areas, material disposal areas, and existing vegetation to be retained. 1.1.2.2. Plant trees and shrubs as indicated on mitigation plans. 1.1.2.3. Mulch plants installed in non-graded buffer areas. 1.1.2.4. Install temporary irrigation system and program for 0.5-inches of water every 3 days. 1.1.2.5. Install fencing and critical area protection signs. 1.2. Submittals 1.2.1. Product Data: Furnish the following with each plant material delivery: 1.2.1.1. Invoices indicating sizes and variety of plant material. 1.2.1.2. Certificates of inspection required by state and federal agencies. 1.2.2. Quality Control Submittals. Prior to delivery of materials, certificates of compliance attesting that materials meet the specified requirements shall be furnished for the following: plants, topsoil, fertilizer, and organic mulch. Certified copes of the material certificates shall include the following: 1.2.2.1. Plant materials: botanical name, common name, size, quantity by species, and location where grown. 1.2.2.2. Imported topsoil: particle size, pH, organic matter content, textural class, soluble salts, chemical and mechanical analyses. 1.2.2.3. Fertilizer: chemical analysis and percent composition. 1.2.2.4. Imported mulch: composition and source. 1.3. References 1.3.1. Size and Grading Standards: Shall conform to the current edition of the American Standard for Nursery Stock, published by the American Nursery and Landscape Association. 1.4. Quality Assurance 1.4.1. Worker’s Qualifications: The persons performing the planting and their supervisor(s) shall be personally experiences with planting and caring for plant material, and shall have been regularly employed by a company engaged in planting and caring for plant material for a minimum of 2 years. 1.4.2. Plant Material: All plant materials shall be locally grown for regionally acclimatized to the Pacific Northwest. 1.5. Delivery, Inspection, Storage and Handling 1.5.1. Delivery: A delivery schedule shall be provided at least 10 calendar days prior to the first day of delivery. Plant materials shall be delivered to the job site not more than 7 working days prior to their respective planting dates. 1.5.2. Protection during Delivery: Plant material shall be protected during delivery to prevent desiccation and damage to the branches, trunk, root system, or earth ball. Branches shall be protected by tying-in. Exposed branches shall be covered during transport. 1.5.3. Fertilizer: Fertilizer shall be delivered in manufacturer’s standard sized bags showing weight, analysis, and manufacturer’s name. Store under a waterproof cover or in a dry place as designed by the owner’s representative. 1.5.4. Inspection: All plant materials shall be inspected upon arrival at the job site by the owner’s representative for conformity to type and quantity with regard to their respective specifications. 1.5.5. Mulch: A mulch sample shall be inspected by the project biologist or ecologist prior to the mulch being delivered to the site. 1.5.6. Storage: 1.5.6.1. Plant material not installed on the day of arrival at the site shall be stored and protected in designated areas. Plants stored on the project site shall be protected from extreme weather conditions by insulating the roots, root balls or contains with sawdust, soil, compost, bark or woodchips. Plant material shall be protected from direct exposure to wind and sun. Bare-root plant material shall be heeled-in. Cuttings and emergent plants must be protected from drying at all times and shall be heeled-in with moist soil or other insulating material. All plant material stored on-site shall be watered daily until installed. 1.5.6.2. Storage of other materials shall be in designated areas. 1.6. Scheduling 1.6.1. Planting Season: Install woody plants between October 1 and February 15 whenever the temperature is above 32 degrees F and the soil is in a workable condition, unless otherwise approved in writing. Cuttings shall only be used if planting occurs between December 1st and April 1st. 1.6.2. Plant Installation: Except for container-grown plant material, the maximum time between the digging and installation of plant material shall be 21 days. The maximum time between plant installation and mulch placement shall be 72 hours. 1.7. Warranty 1.7.1. Warranty Period: A contractor-provided warranty shall extend for a period of one year from the date of physical completion. Physical completion for the work of this section is the date when all grading, planting, irrigation, and related phases of such work have been completed and are accepted by the owner’s representative, the project biologist or ecologist, and applicable agencies. 1.7.2. Warranty Terms: Contactor’s warranty shall include replacement of plants due to mortality (same size and species shown on the drawings). Plants replaced under this warranty shall be warranted for an additional year after replacement. 1.7.3. Exceptions: Loss due to excessively severe climatological conditions (substantiated by 10-year recorded weather charts), or cases of neglect by owner, or cases of abuse/damage by others. 2. PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS 2.1. Plants 2.1.1. General: All plant material will conform to the varieties specified or shown in the plant list(s) indicated on the mitigation plants and be true to botanical name as listed in: Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 2.1.2. Shrubs and Trees: 2.1.2.1. The project biologist or ecologist shall examine plant material prior to planting. Any material not meeting the required specifications shall be immediately removed from the site and replaced with like material that meets the required standards. Plant material shall meet the requirements of state and federal laws with respect to plant disease and infestations. Inspection certificates, required by law, shall accompany each and every shipment and shall be submitted to the project biologist or ecologist upon contractor’s receipt of plant material. 2.1.2.2. Plant materials shall be locally grown (western Washington, western Oregon, or western BC), healthy, bushy, in vigorous growing condition, and guaranteed to be true to size, name, and variety. If replacement of plant material is necessary due to construction damage or plant failure within one year of installation, the sizes, species, and quantities shall be equal to specified plants, as indicated on the plans. 2.1.2.3. Plants shall be nursery grown, well-rooted, or normal growth and character, and free from disease or infestation. The project biologist or ecologist reserves the right to require replacement of substitution of any plants deemed unsuitable. 2.1.2.4. Trees shall have uniform branching, single straight trunks (unless specified as multi-stem, multi-cane, or multi-trunk), and an intact and undamaged central leader. Container stock shall have been grown in a container for at least one full growing season and shall have a well developed root system. Plant material that is root-bound or has damaged root zones or broken root balls will not be accepted. 2.1.2.5. Coniferous trees shall be nursery grown, full and busy, with uniform branching and a natural non- sheared form. Original central leader must be healthy and undamaged. Maximum gap between branching shall not exceed 9 inches, and length of top leader shall not exceed 12 inches. 2.1.2.6. Shrubs shall have a minimum of three stems and shall be a minimum height of 18 inches. 2.1.2.7. Trees and shrubs shall have developed root and branch systems. Do not prune branches before delivery. 2.1.2.8. Native plant cuttings shall be grown and collected in the maritime Pacific Northwest. Cuttings shall be of one to two-year-old wood, ½ inch diameter minimum. Cuttings shall be a minimum of 4 feet in length with 4 lateral buds exposed above ground after planting. The top of each cutting shall be a minimum of 1 inch above a leaf bud, the bottom cut 2 inches below a bud. The basal ends of the cuttings shall be cut at a 45 degree angle and marked clearly so that the rooting end is planted in the soil. Cuttings must be kept covered and moist during storage and transport, and no cutting shall be stored more than three days from date of cutting. Cuttings shall only be used if planting occurs between December 1st and April 1st. For planting between April 1st and December 1st, container plants shall be used. 2.1.2.9. Plants shall be free of splits and checks, bark abrasions, and disfiguring knots. 2.1.2.10. For deciduous plants, buds shall be intact and reasonably closed at time of planting, if dormant. 2.1.2.11. Plants shall conform to sizes indicated on the plant schedule. Plants may be larger than the minimum sizes specified. 2.1.3. Noxious Species: All plant stock and other re-vegetation materials shall be free from the seed or other plant components of any noxious or invasive species, as identified by the King County Noxious Weed Control Board. 2.1.4. Substitutions: Substitutions will not be permitted without a written request and approval from the owner’s representative, the project biologist or ecologist, and applicable agencies. 2.2. Planting Soil 2.2.1. Topsoil: If suitable stockpiled native topsoil is not available for mitigation plantings, topsoil shall be obtained from outside sources. Stockpiled or imported topsoil shall be fertile, friable, sandy loam surface soil, free of subsoil, clay lumps, brush, weeds, roots, stumps, stones larger than 1 inch in any direction, litter, or anyother extraneous or toxic matter harmful to plant growth. 2.2.2. Organic Content: Imported topsoil shall consist of organic materials amended as necessary to produce a bulk organic content of at least 10 percent and not greater than 20 percent, as determined by AASHTO-T-194. 2.2.3. Compost: Compost shall meet the definition for composted materials as defined by the Washington State Department of Ecology. 2.2.4. Soil Amendments (Buffer Areas Only): 2.2.4.1. Fertilizer: Woody plantings shall be fertilized with a slow-release general granular fertilizer (16-16-16), with application rates as specified by manufacturer. Fertilizer shall be applied after planting pit is backfilled, and prior to application of mulch. Fertilizer shall not be applied between November and March. No fertilizer shall be applied within wetland areas. 2.2.4.2. Soil Moisture Retention Agent: A soil moisture retention agent, such as “SoilMoist” or equal, shall be incorporated into the backfill of each planting pit, per manufacturer’s instructions. No moisture retention agent shall be applied within wetland areas. 2.3. Mulch 2.3.1. Bark or woodchip mulch shall derived from Douglas fir, pine, or hemlock species. The mulch shall not contain resin, tannin, or other compounds in quantities that would be detrimental to animal, plant life, or water quality. Sawdust shall not be as mulch. 2.3.2. Mulch shall be medium-coarse ground with an approximately 3-inch minus particle size. Fine particles shall be minimized so that not more than 30 percent, by loose volume, will pass through a US No. 4 sieve. 2.4. Miscellaneous Materials 2.4.1. Stakes, Deadmen and Guy Stakes: Sound, durable, western red cedar, or other approved wood, free of insect or fungus infestation. 2.4.2. Chain-lock tree tires: ½-inches wide, plastic. 3. EXECUTION 3.1. Soil Preparation 3.1.1. Planting Area Conditions: Contractor shall verify that plant installation conditions are suitable within the project area(s). Any unsatisfactory conditions shall be corrected prior to start of work. When conditions detrimental to plant growth are encountered, such as rubble fill, poor drainage, compacted soils, significant existing or invasive vegetation, or other obstructions, contractor shall notify the project biologist or ecologist prior to planting. The beginning of work by the contractor constitutes acceptance of conditions as satisfactory. 3.1.2. Planting in Undisturbed, Non-Graded Areas: Plants installed in undisturbed areas shall be integrated with existing native vegetation and planted in a random, naturalistic pattern. Prior to installation of plantings, all construction debris, trash, and non-native invasive plant material shall be removed from the project area. In non-graded areas, trees and shrubs shall be pit planted as shown in typical planting details. Planting pits shall be backfilled with a 50/50 mixture of imported, weed-free topsoil and the soil from the planting pit. 3.1.3. Planting in Graded Areas: In graded planting areas, plants shall be installed in newly placed topsoil. 3.1.4. Soil Decompaction/Scarification: Soils in graded/disturbed areas that are compacted and unsuitable for proper plant growth shall be decompacted and/or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches prior to topsoil installation. 3.2. Planting 3.2.1. Plant Layout: Proposed locations of trees and shrubs shall be staked and identified within an approved coding system or by placement of the actual plant material. For large groupings of a single species of shrub, landscape contractor may stake the planting boundaries. 3.2.2. Obtain layout approved from the project biologist or ecologist prior to excavation of planting pits. 3.2.3. Plant Pit Dimensions: 3.2.3.1. Pit Depth: Not to exceed the root ball or container depth. 3.2.3.2. Pit Width: Measured at the ground surface, 2 times the width of the root ball or container, as indicated in typical planting details. For bare-root plants, diameter equal to the width of the root spread. 3.2.4. Setting Plants: 3.2.4.1. Shrub/Tree Planting: Shrub and tree stock shall be planted in hand-dug holes according to planting details shown on the mitigation plans. Shrub and tree root balls shall be set so that roots collars are 1 inch above adjacent grade. All backfill shall be gently tamped in place. 3.2.4.2. Surface Finish: Form a saucer as indicated on typical planting details, or as directed. Grade soil to form a basin on the lower side of slope plantings to catch and retain water. 3.2.4.3. In forested areas, contractor shall loosely tie a 2 foot piece of biodegradable flagging to the top portion of all planted vegetation, but not on a central leader, to facilitate post-construction performance and maintenance review by the project biologist or ecologist and regulatory agencies. 3.2.4.4. Actual plant symbol quantities shown on the plants shall prevail over quantities shown on the plant schedule in the event of a discrepancy. 3.2.5. Mulching: 3.2.5.1. Graded Buffer Areas: Are mulched prior to plant installation as directed in the grading specifications. 3.2.5.2. Non-Graded Buffer Areas: Provide a 36-inch diameter, 3-inch deep mulch ring around the base of each tree, and a 24-inch diameter, 3-inch deep mulch ring around the base of each shrub. 3.2.5.3. Water plants thoroughly after mulching. 3.2.6. Pruning: Prune immediately after planting only as directed by the project biologist or ecologist. 3.2.7. Tree Stakes and Ties: Stake deciduous and evergreen trees 4 feet or over in height with one (1) stake per tree. Stake trees immediately after planting. Place stake at the outer edge of the roots or ball, in line with the prevailing wind, and at a 10 degree angle from the tree trunk. Loosely attach stake to tree using chain-lock ties; tree should be able to sway. 3.2.8. Installing Temporary Irrigation 3.2.8.1. General Requirements: Contactor shall provide an above-ground temporary irrigation system capable of full head-to-head coverage of all planted project areas. The temporary irrigation system shall either utilize controller and point of connection (POC) from the site irrigation system or shall include a separate POC and controller with a backflow prevention device per water jurisdiction inspection and approval. The system shall be zoned to provide optimal pressure and uniformity of coverage, as well as separation between areas of full sun and shade and for slopes in excess of 5 percent. The system shall be operation for a minimum of the first two growing seasons after planting (the first two years of the performance monitoring period), or longer if required to ensure proper plant establishment. The system shall be removed upon final approval of the mitigation project at the end of the performance monitoring period. 3.2.8.2. System Design and Materials: Electronic valves shall be the same manufacturer as those used for the site irrigation system, or shall be Rain Bird PEB series or equal if system is not contiguous with the site system. Valves shall be sized to accommodate pressure and zone consumption requirements of the system and shall be installed below grade in Carson (or equal) valve boxes. Wiring shall be insulated multi-strand, taped to the main at 6-inch intervals with duct tape wraps. On-grade main and lateral lines shall be Class 200 PVC Bell Pipe with solvent welded fittings, secured in-place with wire staples where necessary on sloped areas. Lines shall be placed 12 inches below grade in 4 inch PVC sleeves where vehicular or maintenance access is needed across lies to the project area(s). Maximum main line size shall be 1 ½ inches and may be looped back to the POC to reduce pressure loss. Lateral lines shall be sized in decreasing downstream order per Rain Bird design standards; the minimum lateral size shall be ¾ inch. Heads shall be rotor or impact type installed 4 feet above finished grade on 2-inch diameter wood tree stakes. Stakes shall be secure in the ground, embedded to a minimum depth of 24 inches. Heads and ¾ PVC risers shall be secured to stakes with constricting hose clamps; no funny pipe shall be used. Heads and nozzles shall provide matched precipitation rates for each zone. 3.2.8.3. Programming: Irrigation system shall be programmed to provide approximately ½ inch of water every three days during the dry season (approximately June 15th to October 15th). Irrigation amounts in zones located in the shade or on steep slopes may be reduced if approved by the project biologist or ecologist. 3.2.8.4. Water and Power Supple for System: The owner shall provide water and electricity for the system. 3.2.8.5. As-Built Drawing: A chart describing the location of all installed or open zones and corresponding controller numbers shall be provided by the contractor and placed inside the controller and given to the owner’s representative. 3.2.8.6. Warranty: The irrigation system shall include a one-year warranty against defects in materials and workmanship from the date of final project acceptance. The warranty shall include system activation and winterization for the first year and immediate repair of the system if it is observed to be malfunctioning. 3.2.9. Critical Areas Fence and Signs: Install critical areas fence and critical areas signs where shown on plans. 3.2.10. Restore Existing Natural or Landscaped Areas: 3.2.10.1. Existing natural or landscapes areas that are damaged during construction shall be restored to their original condition, unless improvements or modifications are specified for those areas. 3.2.10.2. Contractor shall exercise care to prevent injury to the trunk, roots, or branches of any trees or shrubs that are to remain. Any living woody plant that is damaged during construction shall be treated within 24 hours of occurrence, and the project biologist or ecologist shall be notified immediately of the incident. Damage treatment shall include evenly cutting broken branches, broken roots, and damaged tree bark. Injured plants shall be thoroughly watered and additional measures shall be taken, as appropriate, to aid in plant survival. 3.2.11. Final Inspection and Approval: The contractor shall notify the project biologist or ecologist in writing at least ten days prior to the requested date pf a project completion inspection. If items are to be corrected, a punch list shall be prepared by the project biologist or ecologist and submitted to the contractor for completion. After punch list items have been completed, the project biologist or ecologist shall review the project again for final acceptance of plan implementation. If punch list items require plant replacement, and the inspection occurs outside of a suitable planting season, plants shall be replaced during the next planting season. 3.2.12. As-Built Plan: Contractor is responsible for verifying plant locations and quantities on the plant schedule with those represented as symbols on the mitigation plans. Contractor shall keep a complete set of prints at the job site during construction for the purpose of recording in-the-field changes or modifications to the approved plans. This information shall be updated on a daily basis as necessary. 4. ONE YEAR CONTRACTOR WARRANTY NOTE: These maintenance specifications apply to the one-year contractor warranty period only. If this mitigation project requires long-term performance monitoring, as determined by the governing jurisdiction, the maintenance specifications and guidelines associated with the performance monitoring standards are included in the mitigation report associated with this plan set, and may also be included on a separate plan sheet if required. 4.1. Review of Maintenance Requirements: Contractor shall review landscape maintenance recommendations with a qualified biologist or ecologist who is familiar with the stated goals and objectives of the project plan. 4.2. Maintenance Activities: Contractor shall maintain trees and shrubs for a period of one year from the date of final acceptance in order to maintain healthy growth and habitat diversity. Maintenance activities shall include, but are not limited to: 4.2.1. Replacing plants due to mortality. 4.2.2. Tightening and repairing tree stakes. 4.2.3. Resettling plants to proper grades and upright positions. 4.2.4. Correcting drainage problems as required. 4.3. Irrigation: 4.3.1. System Maintenance and Repair: The contractor shall be responsible for activating, winterizing, maintaining, and continually verifying the adequate operation of the temporary irrigation system for the first growing season following installation. System function (including electronic valve and controller function) shall be inspected for operation and full coverage of all planted areas during each maintenance visit. The system shall be repaired immediately if found to be damaged for malfunctioning. System shall be programmed and maintained to provide approximately ½ inch of water every three days. 4.4. Stake and Tie Removal: Contractor shall remove tree stakes and ties one year after installation, unless receiving written permission from the project biologist or ecologist to delay removal of stakes and ties. 4.5. Erosion and Drainage: Contractor shall correct erosion and drainage problems as required. 4.6. Irrigation System Removal: Contractor shall remove irrigation system approximately 2 years after planting, or as approved by the project biologist or ecologist. 4.7. Final Maintenance Inspection and Approval: Upon completion of the one-year maintenance period, an inspection by the project biologist or ecologist shall be conducted to confirm that the project area was properly maintained. If items are to be corrected, a punch list shall be prepared and submitted to the contractor for correction. Upon correction of the punch list items, the project shall be reviewed by the project biologist or ecologist for final closeout of plan implementation. Critical Areas Mitigation PlanWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonPERFORMANCE MONITORING PLANREVISIONS DATE/DESCRIPTION (206) 309 - 8100W4.0 JOB NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: #0012B JMM KAN JMM 02/12/2023NOTES 1. Survey and site plan provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, 33400 8th Ave S, Suite 205, Federal Way, WA 98003, (253) 838 - 6113. 2. Source drawing was modified by Wet.land for visual enhancements. 3. This Critical Areas Mitigation Plan is an attachment to the Critical Areas Addendum prepared by Wet.land dated 12 February 2023. 4. City of Federal Way requirements are vested to standards in effect prior to Ordinance 19-863, passed 2 January 2019. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN See Chapter 4.1 of Critical Areas Addendum by Wet.land, LLC. 4.1.5 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards The primary goal of the mitigation is to compensate for impacts to buffers and restore the temporarily impacted buffers. To accomplish these goals, the proposed project will: • Wetland Buffer Replacement 61,354 square feet • Wetland Buffer Re-Establishment 4,754 square feet • Wetland and Stream Buffer Restoration 27,649 square feet Mitigation actions will be evaluated through the following objectives and performance standards. See below for a full description of the monitoring methods that will be used to evaluate the approved performance standards. Mitigation monitoring will be performed by a qualified biologist. Objective A: Create structural and plant species diversity in all of the mitigation areas. Performance Standard A1: Percent survival of all installed species must be at least 100% at the end of Year 1 (per contactor warranty), and at least 80% at the end of Years 2 and 3. Performance Standard A2: At least 8 species of desirable native plant species will be present in the buffer restoration and enhancement areas. Species may be comprised of both planted and naturally colonized vegetation. Performance Standard A3: Native woody species (planted or volunteer) will achieve an average stem density of at least 3 stems per 100 square feet by the end of Year 1 and an average of at least 4 stems per 100 square feet by the end of Year 3. Total percent areal woody plant coverage must be at least 35% by the end of Year 4 and 50% by the end of Year 5. Objective B: Create 26 linear feet of functional stream channel for Stream AC. Performance Standard B1: Stream banks will be monitored annually for bed and bank stability to ensure no major erosion events have occurred beyond what would be considered normal for a stream of this size. Objective C: Remove and control invasive plants to less than 10% cover in mitigation areas. Performance Standard C1: After construction and throughout the 5-year monitoring period, arial coverage by non-native invasive plant species shall be maintained at 10% or less throughout the mitigation site. These species include, but are not limited to: non-native invasive knotweed species (such as Polygonum cuspidatum, P. polystachyum, P. sachalinense, and P. bohemicum), Scot’s broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed, and bittersweet nightshade. 4.2 Mitigation Construction Sequencing The following provides the general sequence of activities anticipated to construct this mitigation project. Some of these activities may be conducted concurrently as the project progresses. 1. Conduct a site meeting between the Contractor, project Biologist or Ecologist, and the Owner's Representative to review the project plans, staging/stockpile areas, and material disposal areas. 2. A pre-construction meeting with City staff will be required in advance of beginning any construction activities. 3. Survey clearing limits. 4. The project Biologist or Ecologist shall review clearing limits and shall flag trees and other existing vegetation to remain within the work area. They shall also flag any woody material to be saved and stockpiled for later use as habitat features (stumps, snags, down logs). 5. Install silt fence and any other erosion and sedimentation control BMPs necessary for work in the project areas. 6. Stream AC Culvert Removal/Restoration: a. Culvert removal will only be done in the summer months. b. Install fish exclusion devices in Stream AC at either end of the in-stream work area, if needed, pending presence of water (which may run dry in the summer months). c. Install dam at upstream end of culvert work area. d. Install dam at downstream end of culvert work area. e. Divert stream flows around the culvert work area. f. Use seine nets to capture and remove fish from the Project Area, if water is present. g. Dewater culvert work area. h. Remove culvert. i. Regrade new stream channel to match up and downstream elevations and cross section/profile. j. Install coir fabric in new stream channel to cover disturbed soils. k. Place stream aggregate in new channel per WDFW guidance and specifications. l. Plant per the planting typicals/plans. m. Slowly reintroduce water into the new stream channel until water level within the new channel is roughly equal to the water levels immediately downstream of the Project Area. If no water in stream, then skip to next step. n. Remove the lower dam. o. Remove the upper dam. p. Remove the stream diversion system. q. Remove fish exclusion devices. 7. Clear and grub designated buffers to remove any existing structures and infrastructure. 8. Ensure a minimum of 12” of suitable soil is present within all enhancement and restoration areas. 9. Plant cleared and grubbed areas per the planting typicals/plans. 10. Mulch all grubbed and cleared areas and provide a 3-inch-deep mulch ring around all container-planted material. 11. Complete site cleanup. 4.3 Post-Construction Approval Once construction is approved, a qualified wetland ecologist shall conduct a post-construction assessment. The purpose of this assessment will be to establish baseline conditions at Year 0 of the required monitoring period. A Baseline Assessment report including “as-built” drawings will be submitted to all of the required agencies. The as- built plan set will identify and describe any changes in grading, planting, or other constructed features in relation to the original approved plan. 4.4 Post-Construction Assessment The Permittee or representative shall notify the permitting agencies (County) when the mitigation plan has been fully installed and is ready for a final site inspection and subsequent final approval. Once final approval is obtained in writing, and “as-built” plans are approved, the monitoring period will begin. 4.5 Monitoring Plan Performance monitoring of the mitigation areas will be conducted according to all applicable code/regulatory requirements and permit conditions. Monitoring will be conducted according to FWRC 19.145.430.7 for a minimum of five (5) years for the City and 10 years for the USACE. Monitoring will be conducted according to the schedule presented in Table 3 below, and will be performed by a qualified biologist or ecologist. The performance monitoring period will be complete when the mitigation site meets all performance standards, at which point one can conclude that the goals and objectives for the mitigation site have been met. Table 3. Projected Schedule for Performance Monitoring & Maintenance Events Year Date Maintenance Review Performance Monitoring Report Due to Agencies Year 0 As-built and Baseline Assessment Fall X X X 1 Spring X X Fall X X X 2 Spring X X Fall X X X 3 Spring X Fall X X X 4 Spring X Fall X X X 5 Spring X Fall X X X* 6 Spring X Fall 7 Spring X Fall X X* 8 Spring X Fall 9 Spring X Fall 10 Spring X Fall X X X**  *Final approvals from the City may be requested to facilitate release of any financial guarantees assuming performance criteria are met.  *Final approvals from the City may be requested to facilitate release of any financial guarantees assuming performance criteria are met. **Final approval from the USACE may be requested assuming performance criteria are met. 4.6 Monitoring Reports Each monitoring report will adhere to the requirements of FWRC 19.145.140. The reports will include: 1) Project Overview, 2) Requirements, 3) Summary Data, 4) Maps and Plans, and 5) Conclusions. Monitoring reports will be submitted to the City Planning Director by December 1st during the years in which monitoring is conducted. 4.6.1 Monitoring Methods The following monitoring methods will be used to evaluate the mitigation site for compliance with the approved performance standards. 4.6.2 Vegetation Monitoring Vegetation monitoring methods may include counts; photo-points; random sampling; sampling plots, quadrats, or transects; stem density; visual inspection; and/or other methods deemed appropriate by the permitting agencies. Vegetation monitoring components shall include general appearance, health, mortality, colonization rates, percent cover, percent survival, volunteer plant species, and invasive weed cover. Permanent vegetation sampling plots, quadrats, and/or transects will be established at selected locations to adequately sample and represent all of the plant communities within the mitigation project areas. The number, exact size, and location of transects, sampling plots, and quadrats will be determined at the time of the baseline assessment and shown on a map for use in the baseline assessment report, as well as future annual monitoring reports. Percent aerial cover of woody vegetation will be evaluated through the use of point-intercept sampling methodology. Using this methodology, a tape will be extended between two permanent markers at each end of an established transect. Trees and shrubs intercepted by the tape will be identified, and the intercept distance recorded. Percent cover by species will then be calculated by adding the intercept distances and expressing them as a total proportion of the tape length. The established vegetation sampling locations will be monitored and compared to the baseline data during each performance monitoring event to aid in determining the success of plant establishment. Percent survival of shrubs and trees will be evaluated in a 10-foot-wide strip along each established transect. The species and location of all shrubs and trees within this area will be recorded at the time of the baseline assessment and wil l be evaluated during each monitoring event to determine percent survival. 4.6.3 Photo Documentation Permanent photo stations will be established at a minimum of three (3) locations within the mitigation site from which panoramic photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. Photo-point locations will be shown on a map and submitted with the baseline assessment report and yearly performance monitoring reports. These photographs will document general appearance and relative changes within the plant community. Review of the photos over time will provide a semi-quantitative representation of success of the planting plan. 4.6.4 Wildlife Direct and indirect observations of wildlife usage will be recorded during scheduled monitoring events. Direct observations entail actual sightings of the animal, while indirect observations include noticing tracks, scat, nests, or other indications of a species using the area. 4.6.5 Water Quality Water quality will be visually observed during scheduled monitoring events for a qualitative assessment that is only intended to notice obvious discrepancies from expected conditions. No water quality sampling is proposed in conjunction with this parameter. Qualitative water quality assessment parameters include oil sheens (or other surface films); abnormal color or odor of water; stressed or dead vegetation or aquatic fauna, if present; or obvious turbidity. 4.6.6 Site Stability General observations of slope stability in the mitigation site will be made during each scheduled monitoring event. Any observations of unexpected erosion will be recorded and discussed with appropriate Team members or Agency staff to determine any necessary corrective measures. 4.7 Maintenance Plan and Contingency Measures Regular maintenance reviews will be performed according to schedule presented in Table 3 as part of the performance monitoring program to address any conditions that could jeopardize the success of the mitigation project. Required maintenance on the site will be implemented within ten (10) business days of submission of a maintenance memo to the maintenance contractor and permittee. The established performance standards identified in Section 7.5 (above) will be compared to the yearly monitoring results to evaluate the success of the mitigation. Adjustments to the mitigation will be made as needed based on these regular evaluations to bring the mitigation back on track for success. The following list includes examples of maintenance (M) actions that may be implemented during the course of the monitoring period. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and other actions may be implemented as deemed necessary. • Replace all dead woody plant material during Year One (M). • Remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants in a manner consistent with current Agency guidelines and recommendations. Use of herbicides or pesticides within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful and would require prior agency approval. All non-native vegetation must be removed and disposed of off-site (M). • Weed all trees and shrubs to the dripline and provide 3-inch deep mulch rings 24 inches in diameter for shrubs and 36 inches in diameter for trees (M). • Remove trash and other debris from the mitigation areas twice a year (M). • Selectively prune woody plants at the direction of Project Ecologist or Biologist to meet the mitigation plan's goal and objectives (e.g., thinning and removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs) (M). • Repair or replace damaged structures including signs, or bat/bird boxes (M). If, during the course of the monitoring period, there appears to be a significant problem with achieving the performance standards, the permittee shall work with the City and other permitting agencies to develop a Contingency Plan in order to get the project back into compliance with the performance standards. Contingency plans can include, but are not limited to, the following actions: additional plant installation, erosion control, bank stabilization, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions of type, size, quantity, and/or location. If required, a Contingency Plan shall be submitted to the City by December 1st of any year when deficiencies are discovered. The following list includes examples of contingency (C) actions that may be implemented during the course of the monitoring period. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and other actions may be implemented as deemed necessary. • Replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute that meets mitigation plan goals and objectives, subject to project Biologist/Ecologist and agency approval (C). • Re-plant area after reason for failure has been identified (e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.) (C). • After consulting with City staff and other permitting agencies, minor excavations, if deemed to be more beneficial to the existing conditions than currently exists, will be made to correct surface drainage patterns (C). 4.8 Long-Term and Adaptive Management Long-term maintenance of the Site will be handled in conjunction with the Site landscape management, as determined appropriate. It is anticipated that minimal hands-on maintenance will be required of these natural areas after the 5-year performance monitoring period. However, the mitigation areas will be evaluated periodically for unnatural or non-native disturbances, including, but not limited to, invasive species and human impacts, such as trash. The maintenance, contingency action, long term- and adaptive management plans are all intended to be adaptive in nature to respond to the changing conditions of the mitigation site. These elements are intended to be broad in nature and allow a wide variety of action depending on what is best for the mitigation site based on the issues at that time. Any action that requires more than minor modifications to the mitigation site would be discussed with appropriate Agency staff prior to action being taken. 4.9 Financial Guarantees Per FWRC 19.145.100, financial guarantees may be required by the City to cover the costs of the mitigation plan. ATTACHMENT 4 ATTACHMENT 4 King County In-Lieu Fee Plan, by Wet.land, LLC PREPARED FOR: Federal Way Campus, LLC PREPARED BY: Jennifer Marriott, PWS Wet.land, LLC 813-846-1684 Wet.land jen@wet.land In-Lieu Fee Plan Woodbridge Business Park Federal Way, Washington 10 October 2021 (Revised 9 February 2023) CONTENTS 1. REPORT PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Name and Purpose ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 1.2 Applicant ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.3 Report Purpose --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.4 Preparer Qualifications ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2. PROJECT DETAILS .................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Project Description ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 3 4. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE US .............. 4 5. JUSTIFICATION FOR USING AN IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM ............................................. 5 5.1 Description of Compensatory Mitigation Options Considered --------------------------------------------------------- 5 5.2 In-Lieu Fee Program Selection Rationale ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 6. PROPOSED IN-LIEU FEE CREDITS ........................................................................................ 7 6.1 Proposed Wetland Impacts ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7 6.2 Credit-Debit Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 6.3 Credit Purchase or Transfer Timing ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Location (pulled from Sheet W1.0 of the Revised Mitigation Plan).................................................. 2 Figure 2. Summary of Wetlands, as reflected from revised Mitigation Plan. .............................................................. 3 Figure 3. Summary of Wetland Impacts proposed, as reflected from revised Mitigation Plan. ................................. 4 TABLE OF FIGURES Table 1. Summary of Credit-Debit Analysis. ................................................................................................................. 7 TABLE OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1. Wetland Rating Forms, Talasaea Consultants Attachment 2. Credit-Debit Calculations REPORT PURPOSE PAGE 1 1. Report Purpose 1.1 Project Name and Purpose The Applicant proposes to construct a new business park with three (3) new warehouses with office space and associated infrastructure. The existing Weyerhaeuser Tech Center will remain but the existing parking lots w ill be reconfigured. Direct and indirect wetland impacts totalling 8,585 square feet (0.2-acres) and 6,353 square feet (0.15- acre), respectively, are proposed to accommodate this Project. These impacts will be compensated for through the purchase of 20.96 in-lieu fee credits. On-site mitigation will occur for other buffer modifications proposed outside of the direct and indirect wetland impacts. 1.2 Applicant The Applicant for the Project is Federal Way Campus, LLC, represented by Dana Ostenson: Coby Holley, 4020 Kinross Lakes Parkway, Suite 200, Richfield, OH 44286 Email: cholley@irgra.com 1.3 Report Purpose This report has been prepared to outline the intent to use the King County In-Lieu Fee Program to compensate for wetland impacts proposed for this Project. 1.4 Preparer Qualifications Field investigations and delineations were previously completed and/or directed by Jennifer Marriott while employed at Talasaea Consultants. Jennifer Marriott has a Bachelor’s Degree and a Master’s Degree in Biology from University of Central Florida, and a second Master’s Degree in Environmental Soil Science from the University of Florida. She has 20 years of experience in wetland delineations and environmental permitting. PROJECT DETAILS PAGE 2 2. Project Details 2.1 Project Description The Site is an assemblage of three parcels currently owned by Federal Way Campus, LLC (Figure 1). The approximate address is 32901 Weyerhaeuser Way South in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The Site is approximately 136 acres in size. The remainder of the associated parcels under Federal Way Campus, LLC ownership are not a part of this project. The Public Land Survey System location of the Site is Sections 16 and 21, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. Figure 1. Project Location (pulled from Sheet W1.0 of the Revised Mitigation Plan) The Applicant proposes to construct a new business park comprised of three (3) new warehouses with office space and associated infrastructure. The Weyerhaeuser Tech Center will be retained, but the existing parking lots will be reconfigured to a more compact arrangement around the Tech Center. Associated infrastructure to be constructed includes three (3) new stormwater detention facilities plus reconfiguring the existing stormwater pond, parking for both cars and trucks, and enough manoeuvring space for the truck traffic anticipated around these buildings. The proposed Site Plan has been designed to minimize impacts to critical areas to the greatest extent practicable, as outlined in the Critical Areas Report prepared by Talasaea Consultants, dated 9 April 2020 and the addendum prepared by Wet.land, LLC, updated 9 February 2023 that includes the revised Mitigation Plan, as revised by Wet.land, LLC, dated 12 February 2023. EXISTING CONDITIONS PAGE 3 3. Existing Conditions A Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan were completed by Talasaea Consultants on 9 April 2020 that was provided to the Applicant. Portions of 25 wetlands and one (1) stream are located on or adjacent to the Site. Details of the existing conditions are provided in Chapter 4 of the CAR. A summary of the critical areas present onsite includes: Figure 2. Summary of Wetlands, as reflected from revised Mitigation Plan. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE US PAGE 4 4. Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Waters of the US The Project has reduced wetland impacts to the greatest extent practicable, as described in Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the CAR and CAR Addendum. The proposed site plan has been designed to minimize impacts to critical areas to the greatest extent practicable while meeting the criteria for development of a viable project and conforming to the City of Federal Way standards. In attempting to avoid wetland impacts on the Site, several different configurations were evaluated to find the best configuration and scale for the project needs. Despite these efforts, some impacts to critical areas are unavoidable in order to achieve a viable project. Portions of 25 wetlands and one (1) stream are located on or adjacent to the Site. Construction of the proposed development would directly impact (fill) 8,585 square feet (0.20 acres) of wetlands for the buildings, parking, and stormwater facilities. An additional 6,353 square feet (0.15 acres) of wetland as being considered indirect wetland impacts due to site development encroachments. For the construction of a stormwater pond (Nos 2 and 3) maintenance access road, permanent and temporary wetland buffer impacts are proposed east of the existing Tech Center. Figure 3. Summary of Wetland Impacts proposed, as reflected from revised Mitigation Plan. The wetland impacted by the Project will be mitigated for through the purchase of credits from the King County In- Lieu Fee Program. No additional monitoring or maintenance will be required once the purchase of credits is final. Credit purchase is finalized after receipt of final Agency permits. Additional onsite mitigation is proposed to compensate for buffer impacts beyond those direct and indirect wetland impacts discussed here. JUSTIFICATION FOR USING AN IN -LIEU FEE PROGRAM PAGE 5 5. Justification for Using an In-Lieu Fee Program 5.1 Description of Compensatory Mitigation Options Considered Allowable mitigation options for the City are outlined in Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145.430(4), and include in-lieu fee credits as well as mitigation banks, in addition to advanced mitigation and other Permittee- responsible options. The USACE identifies mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs as preferential mitigation options, followed by on-site Permittee Responsible then off-site Permittee Responsible mitigation. No mitigation banks occur that cover the Site location. The King County In-Lieu Fee program does cover the Site location. The Site generally contains areas where onsite mitigation could be done. However, these locations are either within shoreline jurisdiction, already contain existing native vegetation that is less desirable to remove, or have hydrologic constraints such that without an artificial source of hydrology these locations make for poor wetland creation potential. Given that the USACE has a preference for in-lieu fee over Permittee-responsible mitigation, the decision was made to use the King County In-Lieu Fee Program. While offsite wetland creation may be potentially possible, available land in the area for wetland creation is limited given the dense urban development. This is also the least preferential for the USACE, and thus, inherently problematic. Onsite mitigation is proposed to compensate for additional buffer modifications proposed to accommodate the Project. However, all mitigation for wetland fill (direct impacts) and associated insufficiently buffered (indirect) wetland impacts will be provided through the purchase of in-lieu fee credits. 5.2 In-Lieu Fee Program Selection Rationale Mitigation sequencing is required by local, State, and Federal regulations. The below list is outlined in FWRC 19.145.430(2), and is consistent with those requirements of the Washington Department of Ecology and the USACE. (a) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (b) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; (c) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space; (d) It will result in no net loss of wetland area, function or value upon completion of compensatory mitigation; (e) The project is in the best interest of the public health, safety or welfare; (f) The applicant has demonstrated sufficient scientific expertise and supervisory capability to carry out the project; and (g) The applicant is committed to monitoring the project and to making corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals. JUSTIFICATION FOR USING AN IN -LIEU FEE PROGRAM PAGE 6 How the Project has met each of these requirements is outlined in Section 4 above as well as discussed in detail in the CAR prepared by Talasaea Consultants and the subsequent addendum prepared by Wet.land, LLC. PROPOSED IN -LIEU FEE C REDITS PAGE 7 6. Proposed In-Lieu Fee Credits 6.1 Proposed Wetland Impacts Direct impacts (fill) totalling 8,585 square feet (0.2-acres) and 6,353 square feet (0.15-acre) of indirect impacts to wetlands will be accounted for in the credit purchase to address both direct wetland impacts for the proposed development and for indirect wetland impacts where the Project would leave the remainder of the onsite wetlands insufficiently buffered. 6.2 Credit-Debit Analysis The results of the credit-debit analysis are outlined below in Table 1. The rating sheets from the CAR prepared by Talasaea are provided only for the wetlands proposed for impact (Attachment 1). The calculations that form the foundation for the table below is attached as Attachment 2. A total of 20.96 units of Debits will result from the proposed wetland fill to accommodate this Project, resulting in the purchase of an equivalent number of Credits from the King County In-Lieu Fee Program to compensation for the Project impacts to wetlands. Table 1. Summary of Credit-Debit Analysis. Summary of Credits and Debits Summary Worksheet 24 January 2023 DEBITS (all numbers are acre- points) Improving Water Quality (sum of all impacts) Hydrologic Function (sum of all impacts) Habitat Function (sum of all impacts) Wetland AE/AF 0.336 0.288 0.192 Wetland DE/DK 2.912 2.496 1.248 Wetland AG/AV/BS(N) 3.64 3.12 2.08 Wetland FE 0.196 0.168 0.14 Wetland EI 0.096 0.08 0.048 Wetland EJ/EK/EL/EM/GB(N) 0.609 0.522 0.261 Wetland AH 0.336 0.288 0.192 Wetland FD 0.288 0.288 0.144 Wetland FF 0.396 0.396 0.198 PROPOSED IN -LIEU FEE CREDITS PAGE 8 Total (in acre-points) 8.81 7.65 4.50 CREDITS (all numbers are acre- points) Improving Water Quality (sum of all impacts) Hydrologic Function (sum of all impacts) Habitat Function (sum of all impacts) Creation/Re- establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement Wetland Preservation Upland Preservation Total Credits Available (in acre-points) 0.00 0.00 0.00 BALANCE Credits - Debits -8.81 -7.65 -4.50 TOTAL CREDITS TO BE PURCHASED -20.96 6.3 Credit Purchase or Transfer Timing Credit purchase should occur simultaneously with the start of the proposed Project following issuance of required permits from applicable regulatory agencies. Proof of mitigation credit purchase will be supplied to the regulatory agencies upon receipt. ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment 1 Wetland Ratings prepared by Talasaea Consultants Woodbridge Business Park Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan 9 April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572C Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan V6.docx Appendix D APPENDIX D WETLAND RATING FORMS, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, 2016 & 2017 ATTACHMENT 2 Attachment 2 Summary of Credit-Debit Calculations Summary Worksheet 24 January 2023 Project: Woodbridge Business Park DEBITS (all numbers are acre-points) Improving Water Quality (sum of all impacts) Hydrologic Function (sum of all impacts) Habitat Function (sum of all impacts) Wetland AE/AF 0.336 0.288 0.192 Wetland DE 2.912 2.496 1.248 Wetland AG/AV/BS(N)3.64 3.12 2.08 Wetland FE 0.196 0.168 0.14 Wetland EI 0.096 0.08 0.048 Wetland EJ/EK/EL/EM/GB(N)0.609 0.522 0.261 Wetland AH 0.336 0.288 0.192 Wetland FD 0.288 0.288 0.144 Wetland FF 0.396 0.396 0.198 Total (in acre-points)8.81 7.65 4.50 CREDITS (all numbers are acre-points) Improving Water Quality (sum of all impacts) Hydrologic Function (sum of all impacts) Habitat Function (sum of all impacts) Creation/Re-establishment 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rehabilitation 0.00 0.00 0.00 Enhancement 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetland Preservation 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upland Preservation 0.00 Total Credits Available (in acre-points)0.00 0.00 0.00 BALANCE Credits - Debits -8.81 -7.65 -4.50 TOTAL DEBITS -20.96 Summary of Credits and Debits Calculating Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington Debit Worksheet Project: Woodbridge Business Park Applicant:Federal Way Campus, LLC Mitigation Project is: Delayed (King County ILF) Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Site Potential (H,M,L)M M L M M L M M L M H L M M L M M L M M L M M L M M L Landscape Potential (H,M,L)M M L M M L M M L M L M L L L M M L M M L L M L L M L Value (H,M,L)H M M H M L H M M H M M H M L H M L H M M H M L H M L Score for Wetland Unit 7 6 4 7 6 3 7 6 4 7 6 5 6 5 3 7 6 3 7 6 4 6 6 3 6 6 3 Acres of non-forested impacts 0.016 0 0 0 0.029 0.016 0.016 0.022 Basic mitigation requirement (BMR)0.112 0.096 0.064 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.203 0.174 0.087 0.112 0.096 0.064 0.096 0.096 0.048 0.132 0.132 0.066 Temporal loss factor 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 DEBITS 0.336 0.288 0.192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.609 0.522 0.261 0.336 0.288 0.192 0.288 0.288 0.144 0.396 0.396 0.198 Acres of forest impacts 0.104 0.13 0.007 0.004 0 Basic mitigation requirement (BMR)0 0 0 0.728 0.624 0.312 0.91 0.78 0.52 0.049 0.042 0.035 0.024 0.02 0.012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Temporal loss factor 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 DEBITS 0 0 0 2.912 2.496 1.248 3.64 3.12 2.08 0.196 0.168 0.14 0.096 0.08 0.048 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acres of Evergreen forest impacts Basic mitigation requirement (BMR)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Temporal loss factor DEBITS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acres of Cat. 1 Deciduous forest Basic mitigation requirement (BMR)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Temporal loss factor DEBITS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acres of Cat. 1 Evergreen forest Basic mitigation requirement (BMR)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Temporal loss factor DEBITS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS Function Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Acre-Points 0.336 0.288 0.192 2.912 2.496 1.248 3.64 3.12 2.08 0.196 0.168 0.14 0.096 0.08 0.048 0.609 0.522 0.261 0.336 0.288 0.192 0.288 0.288 0.144 0.396 0.396 0.198 Total Debits by Function Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Acre-Points 8.809 7.646 4.503 20.958 Wetland FD Wetland FF Wetland AH Wetland FD Wetland FF Wetland EJ/EK/EL/EM/GB(N)Wetland AH Wetland AE/AF Wetland DE Wetland AG/AV/BS(N)Wetland FE Wetland EI Wetland EJ/EK/EL/EM/GB(N) Wetland AE/AF Wetland DE/DK Wetland AG/AV/BS(N)Wetland FE Wetland EI