20-102489-Buffer Averaging Plan-2020-05-22-V1 Soundview Consultants LLC
Environmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335
Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
1779.0002 Papé Properties 1 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
To: Quinn Closson, Papé Properties Inc. File Number: 1779.0002
From: Matt DeCaro, Soundview Consultants LLC Revision Date: May 22, 2020
Re: Revised Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan
Papé Kenworth NW – Federal Way
Dear Mr. Closson,
Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) conducted a wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment of
an approximately 19.94-acre property located at 3014 South 320th Street and 31625 32nd Avenue South
in Federal Way, Washington (Figure 1). The property consists of seven tax parcels located in the
Southeast ¼ of Section 9, Township 21 North, Range 04 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel
Numbers 0921049028, 0921049139, 0921049140, 0921049160, 0921049187, 0921049206 and
0921049316). SVC investigated the site to evaluate if any potentially regulated wetlands, streams, or
other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are located on or adjacent to the subject property.
The wetland assessment portion of this Technical Memorandum (SVC, 2019) was reviewed by the
City’s third-party consultant ((Landau Associates, 2019) and subsequently approved by the City of
Federal Way on December 24, 2019 (City of Federal Way, 2019). A revised Technical Memorandum
(SVC, 2020) was submitted to include an administrative wetland buffer averaging plan to
accommodate the proposed commercial development project by Papé Properties Inc. (Applicant).
The March 2020 Technical Memorandum was reviewed by the City of Federal Way’s third-party
consultant; this Technical Memorandum has been revised to address those comments (Landau
Associates, 2020).
Figure 1. Aerial Photograph of Subject Property.
Technical Memorandum
Subject Property
Location
1779.0002 Papé Properties 2 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Background Data
Prior to the site investigation, SVC staff conducted background research using the City of Federal
Way’s Critical Areas Map, King County iMAP, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) and SalmonScape mapping tools, Washington Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) stream typing system, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
Wetland Inventory (NWI), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey (Attachment
B), and various orthophotographic resources.
The Federal Way Critical Areas Map (Attachment C1), WDFW PHS map (Attachment C3), USFWS
NWI map (Attachment C5), and King County iMap (Attachment C6) identify one potential wetland
on the western portion of the subject property, extending offsite to the north and southwest. No other
wetlands are identified on or within 225 feet of the subject property.
No streams or other priority habitats and species are identified within 225 feet of the site by any of
the critical area inventories, including by the Federal Way Critical Areas Map, WDFW SalmonScape
(Attachment C2), WDFW PHS Map, DNR stream typing inventory (Attachment C4), or King County
iMap. The nearest documented stream (Mill Creek) is mapped 0.5-mile to the east of the subject
property.
The NRCS soil map (Attachment C7) identifies the following soils on the subject property: two types
of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (8 to 15 percent and 15 to 30 percent slopes) and Seattle muck.
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (8 to 15 percent and 15 to 30 percent slopes) are listed as primarily
non-hydric soils with potential hydric soil inclusions. Seattle muck is listed as a hydric soil (NRCS,
2019) and is mapped on the western portion of the site within the mapped wetland area.
Abbreviated Project Description
The proposed project will construct a truck maintenance building with areas for office, showroom
and parts warehouse and a separate structure to be used as a body shop. Improvements and
construction activities will include demolition of existing residential structures, grading, paved truck
and trailer parking and maneuvering areas, stormwater facility, water and sanitary sewer extensions,
landscaping, roadway improvements and franchise utility extensions. The subject property is currently
undergoing an annexation process with the City of Federal Way. A boundary line adjustment will be
processed to configure the seven existing lots to the new site layout.
Methods
Formal site investigations were performed by qualified SVC staff in June and September 2019 and
May 2020. The investigations consisted of walk-through surveys of the subject property and any
accessible areas within 225 feet of this area for potentially regulated wetlands, streams, and other fish
and wildlife habitat conservation areas as specified in Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter
19.145 (Environmentally Critical Areas).
Wetlands, streams, and select fish and wildlife habitats and species are regulated features per FWRC
Chapter 19.145 and subject to restricted uses/activities under the same title. Wetland boundaries were
determined in accordance with FWRC 19.145.410(1) and as outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), as modified
1779.0002 Papé Properties 3 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
according to the guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (USACE, 2010) and Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA, 2018). Qualified SVC wetland scientists marked
boundaries of any onsite wetlands with orange surveyor’s flagging labeled alpha-numerically and tied
to vegetation along the wetland boundary. SVC only delineated the onsite wetland boundaries facing
the proposed development; the remaining wetland boundaries were estimated using visual
observations and/or aerial imagery. Pink surveyor’s flagging was labeled alpha-numerically and tied to
3-foot lath or vegetation at formal sampling locations (DP-1 through DP-6) to mark the points where
detailed data was collected. Additional tests pits were excavated at regular intervals inside and outside
of the wetland boundaries to further confirm the delineation. Following the delineation, the wetland
flags were surveyed by a professional land survey company.
Wetlands were classified using both the hydrogeomorphic (Brinson, 1993) and Cowardin (Cowardin,
1979; Federal Geographic Data Committee, 2013) classification systems. Following classification and
assessment, wetlands were rated and categorized using the current Washington State Wetland Rating
System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014) and guidelines established in FWRC 19.145.420(1).
The fish and wildlife habitat assessment was conducted during the same site visit by qualified fish and
wildlife biologists. The experienced biologists made visual observations using stationary and walking
survey methods for both aquatic and upland habitats noting any special habitat features or signs of
fish and wildlife activity.
SVC performed a follow-up investigation in May 2020 to assess vegetation conditions in the wetland
buffer areas.
Precipitation
Precipitation data was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
weather station at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Station in order to acquire percent of
normal precipitation during and preceding the site investigation. A summary of data collected is
provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Precipitation Summary1.
Site Visit
Date Day Of Day
Before 1 Week
Prior
2
Weeks
Prior
30 Days Prior
(Observed/Normal) Year to Date
(Observed/Normal)2
Percent
of
Normal3
6/13/2019 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.73/1.91 14.08/18.24 38/77
9/12/2019 0.24 0.00 1.16 1.16 1.61/1.13 18.38/21.09 142/87
1. Precipitation volume provided in inches. Data obtained from NOAA (http://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=sew)
for Sea-Tac International Airport.
2. Year-to-date precipitation is for the 2019 calendar year.
3. Percent of normal is for the 30 days prior/2019 calendar year.
Precipitation levels during the September 2019 site investigation, when the formal delineation
fieldwork was performed, were elevated for the previous 30 days (142 percent of normal) and within
normal range for the 2018 calendar year (87 percent of normal). This precipitation data suggests that
relatively normal hydrologic conditions were encountered during the September 2019 investigation
which was performed near the end of Summer when conditions were generally dry, although greater
than 1 inch of precipitation accumulation was reported for the previous week. The June 2019
1779.0002 Papé Properties 4 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
reconnaissance was performed earlier in the growing season during a period of relatively low
precipitation. Such conditions were considered in making professional wetland determinations.
Results
The 19.89-acre subject property is located in an urban-residential setting in unincorporated King
County. The southern portion of the site is developed with three single-family residences and a high
voltage transmission line corridor. The northern portion of the property is developed with a single-
family residence with a horse barn and multiple paddocks. The subject property abuts South 320th
Street to the south; Interstate 5 to the west; an undeveloped, forested lot to the north; and an access
road/32nd Avenue South to the west, with single-family residences beyond.
Vegetation on the western portion of the site is generally dominated by a forested community of red
alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) with an
understory of non-native invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), salmonberry (Rubus
spectabilis), salal (Gaultheria shallon), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), and trailing blackberry (Rubus
ursinus). Where undeveloped and vegetated, the eastern portion of the site is generally dominated by
bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), black cottonwood, Himalayan blackberry, narrowleaf plantain
(Plantago lanceolata), and various grasses. Topography is relatively flat on the eastern portion of the
subject property with an elevation of approximately 485 feet above mean sea level (amsl), while the
western portion of the site slopes moderately downward to the west to an elevation of approximately
420 feet amsl within a depression at the bottom of the Interstate 5 road embankment (Attachment
C8).
Wetland Findings
SVC identified one potentially regulated wetland (Wetland A) on the subject property. The identified
wetland contained indicators of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and a predominance of hydrophytic
vegetation according to current wetland delineation methodology. The onsite wetland is depicted on
the site plan in Attachment A. No other potentially regulated wetlands, streams, and/or other fish
and wildlife habitat conservation areas were observed on or within 225 feet of the site. The wetland
data forms, wetland rating form, and wetland rating maps are provided in Attachments D, E, and F,
respectively. A summary of the identified wetland is provided in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Wetland Summary.
Wetland
Predominant Wetland Classification / Rating
Wetland Size
Onsite (SF)
Buffer Width
(feet)5 Cowardin1 HGM2 WSDOE3
City of
Federal
Way4
A PFO/ABE Depressional III III ~ 80,689 80
Table 1 Notes:
1. Cowardin et al. (1979) or NWI Class based on vegetation: PFO = Palustrine Forested, AB = Palustrine Aquatic Bed; Modifiers
for Water Regime: E = Seasonally Flooded/Saturated
2. Brinson, M. M. (1993).
3. Current WSDOE wetland rating system for western Washington (Hruby, 2014).
4. FWRC 19.145.420(1) wetland definitions.
5. FWRC 19.145.420(2) wetland buffer standards.
1779.0002 Papé Properties 5 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Wetland A
Wetland A is approximately 80,689 square feet (1.85acres) in size onsite and is located within a
depressional area on the western portion of the subject property, extending offsite to the south and
north. Hydrology for Wetland A is likely provided primarily by a high groundwater table, direct
precipitation and surface sheet flow, with some stormwater runoff from South 320th Street and
Interstate 5. Wetland vegetation onsite is dominated by red alder, hardhack (Spiraea douglasii), crab
apple (Malus fusca), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), twinberry honeysuckle (Lonicera involucrata), yellow
pond lily (Nuphar polysepala), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), nodding beggartick (Bidens cernua), and
smartweed (Persicaria sp). Soil within Wetland A met hydric soil indicator F1 (Loamy Mucky Mineral).
Wetland A is a Palustrine Forested/Aquatic Bed, Seasonally Flooded/Saturated wetland (PFO/ABE).
Per FWRC 19.145.420(2), Wetland A is classified as a Category III depressional wetland with a low
habitat score of 5 total points.
Wetland A does not appear to contain an outlet, but instead is impounded by Interstate 5 to the west
and South 320th Street to the south. The wetland receives overflow from upgradient storm ponds
located on the opposite side of 32nd Avenue South, at the far northern offsite extent of the wetland
(greater than 600 feet north of the subject property). No surface water outlet was identified.
The southern portion of the wetland (approximately 17 percent of the total wetland area) ponds long
enough during the growing season to exhibit aquatic bed plants, but the wetland lacked surface water
during our September 2019 investigation. Our observations during multiple seasons indicate that the
water storage during wet periods is less than 2 feet of water in the seasonally ponded area, due in part
to the shallow nature of the ponded portion of the depression. The seasonally ponded area (17
percent) does not comprise greater than 25 percent of the total wetland area.
Regulatory Considerations
The wetland assessment portion of this Technical Memorandum (SVC, 2019) was reviewed by the
City’s third-party consultant ((Landau Associates, 2019) and subsequently approved by the City of
Federal Way on December 24, 2019 (City of Federal Way, 2019). A revised Technical Memorandum
(SVC, 2020) was then submitted to include an administrative wetland buffer averaging plan to
accommodate the proposed commercial development project. The March 2020 Technical
Memorandum was reviewed by the City of Federal Way’s third-party consultant; this Technical
Memorandum has been revised to address those comments (Landau Associates, 2020). These review
letters are provided in Attachments G and H of this Technical Memorandum, respectfully.
Wetland Buffer Requirements
FWRC 19.145.420.(1) has adopted the current wetland rating system used by WSDOE. Category III
wetlands score between 16 and 19 points, generally provide a moderate level of function, have usually
been disturbed in some way, and are often less diverse and/or more isolated in the landscape than
Category II wetlands (Hruby, 2014).
Wetland A is a Category III depressional wetland with a low habitat score of 5 points which requires
a standard 80-foot buffer per FWRC 19.145.420(2). An additional 5-foot building setback is required
from the outer wetland buffer edge per FWRC 19.145.160.
1779.0002 Papé Properties 6 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Abbreviated State and Federal Considerations
Onsite Wetland A is potentially unregulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) due to
its lack of surface water connection and distance to Waters of the U.S. Should the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers not assert jurisdiction under the CWA, then WSDOE would assert jurisdiction as
WSDOE regulates natural wetlands and surface waters under RCW 90.48. The proposed project
avoids direct impacts to the identified wetland, therefore state and federal wetland authorizations will
not be required.
Proposed Buffer Modifications
The proposed project includes site development for parts and service, sales, office space, parking, and
equipment. Minor administrative wetland buffer averaging is proposed as allowed under FWRC
19.145.440(5) (Buffer Averaging) to accommodate the proposed commercial development. A site plan
is provided in Attachment A of this Technical Memorandum.
Mitigation Sequencing
Mitigation sequencing for the proposed project is required under FWRC 19.145.130 to demonstrate
that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical
areas, the definition of which includes wetland buffers per FWRC 19.145.030. The following
discussion addresses specific actions taken to fulfill mitigation sequencing for this project.
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of actions.
The proposed project will avoid direct impacts to Wetland A; however, minor administrative buffer
averaging is required in the northwest portion of the subject property. The site plan has undergone
numerous revisions in attempts to avoid the standard buffer area entirely; however, due to the existing
BPA powerline corridor, the need for required fire access and drive aisles for traffic movement, and
topographical constraints, the northwest corner of proposed development requires limited buffer
decrease by a minor 951 square feet to accommodate necessary grading and retaining wall installation.
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using
appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to reduce impacts.
The proposed project has undergone several variations in site design to minimize buffer impacts to
the greatest extent feasible. The only proposed activity that will impact the standard buffer area is the
required grading and retaining wall construction in the northwest corner of the subject property which
will require 951 square feet of buffer reduction in an area that is currently degraded by fill material and
invasive vegetation including Himalayan blackberry, poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and English
holly (Ilex aquifolium). A few native species are present in the buffer reduction area such as red alder,
cascara buckthorn (Frangula purshiana), and western swordfern (Polystichum munitum), though the
majority of the area is dominated by Himalayan blackberry. Although a 25 percent buffer reduction
is technically allowed per FWRC 19.145.440(5), the project proposes a maximum 15 percent buffer
decrease (down to 68 feet) at the narrowest point. All appropriate best management practices (BMPs)
and temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures, including construction fencing and
silt fencing, will be implemented and maintained during construction on the site to minimize any
potential temporary construction impacts to the remaining buffer area.
1779.0002 Papé Properties 7 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing
at the time of the initiation of the project.
Not applicable. Minor, administrative wetland buffer averaging is proposed which does not require
traditional mitigation actions (e.g., buffer enhancement) per FWRC 19.145.440(5).
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the
action;
If required by the City, the modified buffer area will be placed in a separate critical areas tract in
accordance with 19.145.150. Because the project does not propose a subdivision, short subdivision,
or binding site plan, however, this requirement is not anticipated.
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and
The Applicant proposes buffer averaging to result in a net increase of protected wetland buffer area.
Buffer reduction of 951 square feet is proposed in one select location in the northwest corner to
facilitate necessary grading and retaining wall construction; to compensate for the minor impacts,
buffer addition of 1,422 square feet is proposed within a higher functioning portion of the general
buffer area (Attachment A) that contains native vegetation and does not exhibit past anthropogenic
disturbances. The proposal will result in a net gain of 471 square feet of protective buffer. Currently,
the area selected for buffer reduction is the lower functioning portion of the buffer area. It currently
has low species diversity and contains non-native invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry and
fill material. The proposed buffer averaging plan will improve ecological functions by reducing the
lower functioning portion of the buffer and adding to the higher functioning portion of the buffer,
resulting in an overall net increase in wetland buffer area and gain in ecological functions.
6. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary.
Because buffer averaging is proposed and no restoration or enhancement actions are required, formal
monitoring is not warranted.
Wetland Buffer Averaging
Wetland A is subject to a standard 80-foot buffer and additional 5-foot building setback. To
accommodate the proposed project objectives, minor buffer averaging is proposed per FWRC
19.145.440(5). A site plan depicting the proposed buffer averaging plan is included in Attachment A
of this Technical Memorandum. Wetland buffer averaging may be permitted when all of the following
criteria are met:
a. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging;
The proposed buffer averaging plan will result in a net gain of 471 square feet of protective buffer.
Specifically, approximately 951 square feet of onsite buffer area will be decreased to facilitate necessary
grading and proposed retaining wall in the northwest portion of the site, and approximately 1,422
square feet will be increased to the south of the buffer decrease area. The modified buffer line will
maintain the natural, parallel buffer from the wetland edge to the greatest extent feasible.
1779.0002 Papé Properties 8 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
May 22, 2020
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 increase area (1,422 square feet) is located within and adjacent to a higher functioning
habitat area as it contains native vegetation and does not exhibit past anthropogenic disturbances. The
buffer increase area consists of native vegetation with an overstory of western red cedar, red alder,
and bigleaf maple, and an understory of salal, snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), vine maple (Acer
circinatum), western swordfern, Pacific bleeding heart (Dicentra formosa), and Siberian spring beauty
(Claytonia sibirica). The buffer increase area exhibits native species diversity within all three strata and
minimal non-native invasive species present. Whereas, the buffer decrease area is located within a
relatively low-functioning area from a habitat standpoint due to the presence of non-native invasive
species such as Himalayan blackberry and fill material. Representative photographs of the buffer
decrease and increase areas are provided in Attachment B.
c. The buffer at its narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required width; and
The modified buffer will be never be less than 75 percent (60 feet) of the standard width (80 feet).
Although a 25 percent buffer reduction is technically allowed per FWRC 19.145.440(5), the project
proposes a maximum 15 percent buffer decrease (down to 68 feet) at the narrowest point. The 5-foot
building setback is provided along the entire length of the onsite buffer.
d. Unless authorized in writing by a consenting neighboring property owner, the averaging will remain on the
subject property.
The buffer averaging plan will remain on the subject property.
Conclusions
SVC identified and delineated one Category III wetland (Wetland A) on the subject property. Wetland
A has a low habitat score of 5 points and, therefore, requires a standard 80-foot buffer and additional
5-foot building setback as approved by the City of Federal Way (2019). No other wetlands, streams,
or other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas were identified on or within 225 feet of the subject
property. To accomplish the Applicant’s commercial development objectives, minor administrative
wetland buffer averaging is necessary as indicated on the site plan provided in Attachment A. The
proposed buffer averaging plan conforms to FWRC 19.145.440(5) and will result in a net gain of
ecological function onsite relative to standard buffer requirements.
If you have any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
____________________________ _________________
Matt DeCaro Date
Senior Scientist/Environmental Planner
1779.0002 Papé Properties 9 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
References
Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
City of Federal Way. 2019. File #19-105322-AD; 3rd Party Wetland Review Letter. December 24, 2019.
Cowardin, L.M. V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). 2018. Title 19.145 – Environmentally Critical Areas. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/#!/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.htm
l#19.145 Current through July 02, 2019.
Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington
Press. Seattle, Washington.
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update.
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-029.
Landau Associates, Inc. 2019. Peer Review Pape Wetland Delineation – Federal Way, Washington Technical
Memorandum. December 23, 2019.
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
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Hydric Soils List: King County Area, Washington.
Website: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/.
Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E.
Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington
State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, WA. March 2005.
Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell soil color charts.
New Windsor, New York.
Soundview Consultants LLC. 2019. Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Technical
Memorandum. October 29, 2019.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley,
R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA,
NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment A – Existing Conditions Exhibit and Site
Plan
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'&
'&'&
'&
'&
'&
A-9
A-8
A-7
A-6
A-5
A-4
A-3
A-2
A-1
DP-6
DP-5
A-24
A-23
A-22
A-21
A-19
A-20
DP-2
DP-4
DP-3
A-18
A-17
A-16
A-15
A-14
A-13
A-12
A-11
A-10
DP-1
King County
SOUTH 320TH & I5 - EXISTING CONDITIONS
¢
0 180 36090 Fee t
3014 S 320TH STFEDERAL WAY, WA 98003KING COUNTY PARCEL NUM BER:0921049028, 0921049139, 0921049140, 0921049160, 0921049187, 0921049206 & 0921049316
SOUTH 320TH & I5
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harbor view Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use SolutionsLLC
DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO.
9/23/2019
1779.0002
DLS/RJK
11 " = 180 '
àààààààà
à à
Wetland
'&Data Point
Wetland Flag
!!!!!!Drainage
80' Wetland Buffer
!!5' Building Setback
Site Boundary
Wetland ACategory III
80' Projected Buffer Based on2014 Weltand Rating and Federal Way RevisedCode Buf fer Requirements
SH0PPARTS WAREHOUSESHOWROOMOFFICEBODY SHOPBUILDING ABUILDING BS. 316TH ST.S. 320TH STREET32ND AVE. SOVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES, OLYMPIC PIPELINE AND CONST. EASEMENTSNO BUILDING STRUCTURES WITHIN THESE LINESSP-1OVERALL SITE PLANVICINITY MAPSITE DATA:ORAGEEX. SITE AND BUILDING AREAS:SITEOVERALL SITE PLANSHEET INDEX:H.G. K i m u r a A r c h i t e c t P L L CRenton, Washington 98058Fax 425.271.2383E-MAIL: hgkimura@comcast.netTel 425.271.187518012 W. Lake Desire Drive SEP.O. Box 59415Federal Way, WA 98001NE Corner I-5 and S. 320th StreetPAPE - Kenworth NW - Federal Way3-6-2020
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment B – Photographs
Data Plot DP-1
DP-1 Soils
DP-1 Setting
Data Plot DP-2
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
DP-2 Soils
DP-2 Setting
Data Plot DP-3
DP-3 Soils
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
DP-3 Setting
Data Plot DP-4
DP-4 Soils
DP-4 Setting
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Data Plot DP-5
DP-5 Soils
DP-5 Setting
Data Plot DP-6
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
DP-6 Soils
DP-6 Setting
Representative Photograph of Seasonally Ponded Portion of Wetland A
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Existing Vegetation in Buffer Decrease Area. Note heavy cover of Himalayan blackberry.
Proposed Buffer Increase Area
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment C – Background Information
This attachment includes a City of Federal Way Wetland Inventory (C1); WDFW SalmonScape Map
(C2); WDFW PHS Map (C3); DNR Stream Typing Map (C4); USFWS NWI Map (C5); King County
Sensitive Areas iMap (C6); NRCS Soil Survey Map (C7); and King County Topographic Map (C8).
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment C1 – City of Federal Way Wetland Inventory
Subject Property
Location
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment C2 – WDFW SalmonScape Map
Subject Property
Location
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment C3 – WDFW PHS Map
Subject Property
Location
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment C4 – DNR Stream Typing Map
Subject Property
Location
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment C5 – USFWS NWI Map
Subject Property
Location
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment C6 – King County Sensitive Areas iMap
Subject Property
Location
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment C7 – NRCS Soil Survey Map
Subject Property
Location
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment C8 – King County Topographic Map
Subject Property
Location
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment D – Data Forms
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: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
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 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
1779.0002 - South 320th Street & I-5 Federal Way / King 09/12/2019
Pape Properties Inc WA DP-1
Rachael Hyland, Jake Layman 9 / 21N / 04E
Depression None 2
A2 47.316476 -122.29508700 WGS 84
Seattle Muck PEM1F
All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within southern portion of Wetland A.
Alnus rubra 65 Yes FAC 3
3
65 100%
Rubus spectabilis 5 Yes FAC
5
Solanum dulcamara 40 Yes FAC
Nuphar polysepala 10 No OBL
Persicaria hydropiperoides 5 No OBL
55
0
45
Hydrophytic vegetation met through dominance test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (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:
DP-1
0 - 5 10YR 2/2 100 ----SaLo Mucky sandy loam
5 - 14 10YR 2/1 100 ----SaLo Mucky sandy loam with cobble and gravel
None
--
Hydric soil indicators met through indicator F1.
None
18
14
Hydrologic criteria observed through secondary indicators B9, C2, and D2.
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: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
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 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
1779.0002 - South 320th Street & I-5 Federal Way / King 09/12/2019
Pape Properties Inc WA DP-2
Rachael Hyland, Jake Layman 9 / 21N / 04E
Hillslope Convex 5
A2 47.316490 -122.29494723 WGS 84
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam N/A
No wetland criteria met. Data collected east of Wetland A in southern portion of the site.
Alnus rubra 40 Yes FAC 2
5
40 40%
Gaultheria shallon 25 Yes FACU
Spiraea douglasii 15 Yes FACW
Rubus spectabilis 10 No FAC
Malus fusca 5 No FACW
55
Pteridium aquilinum 20 Yes FACU
Rubus ursinus 15 Yes FACU
Polystichum munitum 5 No FACU
40
0
60
No hydrophytic vegetation criteria met; prevalence index not warranted due to lack of wetland hydrology and
hydric soils.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (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:
DP-2
0 - 6 5YR 2.5/1 100 ----SaLo Sandy loam with organics
6 - 12 5YR 3/2 100 ----SaLo Sandy loam
12 - 14 10YR 3/3 100 ----SaLo Gravelly sandy loam
None
--
No hydric soil indicators.
None
None
None
No hydrologic criteria met.
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: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
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 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
1779.0002 - South 320th Street & I-5 Federal Way / King 09/12/2019
Pape Properties Inc WA DP-3
Rachael Hyland, Jake Layman 9 / 21N / 04E
Depression Concave 0
A2 47.318100 -122.29473055 WGS 84
Seattle muck PFO
All three wetland criteria met. Data collected in northern portion of Wetland A.
6
6
0 100%
Lonicera involucrata 60 Yes FAC
Rubus spectabilis 20 Yes FAC
80
Lysichiton americanus 35 Yes OBL
Solanum dulcamara 30 Yes FAC
Athyrium cyclosorum 25 Yes FAC
Oenanthe sarmentosa 25 Yes OBL
Urtica dioica 5 No FAC
120
0
0
Hydrophytic vegetation met through dominance test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (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:
DP-3
0 - 7 7.5YR 3/1 100 ----MeLo Mucky medium loam
7 - 11 2.5Y 3/1 100 ----SaLo Sandy loam
11 - 14 2.5Y 4/2 93 5YR 4/6 2 C M SiLo Silt loam
11 - 14 2.5Y 5/4 5 C M
None
--
Hydric soil criteria met through indicators A11 and F1.
14
12
Hydrology criteria met through primary indicator A2.
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: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
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 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
1779.0002 - South 320th Street & I-5 Federal Way / King 09/12/2019
Pape Properties Inc WA DP-4
Rachael Hyland, Jake Layman 9 / 21N / 04E
Toe of Slope Concave 1
A2 47.318038 -122.29462011 WGS 84
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam N/A
No wetland criteria met. Data collected east of Wetland A in northern portion of the site.
Thuja plicata 25 Yes FAC 3
Alnus rubra 15 Yes FAC
Pseudotsuga menziesii 10 Yes FACU 7
50 43%
Gaultheria shallon 20 Yes FACU
Rubus spectabilis 10 Yes FAC
Sambucus racemosa 5 No FACU
Vaccinium parvifolium 5 No FACU
40
Rubus ursinus 40 Yes FACU
Polystichum munitum 25 Yes FACU
65
0
35
No hydrophytic vegetation criteria met; prevalence index not warranted due to lack of wetland hydrology and
hydric soils.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (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:
DP-4
0 - 4 5YR 3/1 100 ----MeLo Medium loam
4 - 8 2.5Y 5/3 100 ----SaLo Sandy loam with <1% concretions
8 - 13 10YR 3/1 100 ----SiLo Silt loam
13 - 15 10YR 4/2 95 10YR 6/8 5 C M SaClLo Sandy clay loam
None
--
No hydric soil indicators met.
None
None
None
No hydrologic criteria met.
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: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
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 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
1779.0002 - South 320th Street & I-5 Federal Way / King 09/12/2019
Pape Properties Inc WA DP-5
Rachael Hyland, Jake Layman 9 / 21N / 04E
Hillslope None 3
A2 47.317108 -122.29307512 WGS 84
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam N/A
No wetland criteria met. Data collected in central-eastern portion of the site.
Populus balsamifera 15 Yes FAC 2
Acer macrophyllum 10 Yes FACU
5
25 40%
Rubus armeniacus 20 Yes FAC
Populus balsamifera 1 No FAC
21
Tanacetum vulgare 35 Yes FACU
Plantago lanceolata 15 Yes FACU
Phalaris arundinacea 10 No FACW
Trifolium repens 2 No FAC
Cirsium vulgare 2 No FACU
Gnaphalium uliginosum 2 No FAC
Rubus laciniatus 2 No FACU
68
0
32
No hydrophytic vegetation criteria met; prevalence index not warranted due to lack of wetland hydrology and
hydric soils.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (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:
DP-5
0 - 7 10YR 3/3 100 ----SiLo Silt loam
7 - 13 10YR 4/3 95 5YR 4/6 5 C PL SiLo Silt loam, cemented layer
None
--
No hydric soil indicators met. Second layer is extremely compacted and cemented, shovel refusal at 13" due to
compaction.
None
None
None
No hydrologic criteria met.
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: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
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 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (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:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
1779.0002 - South 320th Street & I-5 Federal Way / King 09/12/2019
Pape Properties Inc WA DP-6
Rachael Hyland, Jake Layman 9 / 21N / 04E
Hillslope Convex 6
A2 47.316032 -122.29437407 WGS 84
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam N/A
Not all three wetland criteria met; only hydrophytic vegetation present. Data collected within powerline easement, approximately 215
feet east of Wetland A.
2
3
0 67%
Rubus armeniacus 25 Yes FAC
Cytisus scoparius 1 No UPL
26
Plantago lanceolata 35 Yes FACU
Agrostis capillaris 25 Yes FAC
Hedera helix 15 No FACU
Hypericum perforatum 1 No FACU
76
0
24
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the dominance test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (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:
DP-6
0 - 3 7.5R 4/3 100 ----SaLo Sandy loam
3 - 11 10YR 5/3 100 ----SaLo Gravelly sandy loam
None
--
Shovel refusal at 11 inches due to compaction. No hydric soil indicators met, and no possible indicators due to bright
matrices despite the refusal at 11 inches.
None
None
None
No hydrologic criteria met.
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment E – Wetland Rating Form
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential
Landscape Potential
Value TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
A
A 09/12/19
Rachael Hyland, Matt DeCaro 4 9/2016
Depressional 4
ESRI ArcGIS
III 4
M M M
M H L
L L M
5 6 5 16
N/A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).
points = 3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet.
points = 2
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1
D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4 No = 0
D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes):
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0
D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation :
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual.
Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4
Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2
Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 -D 2.3?
Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
A
3
4
3
0
10
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
D 3.2 - Wetland A does not appear to have a hydrologic connection to any water on the 303(d) list. The
only nearby 303(d) waters (Lake Dolloff and Mill Creek) are located in a separate sub-basin.
D 3.3 - There are no water quality improvement projects covering the wetland according to WSDOE's
Water Quality Atlas.
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation
D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0
D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands
with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part.
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5
Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3
The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3
Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0
D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin
contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0
Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5
Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site?
D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at
>1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around
the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met .
The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has
damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):
Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1
Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1
The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the
points = 0 water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why __________________
There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0
D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
_____________________________________________________________________________
A
4
3
3
10
1
1
1
3
0
Roadways (I-5 and 320th) act as levees and decouple Wetland A from downstream flooding.
0
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
A
2
1
2
1
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
[(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% Calculate: % undisturbed habitat +
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
[(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______%
points = 3
points = 2
points = 1
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat +
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
A
3
9
1.26 1.79 2.1550000000000002
0
1
15.87 19.52 25.63
-2
-1
1
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
The dominant water regime is tidal,
Vegetated, and
With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332 -30-151?
Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory , you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2)
Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form
A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
This page left blank intentionally
A
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment F – Wetland Rating Maps
King County
SOUTH 320TH & I5 - COWARDIN MAP
¢
0 300 600150 Feet
3014 S 320TH STFEDERAL WAY, WA 98003KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER:0921049028, 0921049139, 0921049140, 0921049160, 0921049187, 0921049206 & 0921049316
SOUTH 320TH & I5
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC
DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO. of 5
9/27/2019
1779.0002
DLS
11 " = 300 '
Wetland Rating Maps
Site Boundary
Aquatic Bed
Forested
330' Boundary
King County
PAPÉ KENWORTH 320TH SITE - HYDROPERIOD MAP
¢
0 300 600150 Feet
3014 S 320TH STFEDERAL WAY, WA 98003KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER:0921049028, 0921049139, 0921049140, 0921049160, 0921049187, 0921049206 & 0921049316
PAPÉ KENWORTH 320TH SITE
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC
DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO. of 5
10/29/2019
1779.0002
DLS
21 " = 300 '
Wetland Rating Maps
Site Boundary
Saturated Only
Seasonally Flooded (17%)
150' Boundary
King County
SOUTH 320TH & I5 - CONTRIBUTING BASIN MAP
¢
0 400 800200 Feet
3014 S 320TH STFEDERAL WAY, WA 98003KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER:0921049028, 0921049139, 0921049140, 0921049160, 0921049187, 0921049206 & 0921049316
SOUTH 320TH & I5
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC
DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO. of 5
9/27/2019
1779.0002
DLS
31 " = 400 '
Wetland Rating Maps
àààààààààààààààà
àààà
àààà
Wetlands
! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !
Intensive Land Use
Contributing Basin
Area of Contributing Basin (SF)2,293,140
Area of Wetland A (SF)184,396
Percent of Wetland A within Contributing Basin 8.041%
Area of Contributing Basin 2,293,140
Area of Intensive Human Land Uses 709,642
Percent of Intensive Human Land Use
within Contributing Basin 31%
D.4.0
D.4.3
D.5.0
D.5.3
King County
PAPÉ KENWORTH 320TH SITE - HABITAT MAP
¢
0 1,750 3,500875 Feet
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC
DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO. of 5
8/26/2019
1779.0002
DLS
41 " = 1,750 '
Wetland Rating Maps
Site Boundary
1 KM Polygons
! !! !!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!Accessible Habitat
High Intensity
Moderate & Low Intensity
Relatively Undisturbed Habitat
SITE
Abutting Undisturbed Habitat 1.26%
Abutting Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 1.79%
Accessible Habitat 2.16%
Undisturbed Habitat 15.87%
Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 19.52%
Undisturbed Habitat in 1 KM Polygon 25.63%
High Intensity Land Use in 1 KM Polygon 64.61%
H.2.2
H.2.3
H.2.0 Wetland A
H.2.1
PAPÉ KENWORTH 320TH SITE 3014 S 320TH STFEDERAL WAY, WA 98003KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER: 0921049028, 0921049139, 0921049140, 0921049160, 0921049187, 0921049206 & 0921049316
PAPÉ KENWORTH 320TH SITE - 303(D) MAP
¢
0 1 20.5 Miles
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC
DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO. of 5
8/26/2019
1779.0002
DLS
51 " = 1 mi
Wetland Rating Maps
Sub Basin
Water Quality Improvement Project
Category 5 Assessed Waters
Note: There are no Category 4A assessed waterslocated within HUC No. 171100190205
SITE
PAPÉ KENWORTH 320TH SITE 3014 S 320TH STFEDERAL WAY, WA 98003KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER: 0921049028, 0921049139, 0921049140, 0921049160, 0921049187, 0921049206 & 0921049316
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment G – Third-Party Review Letters
Technical Memorandum
130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (425) 778-0907
TO: Stacy Welsh, Senior Planner, City of Federal Way
FROM: Steven Quarterman
DATE: April 15, 2020
RE: Peer Review
Pape – Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and
Buffer Averaging Plan
NE Corner of I-5 and South 320th Street, Federal Way
Parcel Nos. 0921049028, 0921049139, 092104-9140, 0921049160, 0921049187,
0921049206, and 0921049316 (File No. 19-105322-AD)
Federal Way, Washington
LAI Project No. 0238090.010
Introduction
This technical memorandum provides Landau Associates, Inc.’s (LAI’s) peer review comments on the
March 5, 2020 Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Averaging Plan, Pape
Kenworth NW (March 2020 Report), prepared by Soundview Consultants, LLC (2020). The March 2020
Report documents the assessment of wetland and fish and wildlife habitat and proposed a wetland
buffer averaging plan at the subject property (i.e., King County Tax Parcel Nos. 0921049028,
0921049139, 0921049140, 0921049160, 0921049187, 0921049206, and 0921049316).
The purpose of this peer review was to provide a professional opinion regarding applicable regulatory
requirements in the City of Federal Way (City) Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19.145 (Environmentally
Critical Areas), specific to the Article IV Wetlands and the proposed buffer averaging plan proposed in
the March 2020 Report. LAI provided comments regarding the wetland assessment in a previous
technical memorandum (LAI 2019).
Peer review comments regarding the March 2020 Report are as follows:
1) LAI is clarifying that the net gain of the proposed buffer is 617 square feet, as opposed to
612 square feet identified in the March 2020 Report.
2) LAI concurs with the proposed buffer averaging plan, provided that additional descriptions
and/or representative photographs of referenced “native vegetation” and “invasive species and
fill material” in the area of the buffer increase area and buffer impact area, respectively, are
provided. The response provided to criteria in FWRC 19.145.440(5)(b) references that the buffer
increase area contains native species, but does not provide details of the species present. The
response also identifies that the area of buffer encroachment is located within a relatively
low-functioning area from a habitat standpoint due to the presence of invasive species and fill
material, but does not provide details regarding the type of invasive species or fill in the area.
Based on LAI’s review of the site from the reconnaissance conducted on December 18, 2019, LAI
recalls trails located in the buffer encroachment area, which are also shown on the base survey
of the project area provided by the City (separate from the March 2020 Report). The presence
of these trails may provide additional justification for the lower quality of buffer functions.
Landau Associates
Peer Review
Pape Wetland Delineation – Federal Way, Washington 2 April 15, 2020
* * * * *
This technical memorandum has been prepared for use by the City in evaluating the adequacy of the
summary of baseline conditions presented in the March 2020 Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Assessment and Buffer Averaging Plan, Pape Kenworth NW. The purpose of the review was to assess
the adequacy of the submitted documents for compliance with City requirements, as promulgated in
FWRC Title 19, and conformance with conventionally accepted wetland/waterway delineation
practices. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations
included in this document without the express written consent of LAI. Further, the reuse of
information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for
any other project, without review and authorization by LAI, shall be at the user’s sole risk. LAI
warrants that within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, these services have been
provided in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of
the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions as this project. LAI
makes no other warranty, either express or implied.
LAI appreciates this opportunity to be of service to the City. Please contact me if you have any
questions or if I may be of further service.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Steven Quarterman
Senior Associate
SJQ/JAF/ccy
P:\238\090\R\LAI Pape Buffer Avg Peer Review_tm - 04-15-20.docx
References
LAI. 2019. Technical Memorandum: Peer Review, Pape - Wetland Delineation, NE Corner of I-5 and
South 320th Street, Federal Way, Parcel Nos. Parcel Nos. 0921049028, 0921049139, 0921049187,
0921049140, 0921049160, 0921049316, and 0921049206 (File No. 19-105322-AD), Federal Way,
Washington. Landau Associates, Inc. December 23.
Soundview Consultants LLC. 2020. Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer
Averaging Plan, Pape Kenworth NW, Federal Way, Washington. March 5.
Technical Memorandum
130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (425) 778-0907
TO: Stacy Welsh, Senior Planner, City of Federal Way
FROM: Steven Quarterman
DATE: December 23, 2019
RE: Peer Review
Pape —Wetland Delineation
NE Corner of I-5 and South 320th Street, Federal Way
Parcel Nos. 092104-9028, 092104-9139, 092104-9187, 092104-9140,
092104-9160, 092104-9316, and 092104-9206 (File No. 19-105322-AD)
Federal Way, Washington
LAI Project No. 0238090.010
Introduction
This technical memorandum provides Landau Associates, Inc.’s (LAI’s) peer review comments on the
October 2019 Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment, 3014 South 320th Street &
31625 32nd Avenue South (October 2019 Report), prepared by Soundview Consultants, LLC
(Soundview Consultants LLC 2019).1 The assessment evaluated wetland and fish and wildlife habitat at
the parcels noted above, collectively referred to as the subject properties.
The purpose of this peer review was to provide a professional opinion regarding applicable regulatory
requirements in the City of Federal Way (City) Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19.145 (Environmentally
Critical Areas), specific to Article IV Wetlands.
Peer review comments regarding the October 2019 Report are as follows:
1) LAI staff conducted a reconnaissance of the subject properties on December 18, 2019 and agree
with the delineated boundary and rating of Wetland A included in the October 2019 report. LAI
was able to locate all sample plot and boundary flagging, as shown on Figure 1 of the October
2019 Report. The boundary of Wetland A was observed to generally follow the grade change of
the subject properties.
2) LAI recommends that the wetland boundary flagging be surveyed, if not already completed, for
inclusion on future site plans. LAI acknowledges that Figure 1 of the report presents a scaled site
map of the wetland boundary and flagging; however, the report does not provide an indication of
the method used for locating the boundary flagging shown on the figure (i.e., GPS or other land-
survey methods are not referenced). LAI also notes that evidence of possible survey activities on
the subject properties may have been initiated or completed, based on the presence of additional
flagging on the subject properties and minor clearing, which would provide access to the wetland
and associated boundary flagging.
3) LAI acknowledges the intent of the October 2019 Report was to provide a summary of existing
conditions on the subject properties, and it satisfies the applicable reporting requirements of
1 Soundview Consultants LLC. 2019. Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment, 3014 South 320th Street & 31625
32nd Avenue South, Federal Way, Washington. October 29.
Landau Associates
Peer Review
Pape Wetland Delineation – Federal Way, Washington 2 December 23, 2019
FWRC 19.145.080(2) (a through f) and FWRC 19.145.410(2)(a and c through g). Discussions of
impacts, mitigation sequencing, and other applicable development requirements included in
FWRC 19.145.080(2) (g through j) and FWRC 19.145.410(2)(b) are expected to be included in
subsequent development application submittals, as necessary.
* * * * *
This technical memorandum has been prepared for use by the City in evaluating the adequacy of the
summary of baseline conditions presented in the October 2019 Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Assessment, 3014 South 320th Street & 31625 32nd Avenue South. The purpose of the review was to
assess the adequacy of the submitted documents for compliance with City requirements, as
promulgated in FWRC Title 19, and conformance with conventionally accepted wetland/waterway
delineation practices. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and
recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of LAI. Further, the
reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the
project or for any other project, without review and authorization by LAI, shall be at the user’s sole
risk. LAI warrants that within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, these services have been
provided in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of
the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions as this project. LAI
makes no other warranty, either express or implied.
LAI appreciates this opportunity to be of service to the City. Please contact me if you have any
questions or if I may be of further service.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Steven Quarterman
Senior Associate
SJQ/JAF/ccy
P:\238\090\R\LAI Pape Critical Areas Peer Review_tm - 12-23-19.docx
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment H – City Review Letter
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Attachment I — Qualifications
All field inspections, jurisdictional wetland boundary delineations, habitat assessments, and supporting
documentation, including this Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer
Averaging Plan Technical Memorandum prepared for Papé Properties Inc., were prepared by,
or under the direction of, Matt DeCaro of SVC. In addition, site inspections and report preparation
were assisted by Racheal Hyland and Jake Layman.
Matt DeCaro
Senior Scientist / Environmental Planner
Professional Experience: 10+ years
Matt DeCaro is a Senior Scientist/Environmental Planner with a diverse background in environmental
planning, wetland science, stream ecology, water quality, site remediation, and environmental
regulatory compliance. Matt currently provides permitting and regulatory compliance assistance for
land use projects from their planning stages through review, approval, and construction. Matt
performs wetland, stream, and shoreline delineations and fish & wildlife habitat assessments; provides
land use planning assistance for residential, commercial, and industrial projects; conducts code and
regulation analysis; prepares reports and permit applications; and provides restoration and mitigation
design.
Matt earned a Bachelor of Science degree with a focus in Environmental Science from the Evergreen
State College in Olympia, Washington, with additional graduate-level coursework and research in
aquatic restoration and salmonid ecology. Matt has received 40-hour wetland delineation training
(Western Mtns, Valleys, & Coast and Arid West Regional Supplement), and he is a Pierce County
Qualified Wetland Specialist and Wildlife Biologist. Matt has been formally trained in the use of the
Washington State Wetland Rating System and Determination of Ordinary High-Water Mark by the
Washington State Department of Ecology. He has attended USFWS survey workshops for multiple
threatened and endangered species, and he is a Senior Author of WSDOT Biological Assessments.
Matt holds 40-hour HAZWOPER training and has managed Phase I Environmental Site Assessments,
subsurface investigations, and contaminant remediation projects throughout the Pacific Northwest.
His diverse experience also includes NEPA compliance for federal projects; noxious weed abatement;
army ant research in the Costa Rican tropical rainforest; spotted owl surveys on federal and private
lands; and salmonid spawning and migration surveys.
Rachael Hyland
Environmental Scientist
Professional Experience: 6 years
Rachael Hyland is a Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT) through the Society of Wetland
Scientists and a Certified Associated Ecologist through the Ecological Society of America. Rachael
has a background in wetland and ecological habitat assessments in various states, most notably
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Ohio, and Washington. She has experience in assessing
tidal, stream, and wetland systems, reporting on biological evaluations, permitting, and site
assessments. She also has extensive knowledge of bats and white nose syndrome (Pseudogymnoascus
destructans), a fungal disease affecting bats which was recently documented in Washington.
1779.0002 Papé Properties Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment & Buffer Averaging Plan Revised May 22, 2020
Rachael earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University
of Connecticut, with additional ecology studies at the graduate level. Rachael has completed Basic
Wetland Delineator Training with the Institute for Wetland Education and Environmental Research,
received 40-hour wetland delineation training (Western Mountains, Valleys, & Coast and Arid West
Regional Supplement), and received formal training from the Washington State Department of
Ecology in the Using the Revised 2014 Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, How to
Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark, Navigating SEPA, and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites
Using a Watershed Approach.
Jake Layman
Environmental Scientist
Professional Experience: 10+ years
Jake Layman is an Environmental Scientist with a varied background in fisheries, wildlife, and aquatic
invertebrate biology and stream and lake ecology. Jakes’s expertise includes endangered species
monitoring, lake limnology assessments, water chemistry profiles, off-channel habitat characterization,
laboratory management, and terrestrial and aquatic amphibian identification with associated habitat
assessments. Jake also has experience in fish population assessments, stream typing, spawning
escapement, environmental disaster recovery, and amphibian toxicology research. Jake has over 10
years of experience at the federal and state level conducting ecological monitoring surveys throughout
eastern and western Washington. He worked with the National Park Service to conduct environmental
compliance monitoring on park construction projects, infrastructure maintenance projects, and federal
highways projects. This position also included environmental spill response, fish exclusion surveys in
support of construction, and effectiveness monitoring on Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) projects. Jake
has worked with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to assess and
inventory fish passage barriers and monitor culvert removal projects throughout Western Washington.
While working for WDFW, Jake managed the daily operation for the intensive habitat study, on off-
channel wetlands, for the Chehalis Aquatic Resources Protection Plan (ASRP).
Jake earned Bachelor’s degrees in both Biology, with an Ecology specialization, and Geography, with
a Natural Resource Management specialization, from Central Washington University. In addition, Jake
also has a Minor in Environmental Studies and a Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
and Cartography form Central Washington University. Jake has received training from the
Washington State Department of Ecology in Environmental Negotiations; Navigating SEPA,
Conducting Forage Fish Surveys, Puget Sound Coastal Processes, Shoreline Modifications, and Beach
Restoration, and Using the Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines for Marine Shoreline Stabilization.
Jake has electro-fisher operation and safety training from Smith-Root INC and Department of the
Interior (DOI).