Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
16-105771
CITY OF �- Federal Way September 18, 2017 Mr. Pavlo Sokalskyy Dim Construction Inc. 1210 M Street SE, Suite 33 Auburn, WA 98002 Re: File #16-105771-00-AD; 3— PARTY WETLA D REv EW Sokaiskyy,, Parcels #292104-9090 & 9091, South 359W Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Sokalskyy: CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Fedsral Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.ckyoffeder&Way com Jim Ferrell, Mayor On December 2, 2016, the City of Federal Way received your request for third Report for parcel numbers 2921049090 and 2921049091, prepared by Habitat Technologies Dune 1review Ofthe3 edand 2016). The report indicated that there is a Category II wetland onsite (Wetland A) with a 165-foot buffer, The city forwarded your request to our wetland consultant, Otak, for their review. Otak completed a site visit, reviewed relevant documents, and prepared a technical tnernorandum (January 31, 2017) in which they .clad not concur with components of the Habitat Technologies report. The city concurred with Otak's review and requested more information/site analysis in a letter sent to you dated February 1, 2017. On June 6, 2017, the city received a response prepared by Habitat Technologies a 10, 2017). The response indicated there is a Category, III wetland on -site (Wetland A) with a 165-foot buffer and a Category I wetland Off -site (Wetland B) with a 225-foot buffer. The city forwarded the response to Otak for their review. Otak prepared a technical memorandum (September 5, 2017) in which they state Wetland A is a Category II wedand with a 165-foot buffer and both parcels are completely encumbered by the buffers from Wetlands A and B. Otak's September 5, 2017, technical memorandum states: "As shown on the Revised Figure 8 Site Map, both properties (Tax Parcels 292104-9060 & 292104-9091) are completely encumbered by the standard buffers from Wetland A (165 feet) and the Offsite wetland (225 feet) associated with Blest Fork Hylebos Creek.,, "Action by applicant: Submit a revised site plan in accordance with FWRC 19.145.440 (Development within wetland buffers), or a buffer mitigation plan that results in the um minim possible impacts to the functions and values of Wetland A•atzd its buffer per FWRC 19.145.090 (Reasonable use of the subject property)." Mr. Pavlo Sokalskyy Page2of2 September 18, 2017 CLOSING and buffer determinations. This d buildingsetback The city concurs with. a tak's review and accepts the wetland ratings sociated co ncludes the Request for Administrative Decision. Twetlands, s conformancPc with ,Federaay wed 19.145.440 must be delineated on the' plan of any development e 19.145.15.0(4),19.145.160, and 19.145.424• You are there is a proviso thged to review atwillwork for your Cod (��� CDevelopment Within. Wetland Buffers'} in order to de project, such as buffer aneragog• If the code would deprive ail reasonable use of the subject property, then See the reasonable use provision under ��C 19.145'0 ' of the roposed single family residence will require submittal, review, be' approval of a critical Construction e P can is areas code related Use Process III application 'd SEP rhtiie st before types submittals before t£ormal applications t to pW1tC 19.44.01� requires a greapplication conference a be subnutted. If you want to seek a waiver de the pr cornhor 333?5 8EhAvenue South, Federal rWay,SWA clatiOn conference, may ermitcent ci roffederal�v the city s Permit Centeror per 98003 for consideration by the Community Development D he city weh C city deralwa icflm . materials are enclosed for your use, they are also avail ave an uestions about this letter, I can be reached at state •.welsh et off eeralwa .cam or 253- Should you h y q 835-2634. Sincerely, Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner enc: Qtak S.epternber 5, 2017, Technical Mernbrandum Bulletin 003 `Master�LfM na C Apprenccon' Bulletin �4 `Preapp c Habitat' i'echnoi4cs,Thvmas Deming, PO Bnx 1088; l'uyailup, WA 983?1 Doc. I D. 76557 File 16-105771-00-AD Stacey Welsh From: Jeff Gray <Jeff.Gray@otak.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 2:48 PM To: Stacey Welsh Cc: Kevin O'Brien Subject: Sokalskyy, Federal Way #16-105771-00-AD - review of re -submitted materials Attachments: Sokalskyy—Secondary Review Memo_2017_0905.pdf Hi Stacey, Please find attached a technical memorandum regarding our review of the re -submitted application materials for the Sokalskyy project on South 3591h Street. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Regards, Jeff Gray Jeff Gray, MS, PWS 2731 Wetmore Avenue, Suite 402, Everett, WA 98201 c: 609.532.4620 1 f:425.827.9577 ieff gra4 (fit. �arRk.coin Nv�x-,w.otak.com IWA at Otak, we consider the environment before printing emails. The information transmitted in this e-mail message and attachments, if any, may contain confidential material, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Distribution to, or review by, unauthorized persons is prohibited. In the event of the unauthorized use of any material in this transmission, neither Otak nor the sender shall have any liability and the recipient shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the sender, Ot6k and its principals, agents, employees and subconsultants from all related claims and damages. The recipient understands and agrees that any use or distribution of the material in this transmission is conditioned upon the acceptance of the terms stated in this disclaimer. If you have received this transmission in error, immediately notify the sender and permanently delete this transmission including attachments, if any. Technical Memorandum TO: Stacey Welsh, Senior Planner City of Federal Way From: Jeff Gray, Senior Wetland Biologist Y>2491Y/illona Road NE Sid*200 Copies: File Re&oud, 117A 98052 Phone (425) 8224446 pate: September 5, 2017 Fax (425) 827-9577 Subject: Review of Revised Critical Area Report Sokalskyy — Wetland Delineation South 359"' Street, Federal Way Parcels: 292104-9060 & 292104-9091 Project No.: 32285.G Federal Way 16-105771-00-AD File No. This memo summarizes our review of the wetland delineation report and resubmittal information for File No. 16-105771-00-AD for the City of Federal Way (Community Development Department). Documents reviewed for consistency with the requirements of Federal `Play Revised Code (F`Y1RC) Chapter 19.145 (Environmentally Critical Areas), especially Article IV Chapter 19.145 "Wetlands," included: 1) Environmentally Critical Areas Assessment report (Habitat Technologies, dated June 13, 2016), and 2) letter dated May 10, 2017 from Habitat Technologies (Response to City of Federal Way Letter of February 1, 2017). The wetland delineation report and additional information were provided for Tax Parcels 292104-9060 & 292104-9091 located along South 359``1 Street in the City of Federal Wav, Washington. Findings Additional information regarding the methods used for determining the boundary of offsite wetlands along West Fork Hylebos Creek west of Tax Parcel #292104-9060 was provided as requested. The wetland boundary was revised based on additional data collected in the field, and is estimated to occur just offsite west and north of the property boundary as shown on the Revised Figure 8 Site Map. The offsite wetland is identified as a Category I wetland with a 225-Foot standard buffer. The wetland is partially within the buffer of West Hylebos Creek, and also meets the definition of a "fish and wildlife habitat conservation area." No rating form was provided to support the Category I wetland rating; however, the 225-foot buffer, shown on the Revised Figure 8 Site Map is the maximum required per FWRC 19.145.420. The estimated wetland boundary offsite appears accurate as shown. Stacey Welsh, Senior Planner, City ofFederal Way Page 3 South 359"' Street, Sokalskyy — Wetland Delineation September 3, 2017 5. As shown on the Revised Figure 8 Site Map, both properties (Tax Parcels 292104-9060 & 292104-9091) are completely encumbered by the standard buffers from Wetland A (165 feet) and the offsite wetland (225 feet) associated with West Fork Hylebos Creek. 6. Due to the wetland buffer impacts that would occur from construction as shown on the site plan (Plan Sheet M3975A3FA-0) prepared by Architects Northwest dated 2015, a buffer averaging or reduction with enhancement plan should be submitted that is in accordance with F%VRC 19.145.440 (Development within wetland buffers). The buffer mitigation plan should result in a no net loss of buffer functions to offset project impacts. As currently proposed, a straight buffer reduction or loss of buffer area without averaging or enhancement would result in a net loss of buffer functions and negatively impact `y/edand A. Alternatively, if the applicant applies for a modification or waiver from FWRC 19.145 using process III for a project on a single family lot and it is granted by the city, then at a, minimum a buffer mitigation plan should be submitted that results in the minimum possible impacts to the functions and values of Wetland A in accordance with FWRC 19.145.090 (Reasonable use of the subject property). Action by applicant: Submit a revised site plan in accordance with FWRC 19.145.440 (Development within wetland buffers), or a buffer mitigation plan that results in the minimum possible impacts to the functions and values of Wetland A and its buffer per FWRC 19.145.090 (Reasonable use of the subject property). A 1% CITY OF Federal Way DATE: September 18, 2017 TO: Erik Earle, IT GIS Analyst FROM: Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Critical Area Map Update — Wetlands MEMORANDUM Community Development Department FILE The purpose of this memo is to request an update to the GIS wetlands layer (atlas page #98). According to the Critical Area Report prepared by Habitat Technologies*, there is a Category III wetland on -site (Wetland A) with a 165-foot buffer and a Category I wetland off -site (Wetland B) with a 225-foot buffer, affecting parcels 2921049090 and 2921049091. The city's consultant, Otak, and the Department of Community Development reviewed the report and concur with one exception, that Wetland A is a Category II wetland with a 165-foot buffer. See Revised Figure 8 of the report for the mapped features. Approved 1 � DL Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager *The report is on the ftp site in the CD folder under "Sokalskyy." c: File 16-105771-AD File 16-105771-AD Doc ID 76559 Stacey Welsh From: Stacey Welsh Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 2:18 PM To: 'Kevin O'Brien' Subject: 3rd party review Attachments: 20170719141339.pdf Kevin, See attached for the signed task order for the Sokalskyy site. This is your authorization to proceed with the review work. If you have any questions let me know. Thank you, Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2634 Fax: 253/835-2609 www. c ityoffed e ra lway.co rn 44k CITY OF Federal Way WETLAND CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM #2 Date: June 9, 2017 City: City of Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 811i Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: Kevin O'Brien Otak H 241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 Project: Sokalskyy -- Wetland Delineation South 3591' Street, Federal Way Parcels. 292104-9060 & 292104-9091 File No.: 16-105771-00-AD Project Proponent: Pavlo Sokalskyy Dim Construction Inc. 1210 M Street SE 33 Auburn, WA 98002 253-335-6818, F,vawusinc ahoo.com Project Planner: Senior Planner Stacey Welsh stace .welsh cucit offedcralwa .cony, 253-835-2634 Project Background: The applicant is interested in developing the 1.7-acre site, which contains a wetland. Prior to submitting permit applications, review of the wetland delineation report is requested. Documents Provided: . Response to City of Federal Way Letter of February1 2017 Habitat Technologies (May 10, 2017) ,prepared by Sokalskyy—Wetland Delineation Wetland Consultant Authorization Fonn #2 File 16-105771-00-AD /Doc ID 76] 08 Page 1 of 2 Task Scope: 1. Review the response letter and attachments for consistency with the requirements of Feder ni Way Remised Code (FW RC) Chapter 19.145, "Environmentally Critical Areas," especially, a. Article IV Chapter 19.145 "Wetlands" 2. Conduct site visit(s) as necessary. 3. Provide written response to findings, recommendations, and request additional information from applicant if needed. 4. Possible meeting with applicant's wetland biologist. 5. Review of resubmitted/corrected documents as needed. 6. Project management as necessary if additional land use review is required Task Cost: Not to exceed S k 10 V without a prior written amendment to this Task Authoriza ort. Acceptalice: Consultant City of FedWay Staff C, )w Applicant City Map: June 30,2017 Date Date J� �ql f HM24UU RS15.5 :y_�nt �S;eat art[u - - I S 359TH ST stet y�L6i �t,c • •3131 .yCC pp If.l RS36.V File 16-105771 -00-AD I Doc ID 76108 5okalskyy - Wetland Delineation page,2 of 2 Wetiand Consultant Authorization Fonn #f2 4% Federal Way July 10, 2017 Mr. Pavlo Sokalskyy Dim Construction Inc. 1210 M Street SE, Suite 33 Auburn, WA 98002 Re: File #16-105771-00-AD; WETLAND CONSULTANT REVIEW ESTIMATE Sokalskyy — Wetland Delineation Review, Parcels #292104-9060 & 9091 South 3591n Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Sokalskyy: CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 9.8003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. citYoffederalway.. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor Enclosed please find the consultant task authorization with scope of work for review of the resubmitted critical areas report. The department's wetland consultant, Otal-, was asked to provide an estimate for their review of resubmitted information prepared by Habitat Technologies. There is less than $100 remaining of the $3,200 in review funds. A new check in the amount of $1,200.00 payable to the City of Federal Way, and signature 'on the consultant authorization Form, must be submitted before the review Nvill begin. Please note that if any of the funds are not used, they will be returned to the receipt, I will authorize Otak to begin their formal review of the resubmittal. Applicant. Additional reviews or meetings may require a supplemental cost and authorization. F'olloving If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at s ace .welsh ci Ffeder Iva .com, or 253-835-2634. Sincerely, Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner enc: Wetland Consultant Authorization Form City of Federal Way Invoice File 16-105771-00 .AD Doc. I.D. 76162 INVOICE City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue S. INVOICE TO: PAVLOSOKALSKYY DIM CONSTRUCTION INC BILL NO: 218500 1210 "M" ST SE SUITE 33 BILL DATE: July 10, 2017 AUBURN WA 98002 PERMIT NO: 16 105771 00 AD USA PROJECT LOCATION: *NO SITE ADDRESS* FOLDER NAME: SOKALSKYY - THIRD PARTY CRITICAL AREAS REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for peer review of wetland report. FEE DESCRIPTION CD - DEP ENV PASS-THRU (8045) AMOUNT $1,200.00 TOTAL: $1,200.00 PAYMENT RECEIVED: $0.00 BALANCE: $1,200.00 A�kCITY OF Federal Way June 9, 2017 Mr. Kevin O'Brien Otak 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 FILE Re: File #16-105771-00-AD; REQUEST FOR THIRD PARTY REVIEW Sokalskyy Wetland Delineation, Parcels 292104-9060 & 292104-9091 South 359�h Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. O'Brien: CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www- citYoffederalway.. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor Enclosed please find the task authorization form and resubmitted critical area report for third party review of the Sokalskyy Wetland Delineation. City staff is requesting review of the resubmittal terms of the on -call contract. As there is less than $100 in remaining reviepursuant to the agreed w funds, f please review the scope of work on the new task authorization form, enter the task cost on page t to the city. Fallowing the deposit of funds by the applicant, staff will provide you with an authorisation to of the document, sign, and return it proceed with the scope of work. Please contact me at 253-835-2634, or stare �.tvelsh ci ffederalwa .coin if you have any questions regarding this task. Sincerely, A__e_Z"1_Lj1_/� Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner Enclosure: Task Authorization Form Reference: Critical Area Report, on city's ftp site: fr �.cit n fedcrsil u m, then CD link and Sokalskyy link. 16-1 oi771-00-: \D Doc LD. 76019 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 333258 Avenue South RESUBMITTED Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 4k CITY OF IZ�t253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 Federal Way .111 11 2117 www.cityoffcdcralway.coin CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESUBMITTAL INFORMATION This completed form MUST accompany all resubmittals. "Please note.- Additional or revised plans or documents for an active project will not be accepted unless accompanied by this completed form. Mailed resubmittals that do not include this form or that do not contain the correct number of copies will be returned or discarded. You are encouraged to submit all items in person and to contact the Permit Counter prior to submitting ifyou are not sure about the number of copies required. ** ANYCHANGES TO DRAWINGS MUST BE CLOUDED. Project Number: Project Name: 14- dos -7 7 5'o La' lskuu Project Address: %t 36-q Project Contact: ��3 - � 3 S 6 G, D D RESUBMITTED ITEMS: 0 „f r'r%r%i00 ** S �-&d,ercd f� Phone: �3 IlPtnilPrl r)Pcr_rintinn of Item r ** Always submit the same number of copies as required foryour initial application. Resubmittal Requested by: (staff member) _ Letter Dated: 1 1 OFFICE USE Oft Y RESUB A Distribution Date., By.- Dept/Div Name #(Description Building annin PW Fire Other Bulletin#129—January 1, 2011 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Resubmittal Information �CITY OF : Federal Way February 1, 2017 Mr. Pavlo Sokalskyy Dim Construction Inc. 1210 M Street SE, Suite 33 Auburn, WA 98002 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Jim Ferrell, Mayor FILE Re: File #16-105771-AD; 3— PARTY WETLAND REVIEW Sokalskyy Wetland Review, Parcels #292104-9090 & 9091, South 359th Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Sokalskyy: On December 2, 2016, the City of Federal Way received your request for third party review of the Wetland Report for parcel numbers 2921049090 and 2921049091 prepared by Habitat Technologies Qune 13, 2016). The report indicates that there is a Category II wetland onsite (Wetland A) with a 165-foot buffer. WETLAND REPORT The city forwarded your request to our wetland consultant, Otak, for their review. Otak completed a site visit, reviewed relevant documents, and prepared a technical memorandum Qanuary 31, 2017) in which they do not concur with components of the Habitat Technologies report. The city concurs with Otak's review and requests more information/site analysis. NEXT STEPS Please review the comments and additional information requests in the memo prepared by Otak. A revised wetland report must be submitted. It is strongly recommended that this occur prior to submitting an application for development on the either of the two parcels. The revised report will be peer reviewed at the applicant's expense in accordance with Federal Way Revised Code 19.145.080(3). Should you have any questions about this letter, I can be reached at stated.%vels[i@cit�offe4etalway.cQm, or 253-835-2634. Sincerely, Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner enc: Otak's January 31, 2017, Technical Memorandum File #16-105771-00-AD Doc. I.D. 75337 Stacey Welsh From: Jeff Gray <Jeff.Gray@otak.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 1:20 PM To: Stacey Welsh Cc: Kevin O'Brien Subject: Sokalskyy-Wetland Delineation Peer Review (16-105771-AD) Attachments: Sokalskyy_Review Memo_2017_0131.pdf Hi Stacey, Attached please find Otak's review of the wetland delineation for the Sokalskyy project (16-105771-AD). If you have any questions please do not hesitate to reply or call at the number below. Regards, Jeff Gray so Jeff Gray I Senior Wetlands Scientist 2731 Wetmore revenue, Suite 402, Everett, WA 98201 v: 425.493.52251 c: 609.532.4620 1 f: 425.827.9577 j eff.,gM,v@otak.cam www.otak.com Aat Otak, we consider the environment before printing emails. The information transmitted in this e-mail message and attachments, if any, may contain confidential material, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Distribution to, or review by, unauthorized persons is prohibited. In the event of the unauthorized use of any material in this transmission, neither Otak nor the sender shall have any liability and the recipient shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the sender, Otak and its principals, agents, employees and subconsultants from all related claims and damages. The recipient understands and agrees that any use or distribution of the material in this transmission is conditioned upon the acceptance of the terms stated in this disclaimer. If you have received this transmission in error, immediately notify the sender and permanently delete this transmission including attachments, if any. Technical Memorandum To: Stacey Welsh, Senior Planner City of Federal Way From: Jeff Gray, Senior Wetland Biologist 11241 Willows Road NE Suite 200 Copies: File Redmond, WA 98052 Phone (425) 8224446 Date: January 31, 2017 Fax (425) 827-9577 Subject: Sokalskyy — Wetland Delineation South 359 h Street, Federal Way Parcels: 292104-9060 & 292104-9091 Project No.: 32285.G Federal Way 16-105771-00-AD File No. This memo summarizes our review of the Environmentally Critical Areas Assessment report and site plan for File No. 16-105771-00-AD for the City of Federal Way (Community Development Department). The report documents wetland delineation methods, classifications, and buffer widths for Pavlo Sokalskyy (project proponent), who is interested in developing the 1.7-acre project site (Tax Parcels 292104-9060 & 292104-9091). The project site is located along South 359th Street in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The following materials were submitted by the project proponent and reviewed by Otak, Inc. (Otak) for consistency with the requirements of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145 (Environmentally Critical Areas), especially Article IV Chapter 19.145 "Wetlands": Environmentally Critical Areas Assessment, prepared by Habitat Technologies (dated June 13, 2016) 0 Site Plan, prepared by Architects Northwest (dated 2015) In summary, the report from Habitat Technologies describes a small wetland (Wetland A) located in the southwestern corner of the project site on Tax Parcel 292104-9060. Wetland A is classified as a Category II wetland with a 165-foot standard buffer. The West Fork of Hylebos Creek and wetland corridor is identified offsite west of the project site. These wetlands are classified as Category I wetlands with a 225-foot standard buffer. Buffers to both wetlands extend east onto Tax Parcel #292104-9091. A site inspection was completed by Otak biologists on January 18, 2016 to review the wetland boundaries, ratings, and site conditions described in the Environmentally Critical Areas Assessment report. Stacey Welsh, Senior Planner, City of Federal Way South 359`h Street, Sokalskyy — Wetland Delineation Page 2 January 31, 2017 Wetland Delineation Field Review and Additional Information Request There appeared to be additional wetland areas than what was delineated by the applicant's consultant (Wetland A). Areas exhibiting wetland characteristics (saturated soil conditions, reduced soil profiles, and hydrophytic vegetation) were observed outside of the northern, southern, and eastern edges of Wetland A as currently delineated. Specifically, flags P2 to P5 and P9 to P11 appeared to be within the wetland area, and the wetland boundary should be revised based on additional field sampling. In addition: • The open field slopes west towards Wetland A, and at least two groundwater fed swales appear to emanate along the slope and connect to Wetland A. These low lying swales exhibited hydric soil indicators, surface water, and saturated soil conditions to a depth of at least 10 inches during the site inspection. • Ponding and hydrophytic vegetation were observed between the roadside ditch and the excavated pond within the fenced area. Groundwater was observed seeping into concave depressions south of the excavated pond. • North of the fenced area, the wetland appeared to extend further west/northwest than what was delineated based on similar soil characteristics, hydrology, and plant community composition as the delineated wetland area. • The presence or absence of wetlands needs to be documented in the roadside swale on the north side of 359`b Street in the road right of way and south of Parcel 292104-9060. During the site inspection, surface ponding, saturated soil conditions, a reduced soil profile, and a distinct hydrophytic vegetation community were observed. Per FWRC Chapter 19.145.410(2), all wetlands within 225 feet of the subject property should be identified and characterized if accessible. The applicant should complete additional field sampling and provide wetland determination data forms (data forms) to document the presence/absence of wetlands in these areas. The wetland boundary should be revised accordingly based on the results. Sample plots should be shown on a site figure. Environmentally Critical Areas Report Review and Additional Information Request Additional information and clarification regarding site conditions, mapping methods, and wetland ratings is requested after reviewing the Environmentally Critical Areas Report. 2 `1 Stacey Welsh, Senior Planner, City ofFederal Way South 359s' Street, Sokalskyy — Wetland Delineation Page 3 January 31, 2017 • Please describe the methods used for determining the boundary of the West Hylebos wetland corridor located offsite and west of project site as shown on Figure 8. • Five wetland determination data forms are included in the report, but only one sample plot is shown on Figure W1. Please show the location of all sample plots in Figure W1. Please also revise the data sheets as necessary to reflect field conditions. For example, the wetland determination data form for sample plot 3 (SP3) does not include the large cottonwood tree 10 feet from the pin flag indicating the location of SP3. • Please provide an accuracy statement for the wetland boundary mapping, and describe the equipment used to survey/locate the wetland flags in the field. • Please revise the wetland rating form based on any adjustments to the wetland boundary, and correct inconsistencies regarding Cowardin classes, hydroperiods, and interspersion of habitats between maps in the report and the rating form. Summary of Findings The applicant should revise the wetland boundary based on the results of the additional sample plots in the locations mentioned previously. Additional sample plots should be completed in the roadside swale, low lying swales in the field that slope west towards Wetland A, and the area between the excavated pond and the roadside swale. Wetland boundaries should be adjusted based on the results of the data collection, and wetland characteristics and ratings should be revised accordingly. The Environmentally Critical Areas Assessment report should be revised to reflect these changes and re- submitted. Otak staff is available to answer any questions from the applicant or their consultant, and can attend an onsite meeting with the applicant or their consultant if requested. 3 Thn map forwes we ligm male and are Intended onlylopraNdaanind'xallonI aoldtebl�•n Addldonak ar�La wal havo Iva "an R�t9ppCd may uu ptesom 7Nefx nor a sorry TTreatRrspttalos and om9r data may Itetaligm Awce. County. "d Habliot TpCUwoOIDSLsmmarrul;alL��y hrvanalrona auGl uxrraryy Aq dalA !6 Wvprexf ly ArovidedAS IS and WTHALL FAULTS. P1Crca Counly and rfabllst TerJrtONies mako no warraniy or sates fora particular purp im Map Legend 0 Wetland A OPS L..I Tax Parcels • King County Third Party - 2009 - USDA- NAIP (1m) Ortho Highilghted Tax Parcels Tax Parcels Roads Roads - King County loInterstate le Limited Access SOW Routes 01bar Otate Routes Romps h� IdoJorArterlol r/ collector Loral Access Unknovm P Rf i PMCx012 Pjj yR Figure W1 0 50 100ft. Habitat Technologies 716/16 9:56 AM Stacey Welsh From: Jeff Gray <Jeff.Gray@otak.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 2:48 PM To: Stacey Welsh Cc: Kevin O'Brien Subject: Sokalskyy, Federal Way #16-105771-00-AD - review of re -submitted materials Attachments: Sokalskyy—Secondary Review Memo_2017_0905.pdf Hi Stacey, Please find attached a technical memorandum regarding our review of the re -submitted application materials for the Sokalskyy project on South 359th Street. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Regards, Jeff Gray Now, Jeff Gray, MS, PWS 2731 Wetmore avenue, Suite 402, Everett, WA 98201 c: 609.532.4620 1 f: 425.827.9577 ieff gra3rCt�or�k.cnm -,vww.o tak.com Aat Otak, we consider the environment before printing emails. The information transmitted in this e-mail message and attachments, if any, may contain confidential material, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Distribution to, or review by, unauthorized persons is prohibited. In the event of the unauthorized use of any material in this transmission, neither Otak nor the sender shall have any liability and the recipient shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the sender, Otak and its principals, agents, employees and subconsultants from all related claims and damages. The recipient understands and agrees that any use or distribution of the material in this transmission is conditioned upon the acceptance of the terms stated in this disclaimer. If you have received this transmission in error, immediately notify the sender and permanently delete this transmission including attachments, if any. K Technical Memorandum TO: Stacey Welsh, Senior Planner City of Federal Way 1241117illonw Rod ATE From: Jeff Gray, Senior Wetland Biologist Saile200 Reibnond, )[7A 98032 Copies: File Pboue (-/2SJ 8224=146 Fox? (423) 827-9377 Date: September 5 2017 Subject: Review of Revised Critical Area Report Sokalskyy — Wetland Delineation South 359"' Street, Federal Way Project No.: Parcels: 292104-9060 & 292104-9091 32285.G Federal Way 16-105771-00-AD File No. This memo summarizes our review of the wetland delineation report and resubmittal information for File No. 16-105771-00-AD for the City of Federal Way (Community Development Department). Documents reviewed for consistency with the requirements of Federal Wa - Revised ) Chapter 19.145 (Environmentally Critical Areas)especiallyArticle IV 3 rsed Code �j•��Z�} included: 1) Environmentally Critical rlce�s tlssessment report (HabitatCT Chapter logics d ted June 13 2016), and 2) letter dated Ma 10 2 5 017 from Habitat Technologies (Response to City of Federal Way Letter of Feb'uai_y 1, 2017). The wetland delineation report and additional information were provided for Tax Parcels 292104-9060 & 292104-9091 located along South 359`' Federal Way, NVashington. Street in the City of Findings Additional information regarding the methods used for determining the boundary of offsite wetlands along West Fork Hylebos Creek west of Tax Parcel #292104-9060 Nvas provided as requested. The wetland boundaryvas revi and is estimated to occur sed based on additional data collected in the field, just offsite west and north of the property boundary -as shown on the Revised Figure 8 Site IViap. The offsite wethnd is identifies{ as a Category I wetland with a 225-foot standard buffer. The wetland is partially within the buffer of West Hylebos Creek, and also meets the definition of a "fish and wildlife habitat conservation are No rating formwas Provided to support the Category I wetland rating; however, the. 22 - shown on the Revised Figure 8 Site Map is the rnaxirnum required er I�IC' 5 foot buffer The C8611iared wetland boundary offsite appears accurate as shown. p IZC 19.145.4�0. Page 2 Stacep Welsh, Senior planner, City of Federal Way South 359"' Street, Sokalskyy — Wetland Delineation September 5, 2017 2. Additional Wetland Determination Data For ��� � � bau claryrequested. and the addition of additional forms document the revision to thehe Wetland B offsite within the right of way (ROW) of S59"' Figet 8TS tereN iced Wetland A boundary is demarcated by points Al to A17 on the Rev appears accurate as shown. The revised wetland boundary reflects the site conditions �017. observed and .discussed during a site meeting a d HsTechnologies ro d ROW, and Wetland B was delineated in. the Wear roads p esion within not meet the definition of a discharges to the south through a cross drain. Wetland B doetland intentionally created from regulated wetland per FtiVRC 19.05.230 as it is an artificial a non wetland site (e.g., drainage ditch), and therefore has no buffer. Ctns�te wetland bounc{aries appear consistent with FG�71ZC19 987 Corps Wetland Delineation tNlanuon l and the delineation), and in accordance with the 1 p elan ns, Valleys, and Coast Regional Supplement. 2010 Corps Western Mountai o locate the wetland 3. An accuracy statement vas pro that lists the delineation report tfigures- I is assumed this boundary in the field for transfer r to to the wetland sed on site plans r the same digital data would be uMa 60CSX isdtyp typically accurate use applications. oewi hin five information provided, the Garman GPS p meters, with accuracy increasing in open areas that allow 9 145or more for ccollectiontof this locations. sou cede there is no specific accuracy requirement in Fti�RC mapping data, the five meter (16.4 feet) margin u e applications. o per Despite this Uncertainty, int falls short of �,pjcal he standards used on site plans for proposed land wetland boundaries appear accurate as shown on the aerial photograph used as the basemap for the Revised Figure 8 Site Map. uesti ons 4. A revised Wetland Rating Form was provided thanreinclues The updated answupdated answers oerQs result din D1.1 and D4.1 based on the revised Wetland A bunda Wetland A being changed from a category Question H2.2 (25% undisturbed a + 30%ver, the land use calculations provided to moderate and low intensity) result in less than 50% of th0e e ti11, et e kilometer polygon f Ooni phi be intensity land use. Question H2.3 should be revised t revised to moderate. The moderate rating ret n an II or III overall score wetland 20 points h tfergividth II) for the wetland unit. Regardless of the Category remains unchanged from 165 feet as both Cnteard tau ff r. e bu ffer widths with a the habitat score of 7 points have a 165-font stand s shown and in accordance with FWRC 19.145.420. Revised Figure 8 Site Map are accurate a 2 N M M Stacey Welsh, Senior Planner, City ofFederal Way South 359"' Street, Sokalskyy — Wetland Delineation Page 3 September 5, 2017 5. As shown on the Revised Figure 8 Site Map, both properties (Tax Parcels 292104-9060 & 292104-9091) are completely encumbered by the standard buffers from Wetland A (165 feet) and the offsite wetland (225 feet) associated with ``Vest Fork Hylebos Creek. Due to the wetland buffer impacts that would occur from construction as shown on the site plan (Plan Sheet M3975A3FA-0) prepared by Architects Northwest dated 2015, a buffer averaging or reduction with enhancement plan should be submitted that is in accordance with FWRC 19.145.440 (Development within wetland buffers). The buffer mitigation plan should result in a no net loss of buffer functions to offset project impacts. As currently proposed, a straight buffer reduction or loss of buffer area without averaging or enhancement would result in a net loss of buffer functions and negatively impact Wetland A. Alternatively, if the applicant applies fora modification or waiver from FWRC 19.145 using process III for a project on a single family lot and it is granted by the city, then at a minimum a buffer mitigation plan should be submitted that results in the minimum possible impacts to the functions and values of Wetland A in accordance with FWRC 19.145.090 (Reasonable use of the subject property). Action byapplicant.• Submit a revised site plan in accordance with FWRC 19.145.440 (Development within wetland buffers), or a buffer mitigation plan that results in the minimum possible impacts to the functions and values of Wetland A and its buffer per FWRC 19.145.090 (Reasonable use of the subject property). CITY OF V:&� Federal Way WETLAND CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: December 9, 201$ City: City of Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: Kevin O'Brien Otak 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 Project: Sokalskyy— WetlandDelineation South 359a' Street, Federal }Nay Parcels: 292104-9060 & 292104-9091 File No.: 16-105771-00-AD Project Proponent: Pardo Sokalskyy Dim Construction Inc. 1210 M Street SE 33 Auburn, WA 98002 253-335-6818 AAAD- sic a shoos Project Planner: Senior Planner Stacey Welsh staee .welsla a�cit affederalwa .com, 253-835-2634 Project Background: The applicant is interested in developing the 1.7-acre site, which contains wetland. Prior to submitting permit applications, a review of the wetland delineation report is requested. Documents Provided: . Environmentally Critical Areas ,assessment Technologies (report date: June 13, 2016) prepared by Habitat ■ Site Plan, prepared by Architects Northwest (dated 2015) Task Scope: 1 . Review the wetland delineation for consistency with the requirements of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145, "Environmentally Critical Areas," especially: a. Article IV Chapter 19.145 "Wetlands" 2. Conduct site visit(s) as necessary. 3. Provide written response to findings, recommendations, and request additional information from applicant if needed. 4. Possible meeting with applicant's wetland biologist. 5. Review of resubmitted/corrected documents as needed. 6. Project management as necessary if additional land use review is required Task Cost: ov Not to exceed $ 3 -00 without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. Acceptance: Consultant Date( City of Feder Way Staff Date Applicant Date City Map: HM24UU RS15.0 -qcrn 22, OL 5Kl W Mp Owa ly 159TH ST all! CITY OF ti. Federal Way December 22, 2016 Pavlo Sokalskyy Dim Construction Inc. 1210 M St SE, Suite 33 Auburn, WA 98002 RE: File #16-105771-00-AD; WETLAND CONSULTANT REV1Ew ESTIMATE Sokalskyy - Wetland Delineation Review, Parcels #292104-9060 & 9091 South 3591h Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Sokalskyy: ALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor Enclosed please find the consultant task authorization with scope of work for review of the critical areas report. The Department's wetland consultant, Otak, was asked to provide an estimate for their review of information prepared by Habitat Technologies. The normal course of action is for the City to set up an account to be funded by the applicant and drawn down by the work performed by Otak. Please note that if any of the fiords are not used, they will be returned to the applicant. A check in the amount of $3,200.00, payable to the City of Federal Way, and signature on the consultant authorization form must be submitted before the review will begin. Please note - this fee will cover the review of the materials, field review, memorandum, plus one revision review. Any meeting would occur during Otak's field review if requested by the applicant. Additional reviews or meetings beyond that will require a supplemental cost and authorization. Following receipt, I will authorize Otak to begin their formal review. If You have any questions regarding this letter or your project, please contact une at 253-835-2634 or Stacey.welsh@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner enc., Welland Consultant Authorization Form Cite of I-edeml Way Invoice 16-105771-00-AD Doc. I,D 7j152 Stacey Welsh From: Kevin O'Brien <kevin.obrien@otak.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 6:06 PM To: Stacey Welsh Subject: Third party review, Sokalskyy wetland delineation Attachments: Sokalskyy_third_party_review_scoped_fees_Otak.pdf Hi Stacey, Please find, attached, our fee estimate for the third party review of the wetland delineation and documentation for the Sokalskyy project. Please note that tasks 3, 4, or 6, if not necessary, will decrease the overall cost of the review. This fee estimate assumes all tasks provided in the scope will be covered. Cheers, Kevin O'Brien, Ph.D. I Senior Associate I Senior Ecologist 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200, Redmond, Washington 98052 v: 425.739.7975 1 f: 425.827.9577 kc%Jn.obrien@otak.co m www.otak.com CITY OF Federal Way Date: WETLAND CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM December 9, 2016 City: City of Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 8sh Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: Kevin O'Brien Otak 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 Project: Sokalskyy—WetlandDelineation South 350 Street, Federal Way Parcels: 292104-9060 & 292104-9091 File No.: 16-105771-00-AD Project Proponent: Pavlo Sokalskyy Dim Construction Inc. 1210 M Street SE 33 Auburn, WA 98002 253-335-6818 wawusinc r@yahgS1._ m Project Planner: Senior Planner Stacey Welsh stace .welsfiLicityoffederalway.coni, 253-835-2634 Project Background: The applicant is interested in developing the 1.7-acre site, which contains a wetland. Prior to submitting permit applications, review of the wetland delineation report is requested. Documents Provided: a Environmentally Critical Areas Assessment, prepared by Habitat Technologies (report date: June 13, 2016) 0 Site Plan, prepared by Architects Northwest (dated 2015) CITY of Ot�k, Inc. v= . Federal Way 2 DEC 1 2016 16 RECEIVED December 9, 2016 Mr. Kevin O'Brien Otak 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 Re: File #16-105771-00-AD; REQUEST FOR TmRD PARTY REvrEw Sokalskyy Weltand Delineation, Parcels 292104-9060 & 292104-9091, South 359t6 Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. O'Brien: 032285.G00 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Jim Ferrell, Mayor Enclosed please find the task authorization form and critical area report for third party review of the Sokalskyy Wetland Delineation. City staff is requesting review pursuant to the agreed terms of the on -call contract Please review the scope of work on the task authorization form, enter the task cost on page two of the document, sign, and return it to the city. Following the deposit of funds by the applicant, staff will provide you with an authorization to proceed with the scope of work. Please contact me at 253-835-2634, or staeey,vrelsh cckityoffgderalway.com, if you have any questions regarding this task. Sincerely, .)41 L Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner enc: Task Authorization Norm Critical Area Report Site Plan File AIG-105771-00-AD Doc, 1,13. 75067 a Task Scope: 1. Review the wetland delineation for consistency with the requirements of Federal Way Revised Code TWRQ Chapter 19.145, "Environmentally Critical Areas," especially: a. Article IV Chapter 19.145 "Wetlands" 2. Conduct site visit(s) as necessary. 3. Provide written response to findings, recommendations, and request additional information from applicant if needed. 4. Possible meeting with applicant°s wetland biologist. 5. Review of resubmitted/corrected documents as needed, b. Project management as necessary if additional land use review is required 0110 To& Cost: Not to exceed $ �-U CJ 0 without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. Acceptance: Consultant Dat,. City of Federal Way Staff Applicant City Map: RM74UU RS15.a M9 IM i S 359TH ST ,a• rwr rar j �cmt :r:raa :ewe arse ar s nm sa?w euE ryr RS3510 Date Date CITY OF �Tederal Way December 9, 2016 1V&. Kevin O'Brien Otak 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 Re: File #16-105771-00-AD; REQUEST FOR THIRD PARTY REVIEW Sokalskyy Wetland Delineation, Parcels 292104-9060 & 292104-9091, South 359th Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. O'Brien: I � CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor Enclosed please find the task authorization form and critical area report for third party review of the Sokalskyy Wetland Delineation. City staff is requesting review pursuant to the agreed terms of the on -call contract. Please review the scope of work on the task authorization form, enter the task cost on page two of the document, sign, and return it to the city. Following the deposit of funds by the applicant, staff will provide you with an authorization to proceed with the scope of work. Please contact me at 253-835-2634, or stacey.welsh@c-iiyoffedmlway.com. cityoffederalway.com. if you have any questions regarding this task. Sincerely, ��G� Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner enc: Task Authorization Form Critical Area Report Site Plan File #16-105771-00-AD Doe. I.D. 75067 0TV OF Federal Way WETLAND CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: December 9, 2016 City: City of Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 8"' Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: Kevin O'Brien Otak 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 Project: Sokalskyy — Wetland Delineation South 359t' Street, Federal Way Parcels: 292104-9060 & 292104-9091 File No.: 16-105771-00-AD Project Proponent: Pavlo Sokalskyy Dim Construction Inc. 1210 M Street SE 33 Auburn, WA 98002 253-335-6818 wawu sinc@yahon.com Project Planner: Senior Planner Stacey Welsh staceywelsh@cityoffederalway.com, 253-835-2634 Project Background: The applicant is interested in developing the 1.7-acre site, which contains a wetland. Prior to submitting permit applications, review of the wetland delineation report is requested. Documents Provided: • Environmentally Critical Areas Assessment, prepared by Habitat Technologies (report date: June 13, 2016) 0 Site Plan, prepared by Architects Northwest (dated 2015) Task Scope: 1. Review the wetland delineation for consistency with the requirements of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145, `Environmentally Critical Areas," especially: a. Article IV Chapter 19.145 "Wetlands" 2. Conduct site visit(s) as necessary. 3. Provide written response to findings, recommendations, and request additional information from applicant if needed. 4. Possible meeting with applicant's wetland biologist. 5. Review of resubmitted/corrected documents as needed. 6. Project management as necessary if additional land use review is required Task Cost: Not to exceed $ without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. Acceptance: Consultant Date City of Federal Way Staff Date Applicant Date City Map: Mne&2= HM24UU � 1 a RsSaw 15.0 00131 EMT 9rs"~S �-W- a=^ S 359TH ST j I r;rim oc osn s: 9T53 KW I RS35.0 ��. RECEIVAREST FOR AbidiNISTRATwE DECISION CITY OF ¢y DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Federal WayUE C ®F! 2016 33325 8'h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 CDS www.cityoffederalway.com FILE NUMBER - ' L� T t Date Applicant NAME P, Vco SC,k" is �� PRIMARY PHONE -� 33S 6918 BUSINESS/ORGANIZATION ALTERNATE PHONE Dfyv� cus,I)LILL ��,"4 r MAILING ADDRESS - E-MAIL wi�W V5 iIVC- won, I110 s� S- 33 CITY ZIP FAX �STATE ,y Property Address(Location pelnc e- IS a qa I O4 90 60 _ -213 31 01-1 -10 9 k 3s--i-A sl FeArz,1 Wkti Description of Req List/Describe For Staff Use ❑ Code Interpretation/Clarification ql-�Critical Areas Letter/Analysis/Peer Review ❑ Request for Extension (Land Use/Plat Approval) ❑ Revisions to Approved Permit ❑ Tree Removal ❑ Zoning Compliance Letter El No Fee No Fee (Actual Cost if Applicable) Check Current Fee Schedule Check Current Fee Schedule No Fee Check Current Fee Schedule Bulletin #079 — January 4, 2016 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Request for Administrative Decision 292j'04-1091 / f ❑ftitn Category 2 l Wa 0nr1 8utfer / I T i i i i 1 I f � � f ' � 1 1 Im 0 ry ® 55gTH ST m TAX ACCOUNT # 2g2104-g0gl SITE ADDRESS FEDERAL WAY, DNA SITE FLAN OWNER 5GALE : I" = 20'-0" O 20 40 50 YURIY MOMOTYUK 283l-1 54TH AVE 5, AUBURN, WA g5003 DEC 0 2 ZA IL �K �a faGLYME�R /AI �xx JOB NUUBER�� 160365 CD5 HABITAT TFICH OLOGIES May 10, 2017 Mr. Yuriy Momotyuk @ YUMO Construction LLC 27327 — 4811 Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 e-mail yuriym@usa.com Mr. Pavlo Sokalshyy @ Dim Construction Inc. 1210 M Street SE, Suite 33 Auburn, Washington 98002 RESUBMITTED JUN 06 2017 MY Or FEDERAL WAY C'OWUhfiY DEVELOPMENT RE: Response to City of Federal Way Letter of February 1, 2017 Parcels 2921049060 and 2921049091 South 3591h Street, City of Federal Way, King County Dear Project Team, Pursuant to the comments provided in the City of Federal Way letter dated February 1, 2017, Habitat Technologies has completed a series of onsite re -assessments and has met onsite with the City of Federal Way environmental review staff. This re -assessment process has allowed for additional field data collection, an extended review of seasonal hydrology patterns, and an updated wetland delineation. Item #1 — Describe the methods used for determining the boundary of the West Hylebos Wetland Corridor located offsite and west of the project site as shown on Revised Figure 8. Discussion: As identified within the Environmentally Critical Areas Assessment dated June 13, 2016 the West Fork of Hylebos Creek Corridor was located offsite to the west of the project site. The wetland associated with this corridor adjacent to the project site was identified as best meeting the criteria for designation as a City of Federal Way Category I Wetland with a 225-foot standard buffer. This Corridor would also appear to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Federal Way "Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas." Additional assessment was completed between early February and mid -May 2017 to provide a more accurate depiction of the approximate edge of the wetland associated with the VVest Fork of Hylebos Creek Corridor adjacent to the project site. This additional assessment included additional onsite evaluations and a more detailed review of prior wetland assessment surveys of parcels within the local area. As a result of this additional assessment the approximate wetland boundary has been depicted on the Revised Figure 8 (attached). As with the 2016 assessment, the identified wetland boundary for this offsite corridor was not specifically flagged, wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife - mitigation and permitting solutions P.Q. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 253-845-5119 contact@habitattechnologies.net was not defined by the hand-held field GIPS (with the exception of the wetland adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site), and was not professionally surveyed following the 2017 assessment. As defined within the Environmentally Critical Areas Assessment dated June 13, 2016 the project site had been modified by prior land use actions. These actions had included the prior import and placement of fill particularly along the northern boundary of the project site. The offsite wetland to the north was identified at the toe of this prior fill using a hand-held GIPS (Off 1 and Off 2) and depicted on the Revised Figure 8. Item #2 — Show the location of all sample plots on Figure W1 and revise field data forms as needed. Discussion: Following the onsite meeting with City of Federal Way environmental review staff a series of additional sample plots was established throughout the project site. The 2107 sample plots are depicted on Revised Figure 8 and were used to provide an updated wetland boundary based on existing site conditions identified between early February and mid -May 2017. The collection of this additional field data, coupled with the 2016 field data, allowed for a refinement of the onsite wetland boundary (Wetland A). The boundary identified during the 2017 assessment period was defined with wooden lath and flagging. Routine mowing of the project site had removed the majority of 2016 wire flagging. As a result of above normal seasonal rainfall events during the early February and mid -May 2017 assessment period the pattern of seasonal surface water movement across the project site was also refined over the 2016 assessment. As noted during 2017 seasonal surface water was identified to move generally from the northeast to the southwest across the project site. No seasonal surface water was identified to enter and travel across the project site from the northern boundary. In addition, no seasonal surface water was identified to exit the site to the west as a result of an elevated buried utility corridor along the entire western boundary of the project site. As noted during the 2016 assessment the onsite surface water appeared to be terminating within the small excavated pond in the southwestern portion of the project site. This area of the excavated pond had been managed as a garden during prior growing seasons. However, as noted during the 2017 assessment onsite surface water was identified to continue to the south from the area of the excavated pond. At the southern boundary of the project site seasonal surface water was identified to enter a created road -side ditch associated with South 3591" Street. Once within the created road -side ditch seasonal surface water entered a controlled inlet to a culver leading to the south and out letting to the south of South 359th Street. 16070 As noted in the Environmentally Critical Areas Assessment dated June 13, 2016 Wetland A was best defined as mixture of managed lawn, garden area, and an excavated farm pond. This wetland was dominated by a grass and herb plant community and included a few trees and shrubs generally around the pond. The 2017 assessment also identified that a portion of the created roadside ditch along South 3591h Street also exhibited wetland characteristics. This area (flagged onsite as Wetland B) was regularly managed as a part of roadway maintenance actions and appeared best defined as an "intentionally created feature." As such, this roadside ditch would not appear to be regulated as a `wetland" and the City of Federal Way. In addition, this roadside ditch was located offsite and would require City of Federal Way approval for any work within the right of way. Item #3 — Provide an accuracy statement for the wetland boundary mapping and describe the equipment used to survey/locate the wetland flags. Discussion: The location of the onsite wetland boundary and the sample plots was defined use a hand-held GPS (Garman GPS Map 60CSX). While not survey quality, this GPS identified spot locations typically accurate to within five meters. Accuracy increases with a lack of overhead vegetation obstructions and satellite locations. Item #4 — Revise the wetland rating form based on any adjustments to the wetland boundary. Discussion: As noted above the 2017 assessment identified a few additional site variations not identified during the 2016 assessment. Following this assessment, the wetland rating from for Wetland A has been updated (see attached). During the 2016 assessment Wetland A was identified as within a closed depression with no surface water outlet. However, as noted in 2017 Wetland A exhibited a surface water outflow to the south that entered the created roadside ditch associated with South 359"' Street. As such, the rating numbers associated with the character of the surface water outflow from the wetland as depicted in questions D.1.1 and D.4.1 were revised from a score of "4" to a score of "2." This change dropped the total wetland score from "20" points to 19" points resulting in a change in wetland category from " I I" to "III." The standard buffer for either a Category 11 or Category Ill Wetland with a habitat score of 6 or 7 points is 165 feet. Please contact me with any questions or directions. Sincerely, Thomas D. Deming Habitat Technologies 16070 FIGURES 16070 PHOTOS 16070 meP srnircr do -.,,, aoe av unatou w 9mHdc m W krrw� M rowl kr`n_ hddiowcJ mm qvi sage ant Mx�d w.arte tcm. ILa n xa n wnay.7le rsf Jau'R y nrr .t�� P+rns[mueryaa liner xdaagy`ka aiw[a AD illln4rT W >�.� .vv � rr wrn l ul.lrnul.n vr¢ y eal H�b;C� Snamleq.. euu m wy,mry lo�1"m��fYv1�ry� 11�ap Legend ` Otfsite Wetland � Pond Wetland B ® AHeuand A # iGPS paints Highlfghtsd tax Parcels - King County Q, � c��cels - King Al spa A3 Third Pally - 2009 - US�A #AiP (1m) Or1ho FFighiightad Tax Parcels Roads -King County • lSP6itlmked Accoss SEa6e Routes Mt7ksor 5la2e Rouws �r Rampe �,/ MAjor Arlerisf '/ ICoxeCiCr Local Acuas �/ Unknovm PnMad: 5/22/1712:39 PM Habitat Technokmghe—sF Revised Figure 8 Site Map View of Sample Plot #4 on May 2, 2017 View westerly from central eastern portion of parcel. Wetland A depicted with flagged lath. 16070 '� � �+tea► "OF 1 View of garden in southwestern corner of parcel. Seasonal surface water identified to drain from left to ri ht north to south and enter ditch alon South 3591h Street: y�r iY j Y A .r•r -�, . '�S . i� •'fir ir"S. ' -;� 1 t II � �•r y Seasonal surface water exits through the garden area at the pink flag on the southern property boundary fence, Seasonal algae mat present along drainage. 16070 View of created roadside ditch south of the southwestern corner of the project site. A drain in the created roadside ditch conveys seasonal surface water runoff to the south under South 359th Street. 16070 APPENDIX A — 2017 Field Data 16070 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcels 2921049D60 and 2921049091 City/County: City of Federal Wav Kin4 Crnmty Sampling Date:2 MAY 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP1A Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: sec 26, town 19N, ranee 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight slope Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47"16'49.19"N Long: 122"19'05.80"W Datum: Sail Map Unit Name: Bellingham sift loam 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 ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ER within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: mowed and managed area. plant community a good mixture of grasses and herbs. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Slraturtl (Plot size: 15ft radius °/ Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1, That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66% (A/B) Sa lip Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 159_radius} 1. Prevalence Index worksheets 2. Total % Cover of: Mulli)ly by OBL species x 1 = 3. 4, FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = He . Stratum (Plot size: 15h radius) UPL species x 5 = 1. Poa spp. >20 yes - Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Dactylic d.Qmerata n20 yes �CiJ 3. Festuca rubra >20 yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Conium maculatum a20 ems FAG 5. Taraxacum officinale <1Q no FAC U ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6 ® Dominance Test is >50% 7 ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' 8 ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. [1 Problematic Hydrophytc Vegetation' (Explain) 11 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 100% Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woadddy Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15h radius] 1. Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: area of regularly management through mowing. very mixed community of grasses and herbs. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 SOIL to the depth needed to document the indicator or Sampling Point: SP1A Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (mast) % Color moist % Type' LocZ Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR 3/2 100 16-22 10YR 3/3 GL mixed gravelly loam GL mixed gravelly loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils9: ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (Al0) ❑ 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 (All) ❑ Depleted Matrix (173) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (176) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Depth (inches): I Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: drains moderately well and area dominated by mixed gravelly loam. no field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of, one required: check all that apply ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (65) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (132) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (137) Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): dry to 22" Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): d to 22" J Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes [I No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No field indicators of wetland hydrology. onsite review of 27 April 17 and 4 April 17 no free water to 22" US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjectlSite: Parcels 2921049060 and 2921049091 City/County: City of Federal'fty King Courtly Sampling Date:2 MAY 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP2A Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: sec 26. town 19N. range 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight Slone _ Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR): A Lar 47"16'49.19"N Long: 122"19'05.80"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam 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 ❑ is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No ED Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: mowed and managed area. plant community a good mixture of grasses and herbs. sample plot at edge of wet topographic Swale. Sample plot is located at edge of identified wetland. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1 ft radius 1. 2. 3. 4. 5aolingl5hrub Stratum (Plot size: 151t radiusi 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15fI radius) 1. P_ oa spp. 2. Dact lis glomerata 3. Festuca rubra 4, Cirsium vulaare 5. Taraxacum off icinale 6. Ranunculus acris 7. Agrostis alba 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: area of regularly management Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: ° over Spades? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1000/. (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = >20 yes Column Totals: (A) (B) <10 no FACU <10 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A= <2 no FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation <10 no FACU >20 yes FACW ® Dominance Test is >500/. <10 no FAC ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 100% = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ very mixed community of grasses and herbs. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP2A Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (mcist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loot Texture Remarks 0-22 10YR 3/2 100 GL mixed gravelly loam 'Type: C=Concentration. D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (86) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: drains somewhat well and area dominated by mixed gravelly loam. no prominant field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary, Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches), dry to 22" Secondary Indicators (2 or more required} ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (132) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 17" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No includes capillary fringe) Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No field indicators of wetland hydrology. Edge of topographic swale. onsite review of 27 April 17 and 4 April 17 no free water to 22" but saturated above both times. 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: Parcels 29210490130 and 2921049091 City/County: City of Federal Way King County Sampling Date:2 MAY 17 Applicant/Owner: _ State: WA. Sampling Point: SP3A Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: sec 26. town 19N. ranee 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight slope Slope (%):a%_ Subregion (LRR): A Lat 47'1649.19`fa Long: 122"19'05.80"W Datum; Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam 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 Remarks: mowed and managed area. plant community a good m VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ti radius 1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft Wdius) 1. Poa snp. 2. DachAis alomerata 3. Festuca rubra 4. Cirsium vuloare 5. Taraxacum off icinale 6. Ranunculus acris 7. Aorostis alba 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft_mdl_tasl 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No of grasses and herbs. Absolute Dominant indicator i oominance restworKsneet: % Cover Soecies? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover I That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 500/6 (A/B) = Total Cover >20 yes >20 Yes` FACU >20 yes FAC <2 no FACU >20 ye_ FACU trace no FACW c10 no FAC 100% = Total Cover = Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: 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 <_3.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: area cf regularly management through mowing. very mixed community of grasses and herbs. top of topographic swale. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP3A Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or comirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features finches) Cotor_(mQ-4,M) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-3 10YR 313 100 1 mixed roots and loam 0-22 10YR 511 80% 10YR 4/6 20°% D M silt loam impacted by prior land actions_ 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ® Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (173) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ 2 cm Muck (Al0) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Depth (inches): I Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: drains moderately well and area dominated by silty loam, area appears to have been modified by prior grading or the placment of imported soils. HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators minimum of one r uired• check all that apply) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): dry to 22" Secandary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Drainage Patterns (610) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): dry to 22" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ED (includes capillary fringe) _ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: field indicators of wetland hydrology. top of topographic swale. onsite review of 27 April 17 and 4 April 17 no free water to 22" US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcels 2921049060 and 2921049091 City/County: City of Federal Way Kino County_ Sampling Date:2 MAY 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP4A Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: sec 26town 19N n e 4 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight slope Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47' 16'49,19"N Long: 122`19'05.80"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam _ NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ICI 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 ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: mowed and managed area. plant community a good mixture of grasses and herbs. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft WiQs. °% Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Sanling/Shrub_ Stratum (Plot size: 151t radiusl 1, Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plotsize: 15ff radius) UPL species x 5 = 1. Poa spn_ trace no - Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. bolcus lanatus <5 no FAC 3 Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. R nunculus acris 100 yes FACW ® Dominance Test is >50% 7 ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' 8 ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 100% Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius] 1 Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ i % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: area of regularly management through mowing. plant community buttercup. within of topographic swale. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP4A Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redo Features finches) Color (moist] % Cotar (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 2/1 100 GL mixed rools and gravelly loam 14-22 10YR 5/1 80% 10YR 4/6 20% D M GL 'Tyne: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. zLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (At 0) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (86) ❑ 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 (173) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Murry 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): Remarks: drains poorly. HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that a Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (65) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (132) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): surface Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, Remarks: field indicators of wetland hydrology. bottom of topographic swale. onsite review of 27 April 17 and 4 April 17 also identified free water a surface with areas of shallow surface water ponding. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjectlSite: Parcels 2921049060 and 2921049091 City/County: City of Federal Way King County Sampling Date:2 MAY 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP5A Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: sec 26. town 19N. range 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight slope Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47'16'49.19"N Long: 122"19'05.80"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam 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 ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: mowed and managed area. plant community a good mixture of grasses and herbs. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius i ° Cover _qp_e_qi&§2 Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1000/. (A/B) SaolinalShrub Stratum (Plot size: 1 f radi 1, Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius} UPL species x 5 = 1. Poa spp. trace no Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Holcus lanatus <5 no FAC 3 Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Taraxacum officinale <2 no FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Conium_maculatum <2 no FAC ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Ranunculus acris 100 yes FACW ® Dominance Test is >500% 7 ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' 8 ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1l)D% = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radii,:) 1. Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: area of regularly management through mowing. plant community domianted by dense buttercup. within of topographic swale US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP5A Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % QQip(irloist) % Type, Loe Texture Remarks 0-22 10YR 2/1 100 GL mixed roots and gravelly loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Histic Epipedan (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ® Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Depth (inches):. Remarks: drains poorly. HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that a 2Location: PL=Pore Lininq, M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils°: ❑ 2 cm Muck (Al0) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ ® Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ® Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (65) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (66) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Secondary indicators (2 or more requiredl ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (02) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): •10' Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: field indicators of wetland hydrology. bottom of topographic swale. cnsite review of 27 April 17 and 4 April 17 also identified free water or water table at or near the surface with areas of shallow surface water ponding. 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: Parcels 2821049060 and 2921049091 City/County: City of Federal Way lting County Sampling Date:2 MAY 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP6A Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: sec 26, town 19N, range 4E _ Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight slope _ Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47'16'49.19"N Long: 122"19'05.80"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Belfinoham silt loam 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 ❑ 1 Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No ED Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: mowed and managed area. plant community a good mixture of grasses and herbs with no real dominate species. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tr tr um (Plot size: 10 ra ius 1. 2. 3. 4. 5aolingl5hruh Stratum (Plot size: 15it radius 1. Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator .Species? Status = Total Cover Dominance Testworksheet: 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: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) UPL species x 5 = 1. Poa spp. <20 no Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Dactylis glomerata <20 no FACU 3. Festuca rubra <20 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Conlum mac lat m <20 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Taraxacum off icinale <10 no FACU ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Phalaris arundinacea <10 no FACW ❑ Dominance Test is >500/. 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' 8, ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11 'Indicators of hydric sail and wetland hydrology must 100% Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic._ W d Vin tr tum (Plot size: 15 r i 1. Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: area of regularly management through mowing. very mixed community of grasses and herbs. no real dominant species US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP6A Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Gglor (moist) % Tvae, Locz Texture Remarks 0-22 10YR 3/3 100 GL mixed aravelly loam 'Type.- C=Cancentration, D=De leticn, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Looafion PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Alf) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (All 0) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (it present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: drains moderately well and area dominated by mixed gravelly loam. no field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: P►iman, Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that aopl Seconds Indicators 2 or more re uired ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (83) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (66) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ 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): dry to 22" Saturation Present? Yes i No ® Depth (inches): dry to 22" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No field indicators of wetland hydrology. onsite review of 27 April 17 and 4 April 17 no free water to 22" 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: Parcels 2921049060 and 2921049091 City/County: City of Federal Way fling County Sampling Date:2 MAY 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP7A Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: sec Z6._town 19N,_ range 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight slope Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47'16'49.19"N Long: 122'19'05.80"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham sift loam 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 ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No ED Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: mowed and managed area. plant community a good mixture of grasses and herbs VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1 ft radius % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: (A/B) SaotincVShrub Stratum (Plot size: 1 ft radiu 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 151t radius) UPL species x 5 = 1. Poa sop. <20 no - Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Dactviis alomerata <20 no FACU 3. Festuca rubra <20 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Conium maculatum 20 Yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Taraxacum officinale <10 no FACU ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophyfic Vegetation 6. Phalaris arundinacea <10 no FACW ❑ Dominance Test is >500/. 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' 8. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 100% Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plat size: t Sir radius; 1. Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum j Remarks: area of regularly management through mowing. very mixed community of grasses and herbs. no real dominant species US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP7A Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features finches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % jype' Locz Texture Remarks 0-22 10YR 3/3 100 GL mixed gravelly loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D-De lion, RMMReduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Cooled Send Grains, Location: PL,Pore Linin , M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): _ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: drains moderately well and area dominated by mixed gravelly loam. no field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one reouired: check all that aoDlv) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (66) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Secondary Indicators (2 or more reauired] ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): dry to 22" Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): dry to 22" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) _ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No field indicators of wetland hydrology. onsite review of 27 April 17 and 4 April 17 no free water to 22" 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: Parcels 2921049MO and 2921049091 City/County: City of Federal Way, King County Sampling Date:2 MAY 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP8A Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: sec 26 town 19N. rance 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight slope Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47'16'49.19"N Long: 122"19'05.80'W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham sift loam _ 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 ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: mowed and managed area. plant community a good mixture of grasses and herbs VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft r dius % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover 5_aplingl5_hru_b Stratum (Plot size: 151t radius 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15h radius) 1. Poa sop. <20 no 2. Dactylis glomerata <20 no FACU 3. Festuca rubra <20 no FAC 4. Donium_mzcylgtum 20 yes FAC 5. Taraxaeym officinale <10 no FACU 6. Phalaris arundinacea <10 no FACW 7. Ranunculus acris 20 yes FACW 8. 9. 10. 11. 100% = Total Cover Woody Vine -Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius] 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1000/. (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) (8) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ® Dominance Test is >501/o ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: area of regularly management through mowing. very mixed community of grasses and herbs. only a few dominant species US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP8A Profile uescription: ruescrioe to the aeptn neeaea to aocument the moicator or comirm the aosence or maicators.f Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Caior moist % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 3/3 _ 100 GL mixed gravelly loam 10-22 10YR 3/3 50% GL mixed with 50% 10YR 413 GL ( 'Type.. C=Concentration. D=D_epletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) _ Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (Al0) ❑ 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 (173) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: drains moderately well and area dominated by mixed gravelly loam. no field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators (minimum of one reauired: check all that apply) ❑ Surface Water (At) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): dry to 22" Secondary Indicators 2 or more re uired ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): dry to 22" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No field indicators of wetland hydrology. onsite review of 27 April 17 and 4 April 17 with no free water to 22' 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: Parcels 2921049060 and 2921049091 City/County: City of Federal Way Kina County Sampling Date:2 MAY 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP9A Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies _ Section, Township, Range: sec 26 town 19N ran a 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight slope Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47'1E49.19"N Long: 122*19'05.80"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam NWI class'tl'icabon: 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, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: mowed and managed area. plant community dominated by buttercup with a mixture of grasses and herbs VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15h radius yo Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1011% (A/B) 5aalingl5hruh Stratum (Plot size: 151t radius] 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply iJv: OBL species x 1 = 3. 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft raditqs) UPL species _ x 5 = 1. Poa spp. _ trace no - Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Holcus lanatus trace no FAC 3. Festuca rubra trace no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6 ® Dominance Test is >50% 7. Ranunculus acris 100 yes FACW ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' 8 ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9 ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 100% Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 11511 radiEasl Hydrophytic 1. 2 Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: area of regularly management through mowing. very mixed community of grasses and herbs. only a few dominant species US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP9A Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (mgist) % Color (moist) _ % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-22 10YR 2/1 100 GL "Type. C--Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. "-Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (Al0) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ® Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type'. FHydrli,il Depth (inches): Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: drains poorly with field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) ® Surface Water (Al) ® Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA ® High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ® Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (65) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): surface Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): surface Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Drainage Patterns (610) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (132) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: field indicators of wetland hydrology. onsite review of 27 April 17 and 4 April 17 with free water at surface with shallow pockets of ponded water. 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: Parcels 2921049060 and 2921049091 City/County: Citv of Federal Way King County Sampling Date:2 MAY 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP14A Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies __ _ Section, Township, Range: sec 26,town 19N range 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight slo Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47'16'49.19"N Long: 122'19'05.80"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham sift loam 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 ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: old garden area. plant community dominated by buttercup with a mixture of grasses and herbs VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: lsft radius l ° Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: - (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius] 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: MultiDty bv: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1511 ra ius} UPL species x 5 = 1. Poa sop. _ trace no Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Holcus lanatus trace no FAC 3. Festuca rubra trace no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation g. ® Dominance Test is >501/o 7. Ranunculus acris 100 yes FACW ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9 ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1ixl% Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius 1. Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No El � %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: narrow swale in old garden area. very mixed community of grasses and herbs. only a few dominant species US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP14A Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix RedpxFagtuW (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-22 10YR 2/1 100 GL mixed by Drior garden actions 'Type- C-Conce ntration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ® Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:_ FHydri,il Depth (inches): Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: drains poorly with field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one r uired heck all that apply) ® Surface Water (At) ® Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ® High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ® Saturation 03) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ® Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches) •10' Second ary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (03) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (137) Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections). 4 available: Remarks: field indicators of wetland hydrology. onsite review of 27 April 17 and 4 April 17 with free water near surface with shallow pockets of ponded water. 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: Parcels 2921049MO and 2921049091 City/County: Citv of Federai Way King County Sampling Date:2 MAY 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP15A Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: sec 26. town 19N, range 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight slope Slope (%): 1 % Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47'16'49.19"N Long: 122*19'05.80"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham sift loam NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ER 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 ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0 within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: old garden area. plant community dominated by buttercup with a mixture of grasses and herbs, drains moderately well VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: ,tree stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3• Species Across All Strata: t (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 100% (A/B) 5aolinal5hrub Strafum (Plot size: 151t radius l 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total % Cover of: Multioly by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5, FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 ft radiu) UPL species x 5 = 1. Poa sop. <5 no Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Holcus lanatus <5 no FAC 3. Festuca rubra <5 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A= 4. Phalaris arundinacea 20 yes FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Taraxicum officinale <5 no FACU ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. 'Rum ex crispus T <5 no FAC ® Dominance Test is >501/o 7. Ranunculus acris_ _ _ _ 60 yes FACW ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3-0' g ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Weiland Non -Vascular Plants' 10 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 100% = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 radius 1. Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: adjacent to narrow swale in old garden area. very mixed community of grasses and herbs. only a few dominant species US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP15A Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moisl} % Color {mast} % Type' LocZ Texture Remarks 0-22 10YR 3/2 100 GL mixed by prior garden actions 'T : C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. zLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) alndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) ❑ 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: drains somewhat well and no prominant field Indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Hydro Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (65) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): -20" Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): -15' (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous ii Secondary Indicators f2 or more renuiredl ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (132) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ED Remarks: no prominant field indicators of wetland hydrology. onsite review of 27 April 17 and 4 April 17 with free water below -16 inches 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: Parcels 2921049060 and 2921049091 City/County: City of Federal Way King County Sampling Date:2 MAY 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP20A Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: sec 26. town 19N. range 4E Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none). slight slope Slope (%): 1 % Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47*16'49.19"N Long: 122"19'05.80" W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham sift loam 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 ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: centerline of constructed roadside ditch to east and upslope of ditch culvert inlet. drains moderately well VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius l 'I Cover Soecies7 Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 5aolinal5hrub Ssratum (Plot size: 751t radius l 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb St tum (Plot size: 1 ft radius) UPL species x 5 = 1. Poa sop, trace no Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Holcus lanatus trace no FAC 3. Festuca rubra trace no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Phalaris arundinacea 20 yes FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Taraxicum officinale <5 no FACU ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Rumex cris us <5 no FAC ® Dominance Test is >500/. 7. Ranunculus acris ,220 yes FACW ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.01 8. Conium maculatum 20 yes FAC ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. Solarium dulcamara 30 yes FAC ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 100% Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5ft radius 1 Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: roadside ditch upslope of drain culvert. very mixed community of grasses and herbs. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys,_and Coast —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP20A to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color fmoist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-22 10YR 3/2 & 3/3 100 GL mixed soils TType: C=Conce ntration, D=Deplelion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS -Covered or Coated Sand Grains. xLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fi) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Suede (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: — Depth (inches;: Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: drains somewhat well and no prominant field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply)_ ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 46) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (61) ❑ Aquaffc Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely vegetated Concave Surface (88) Feld Observations• � Secondary Indicators (2 or more required} ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (132) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (DS) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (137) r Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): dry to -22" Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): dry to -22" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), 9 available: no prominant field indicators of wetland hydrology. onsite review of 27 April 17 and 4 April 17 with no free water above -16 inches 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: Parcels 2921049060 and 2921049091 City/County: City of Federal Way King County Sampling Date:2 MAY 17 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP21A Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: sec 26, lawn 19N. rar•.ce 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight slope Slope (%): 1J_ Subregion (LRR): A Lat:47'1649.19"N _ Long: 122"19'05.80'W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam 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 ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: centerline of constructed roadside ditch to west and downslope of ditch culvert inlet. drains somewhat poorly VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1 ft radius 1. 2. 3. 4, 5aoling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15it radius] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Poa spo. 2. Holcus lanatus 3. Fes uca rubra 4. Phalaris arundinacea 5. Taraxicum officinale 6. Rumex cris us 7. Ranunculus acris 8. Conium maculatum 9. Solanum dulcamara 10. 11. Woody Vine Stralum (Plot size: 15ft radius 1. 2 Absolute Dominant Indicator DominanceTestworksheet: % Cayer Species? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) = Total Cover = Total Cover trace no trace no FAC trace no FAC 40 yes c5 no FACU <5 no FAC 20 ey s FACW 20 yes FAC 10 no _ FAC 100% = Total Cover = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: roadside ditch downslope of drain culvert. very mixed community of grasses Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1000/. (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 >509/6 ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. _�� Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP21A Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox.Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loci Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 2/2 100 GL mixed soils 14.22 10YR 2/2 % 10YR 4/6 5% D M ql mixed soils 'Type: C=Concemration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. zLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Ft) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ® Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: drains somewhat poorly and exhibites prominant field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Prima Indicators minimum of one rgguired, check all that aWJyj ❑ Surface Water (Al) ® Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ® High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ® Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) ® Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ® Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (101) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): -12" Secondary Indicators 0 or more re4uired) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): -5" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: prominant field indicators of wetland hydrology. onsite review of 27 April 17 and 4 April 17 with free water above -12 inches. sample plot below level of drain associated with culvert leading southward under 3591"- US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 APPENDIX B — Revised Wetland Rating Worksheet 16070 Wetland name or number A - revised to incorporate 2017 assessment period RATING SUMMARY - Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Parcel 29210490060 Date of site visit: 2 MAY 17 Rated by Habitat Technologies Trained by Ecology? x Yes _No Date of training 2014 HGM Class used for ratingDepressional/Sio�e Wetland has multiple HGM classes? _YxN NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map King County GIS OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY 3 (based on functions x or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Category II — Total score = 20 - 22 x Category III —Total score =16 - 19 Category IV — Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION improving Hvdcotoglc Habitat � I Water Quality Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M Fq H M L H M❑ L Landscape Potential H © L H ® L H M Q Value M L H []M L M L TOTAL Score Based on 6 7 6 19 Ratings 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I 11 Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog 1 Mature Forest 1 Old Growth Forest 1 Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above x Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 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 1 Wetland name or number A Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: � Taanswers4aestionsr Figurel Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 W1 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 W2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 W2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Wz Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 W3 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 W4 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 W5 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 W6 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 anotherfigure) 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 anotherfigure) Map of the contributing basin R 4.1 N/A 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 1.11 L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 1 1� Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) 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 N/A 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 N/A 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 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number A HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 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, yQu probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO - oto2 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 Ifyour 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 YES - The wetland class is Flats Ifyour 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). N -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- goto5 YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number A 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 sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO-goto7 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-goto8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM dasseswithin 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 Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number A DEPRESSIONAL AND FIATS WETLANDS Water quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality I 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 fiat 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. 2 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 laver) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent slants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > % of area most of wetland mowed lawn points = 3 1 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 pond ine or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 4 2 Area seasonally ponded is > X total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < % total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 5 Rating of Site Potential If score is:�12-16 = H 6-11= M X 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 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 1 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes =1 No = 0 1 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes =1 No = 0 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:_3 or 4 = H X 1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 1 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDC for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 2 4 Rating of Value If score is:X _2-4 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name Or number i4 DEPRfSSIONAL 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 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 excavated pond points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet>3ft deep points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points =1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 3 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 12 Rating of site Potential If score is: X _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? ❑ 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 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 1 D 5.3, Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 = H x 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 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points =1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 .There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? 0 Yes=2 No=0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is:_-2-4 = H X 1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number A 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 Xacormare than 1096of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 X Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 X Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: X 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 X ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). _Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 X Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 X 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 ftz. Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygross, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species 5 -19 species < 5 soecies H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats points = 2 points = 1 points = 0 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 I..,,.� in this row r are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 2 2 2 Wetland name or number A H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) X At least Y. 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 X 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). Calculate: % undisturbed habitats + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 5 = 10 % 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. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 25+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]-15= 40 % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) (-2) <_ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H _1-3 = M X < 1= L Record the rating on the first page I H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? i 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 X 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 Site does not meet any of the criteria above Rating of Value If score is: X 2 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 points =1 points = 0 Record the rating on the first page 14 Wetland name or number A WDFW Priority Habitats Parity habitatslisted by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. httn:Ilwdfw,wa.aovlpublications/00165/wdfw Q165.0df or access the list from here: littl:/ / wdfw. wa,gov l co33sr,ry atlon-/phs/l istl) 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). X — 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 forest - 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). X 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). X — 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. X — Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES June 13, 2016 Mr. Yuriy Momotyuk @ YUMC Construction LLC 27327 — 48th Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 e-mail yuriym@usa.com RE: Environmentally Critical Areas Assessment Parcels 2921049060 and 2921049091 South 359th Street, City of Federal Way, King County Dear Mr. Momotyuk, Following your request Habitat Technologies has completed an onsite assessment of Parcels 2921049060 and 2921049091 (project site) located along South 35Vh Street within the City of Federal Way, King County, Washington (Figure 1). This assessment focused on specific environmentally critical areas (i.e. wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas) and was completed following the established criteria and methods as defined within the Corps of Engineers Wetlands delineation Manual (1987 Manual), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (2010 Supplement); the Washington State Wetland Rating System (2014 update), the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Typing, and the City of Federal Way Chapter 19.145. The project site was approximately 1.7-acres in size, generally square in shape, and had been regularly managed as a garden and livestock pasture associated with an adjacent homesite for several years. The project site exhibited a gentle slope from the northeast to the southwest. The project site was located within a residential area that was quickly changing from older homes on moderately sized lots to newer homes infilling vacant lots and the development of higher intensity residential uses. The area immediately to the west of the project site was part of the Hylebos Wetlands Regional Park. Access to the project site was provided via South 359th Street which formed the southern boundary. Directions to Project Site: From SR18 immediately west of Interstate 5 turn south onto SR161 (Enchanted Parkway). Continue south on SR161 to the intersection with South 356th Street. Turn west onto South 356th Street and then immediately turn south onto 16th Avenue South. Continue south of 16th Avenue South to South 359th Street. Turn west onto South 359th Street and continue to project site. wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife — mitigation and permitting solutions P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 voice 253-846-5119 contact@habitattechnologies.net BACKGROUND INFORMATION NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAPPING The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 2). This mapping resource identified the Hylebos Wetlands along the western portion of the project site. This wetland was identified as palustrine, forested, temporarily flooded (PFOA). STATE OF WASHINGTON PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES The State of Washington Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 3). This mapping resource identified the Hylebos Wetlands and associated stream corridor along the western portion of the project site. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE The State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 4). This mapping resource identified a tributary to the West Fork of Hylebos Creek to the west of the project site. This tributary was further identified to provide documented or modeled habitats for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES The State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 5). This mapping resource identified a tributary to the West Fork of Hylebos Creek to the west of the project site. This tributary was further identified as a Type F Water (fish bearing) and as eventually entering Puget Sound through Commencement Bay. KING COUNTY MAPPING The King County inventory mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 6). This mapping resource identified the Hylebos Wetlands and an associated Class 2 Stream with salmonids offsite to the west. SOILS MAPPING The soil mapping inventory completed by the Soils Conservation Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 7). This mapping resource identified that the majority of the project site was dominated by Bellingham silt loam. The Bellingham soil series consists of poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium. This soil series is defined as "hydric." 2 16125 The soils mapping also identified that the northeastern corner of the project site was dominated by Kitsap silt loam. The Kitsap soil series consists of moderately well drained soils that formed in glacial deposits. This soil series is not defined as "hydric." ONSITE ANALYSIS CRITERIA FOR CRITICAL AREAS IDENTIFICATION For the purpose of the assessment the specific critical areas reviewed included potential wetlands, surface water drainage corridors (natural waters), and fish and wildlife habitats which may be located within or immediately adjacent to the project site. This assessment did not include an assessment of potential steep slope or geotechnically hazardous critical areas. Wetlands: Wetlands are transitional areas between aquatic and upland habitats. In general terms, wetlands are lands where the extent and duration of saturation with water is the primary factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in thE; soil and on its surface (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetlands are generally defined within land use regulations as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (1987 Manual). Wetlands exhibit three essential characteristics, all of which must be present for an area to meet the established criteria within the 1987 Manual. These essential characteristics are: 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: A predominance of plants that are typically adapted for life in saturated soils. 2. Hydric Soil: A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper horizons. 3. Wetland Hydrology: Permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation to the surface, at least seasonally. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas: "Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas" are defined by the City of Federal Way as those areas that meet one or more of these criteria: 1. Streams. 2. Regulated Lakes. 3. Areas with which state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association. 4. State priority habitats and areas associated with state priority species. 5. Habitats and species of local importance. 3 16125 STUDY METHODS Habitat Technologies completed a series of onsite assessment during April and May 2016. In addition, Habitat Technologies has completed similar assessments for parcels located within the general area of the project site. The objective of this evaluation was to define and delineate potential specific environmentally critical areas (wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas) that may be present within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Onsite activities were completed in accordance with criteria and procedures established in the 1987 Manual with 2010 Supplement, the Washington State Wetland Rating System, the City of Federal Way Chapter 19.145, and the WDNR Forest Practice Rules (see Appendix A). FIELD OBSERVATION The project site was accessed by an existing gravely driveway connection to South 359th Street at the southeastern corner. The project site regularly managed as a garden and livestock pasture associated with an adjacent homesite for several years. The project site was located within a residential area that was quickly changing from older homes on moderately sized lots to newer homes infilling vacant lots and the development of higher intensity residential uses. The area immediately to the west of the project site was part of the Hylebos Wetlands Regional Park. The area immediately adjacent to the western site boundary included a buried utility corridor. • Plant Communities The project site was dominated by a regularly managed pasture plant community composed of a wide variety of seeded and invasive grasses, herbs, ferns, and encroaching sapling trees and shrubs. The southwestern corner of the project site had been managed as a garden area and included an excavated small pond. The area around the small pond was dominated by trees and shrubs. Observed species within the managed pasture plant community included quackgrass (Agropyron repens), wheatgrass (Agropyron spp.), colonial bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis), redtop bentgrass (Agrostis albs), meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), fescue (Festuca spp.), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), ryegrass (Lolium spp.), timothy grass (Phleum pratensis), bluegrass (Poa spp.), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilium), yarrow (Achillea lanulosa), daisy (Bellis spp.), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), Canadian thistle (Cirsium arvensis), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), bedstraw (Galium aparine), geranium (Geranium spp.), field mint (Mentha arvensis), plantain (Plantago spp.), knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), buttercup (Ranunculus acris), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), clover (Trifolium spp.), nettle (Urtica dioica), sapling red alder (Alnus rubra), blackberries (Rubus spp.), and Scott broom (Cytisus scoparius). This area also included a scattering of domestic fruit trees. 4 16125 The area of the excavated pond, along with the pasture area directly to the north of the excavated pond was dominated by plant species more typically associated with seasonal ponding and seasonal soil saturation. Observed species included sapling red alder, sapling black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), sapling Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), crabapple (Pyrus fusca), red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglash), water foxtail (Alopecurus geniculatus), meadow foxtail, redtop bentgrass, reed canarygrass, slough sedge (Carex obnupta), softrush (Juncus effusus), common lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), meadow buttercup, curled dock (Rumex crispus), nightshade (Solanum spp.), speedwell (Veronica spp.), yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), and common cattail (Typha latifolia). The very northeastern corner of the project site was dominated by a mixed forest plant community the continued offsite to the north. Observed species within this plant community included Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesit), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder, cherry (Prunus spp.), cascara (Rhamnus purshiana), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procera), evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), vine maple (Acer circinatum), Pacific red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa), salal (Gaultheria shallon), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), snowberry (Symphoricarpus albus), holly (Ilex aquifolium), oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), Scots broom, rose (Rosa spp.), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), nettle, bracken fern, and ivy. The plant community directly to the west of the western side boundary was dominated by a mixed forest with a dense understory. Observed species included Douglas fir, Western red cedar, big leaf maple, red alder, cherry, black cottonwood, Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, trailing blackberry, Indian plum, vine maple, Pacific red elderberry, hazelnut, Oregon grape, salal, salmonberry, snowberry, holly, oceanspray, Scots broom, rose, sword fern, nettle, bracken fern, and ivy. This area included a buried regional utility corridor directly to the west of the western project site boundary. • Soils As documented at representative sample plots the soil through the majority of the project site had been altered by prior land use actions. These actions had included clearing and grading. The soils within the northeastern and eastern portions of the project site generally exhibited a gravelly silty loam texture while the soils within the central and western portions of the project site generally exhibited a silty loam texture. The surface soil within the majority of the project site exhibited a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) coloration with a loamy to gravelly loam texture. The subsoil was dark brown (10YR 3/3) to dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) in color and exhibited a gravelly loam texture. 5 16125 The surface soil within a topographic depression in the western portion of the project site exhibited a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) to black (10YR 3/1) coloration and a sandy loam to loam texture. The subsoil to a depth of approximately 20 inches exhibited a dark gray (10YR 4/1) to dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) coloration, and sandy loam to loam texture. This soil appeared to drain poorly and to exhibit prominent redoximorphic characteristics. This shallow topographic depression was immediately north of a small, excavated farm pond that was located within the once managed garden area. The character of the fencing around this once managed garden area suggested either an attempt to keep pastured animals out of the garden or to keep potentially ducks, geese, or chickens within the garden area. Hydrology Onsite hydrology appeared to be the result of seasonal stormwater runoff from onsite and seasonal stormwater runoff from adjacent parcels to the east and northeast. The majority of the project site exhibited a general northeast to southwestern gentle slope, appeared to drain moderately well to well and did not exhibit field indicators typically associated with wetland hydrology. An excavated farm pond was located along the western boundary in the southwestern portion of the project site. This excavated pond appeared to exhibit surface water ponding well through the growing season. A shallow swale at the northern edge of this excavated pond appeared to exhibit saturate to the surface well into the early part of the growing season. In addition, the creation of a buried utility corridor directly west of the western boundary of the project site had created a berm that restricted the movement of surface water offsite to the west. A roadside ditch was present between the southern boundary of the project site and South 3591" Street. This roadside ditch directed seasonal .surface water to the west and eventually into the Hylebos Corridor offsite to the west. • Wildlife Species The project site was located within a residential area that was quickly changing from older homes on moderately sized lots to newer homes infilling vacant lots and the development of higher intensity residential uses. The area immediately to the west of the project site was dominated by a mixed forest plant community and was part of the Hylebos Wetlands Regional Park. A partial list of species observed or that would be reasonably expected onsite or within the immediate vicinity of the project site based on habitat types would include tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), violet green shallow (Tachycineta thallassina), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), dark eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), American crow (Corvus brachynchos), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), American robin (Turdus migratorius), golden crown kinglet (Regulus satrapa), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), house finch (Passer domesticus), Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), black - capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus), brown creeper (Certhia americana), rufous sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), purple finch 6 16125 (Carpodacus purpureus), Western screech owl (Otus kennicotti), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), evening grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertina), rock dove (Columbia livia), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), hummingbird, great blue heron (Ardea herodias), green backed heron (Butorides striatus), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), common mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), red tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), merlin (Falco columbarius), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), black tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), opossum (Didelphis virginianus), eastern squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglash), chipmunk (Eutamias townsendi►), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), shrew (Sorex spp.), bats (Myotis spp.), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), mole (Scapanus spp.), red legged frog (Rana aurora), Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla), and common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). The project site was not observed and has not been documented to provide habitats for fish species. The West Fork of Hylebos Creek located to the west of the project site has been identified to provide habitats for Chinook salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), Western brook lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni), three spine stickleback (Gasterosteus acluleatus), and sculpin (Cottus spp.) • State Priority Species A few species identified by the State of Washington as "Priority Species" were observed onsite or potentially may utilize the project site. Priority species require protective measures for their survival because of their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Game Species: "Game species" are regulated by the State of Washington through recreational hunting bag limits, harvest seasons, and harvest area restrictions. Observed or documented "game species" within and adjacent to the project site included black -tailed deer, ruffed grouse, mourning dove, Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout. State Candidate: State Candidate species are presently under review by the State of Washington Department of . Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive. While not observed, a single State Candidate species - pileated woodpecker — may use the habitats onsite or within the local area. In addition, another State Candidate species — Chinook salmon — has been documented within the West Fork of Hylebos Creek. State Monitored: State Monitored species are native to Washington but require habitat that has limited availability, are indicators of environmental quality, require further assessment, have unresolved taxonomy, may be competing with other species of 7 16125 concern, or have significant popular appeal. A few State Monitored species have been identified within the general area of the project site — associated with the habitats of the West Fork of Hylebos Creek. This species include great blue heron, green back heron, and Western brook lamprey. State Sensitive: State Sensitive species are native to Washington, are vulnerable to decline, and are likely to become endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range without cooperative management or removal of threats. Observed State Sensitive species within the general area of the project site include bald eagle. This species has been documented to use habitats provided by the West Fork of Hylebos Creek and associated lakes within the general vicinity of the project site. State Threatened: State Threatened species are species native to the state of Washington and are likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range within the state without cooperative management or removal of threats. The project site was not observed and has not been documented to provide critical habitats for State Threatened species. State Endangered: State endangered species are species native to the state of Washington and are seriously threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the state. The project site was not observed and has not been documented to provide critical habitats for State Endangered species. a Federal Priority Species The project site has not been documented to provide critical habitats for federally listed endangered or threatened species. The West Fork of Hylebos Creek located offsite to the west of the project site has been documented to provide habitats for Chinook salmon and steelhead — both listed threatened species. Two federally listed species of concern — bald eagle and coho salmon — have also been documented to use habitats associated with the West Fork of Hylebos Creek. CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION Onsite assessment completed during April and May 2016 — along with previously completed assessments for a variety of adjacent parcels — identified a small wetland along the western boundary of the project site. This small wetland (Wetland A) had been managed and manipulated by prior land use actions. The West Fork of Hylebos Creek was identified within a forested corridor offsite to the west of the project site. The project site was not identified and has not been documented to provide critical habitats for federally or state listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species. Wetland A: This wetland was located along the western boundary of the project site and had been created by prior land use actions. The majority of this wetland was dominated by an excavated farm pond that appeared to exhibit ponding well through the s 16125 growing season. This excavated pond was part of a once managed garden area and may have been used for domestic ducks, geese, or chickens. The northern portion of Wetland A extended into a very shallow swale that was part of the managed pasture area. This pastured area appeared to remain saturated to the surface into the first part of the growing season. Wetland A was rated pursuant to the Washington State Wetland Rating System (2014 update) and identified to exhibit a total functions score of 20 points. This total functions score included a habitat functions score of 6 points based on the character of the adjacent West Fork of Hylebos Creek Corridor (see Appendix B). Based on the total functions along with the habitat functions score Wetland A would best appear as meeting the City of Federal Way criteria for definition as a Category II Wetland with a 165 foot standard buffer. West Fork of Hylebos Creek Corridor was located offsite to the west of the project site. The wetland associated with this corridor was identified as best meeting the criteria for designation as a City of Federal Way Category I Wetland with a 225 foot standard buffer. This Corridor would also appear to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Federal Way "Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas" based on the following: ■ The West Fork of Hylebos Creek Corridor is associated with the West Fork of Hylebos Creek — a Type F Water (fish bearing) stream. ■ The West Fork of Hylebos Creek Corridor — and in particular the West Fork of Hylebos Creek — provides critical habitats for federally and state listed threatened and sensitive species. ■ The West Fork of Hylebos Creek Corridor meets the criteria for designation as a "State priority habitat" associated with state priority species. ■ The West Fork of Hylebos Creek Corridor provides locally important habitats and is utilized by species of local importance. SELECTED DEVELOPMENT ACTION The Selected Development Action for Parcels 2921049060 and 2921049091 focuses on the development of a single family homesite within each parcel consistent with the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and local zoning. The development of these two homesites would not encroach into wetland, stream, or fish and wildlife habitats. However, new homesite development would require an unavoidable encroachment into the standard buffer associated with onsite and offsite wetlands. UNAVOIDABLE BUFFER REDUCTION The City of Federal Way has established a mechanism whereby the standard buffer may be modified or may be modified or waived beyond the provisions of (19.145.440) on a case -by -case basis if the implementation of these provisions would deprive an applicant of all reasonable use of the property (19.145.090). Pursuant to the provisions 9 16125 of 19.145.090 the applicant may apply for a modification or waiver to development a single family homesite on a single family residential lot using the City's Process III. The city may approve a modification or waiver on a case -by -case basis based on the following criteria: a. The application of the provisions of this chapter eliminates all reasonable use of this subject property, b. No feasible and reasonable onsite alternatives to the proposal are possible, such as changes to site layout and/or reduction of impervious improvements, c. It is soley the implementation of this chapter, and not other factors, that preclude all reasonable use of the subject property, d. The applicant has in no way created or exacerbated the conditions that forms the limitation on the use of the subject property, nor in any way contributed to such limitations, and e. The waiver or modification will not lead to, create nor significantly increase the risk of injury or death to any person or damage to improvements on or off the subject property. If the City grants a request under this section, it shall grant the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with some reasonable use of the subject property, considering the factors described in subsections (3)(a) through (e) of this section Any approval or waiver of requirements shall result in the minimum possible impacts to the function and values and/or risks associated with proposed improvements on affected critical areas. The City may impose limitations, mitigation under an approved mitigation plan, conditions and/or restrictions it considers appropriate to reduce or eliminate any undesirable effects or adverse impacts of granting a request under this section. STANDARD OF CARE This critical areas assessment has been completed by Habitat Technologies for use by Mr. Yuriy Momotyuk. Prior to extensive site planning the findings documented in this document should be reviewed and verified by the City of Federal Way resource personnel. Habitat Technologies has provided professional services that are in accordance with the degree of care and skill generally accepted in the nature of the work accomplished. No other warranties are expressed or implied. Habitat Technologies is not responsible for design costs incurred before this document is approved by the appropriate resource and permitting agencies. 1howwaf 12). Dewrl' g Bryan W. Peck Thomas D. Deming, PWS Wetland Biologist Habitat Technologies 10 16125 FIGURES 11 16125 Figure 1 Site Vicinity The nfonnatlon nCluded on this map has been compied by King County staff from a variety of sources and is Subject to change wlhoul notlm, King County makes no mWesemaihns or wanrardJaSA oxpmss or lmpi ad, as to axaracy. Canpktal , IhnelYr6Ss, Or rghts to he use of such Inlonmatl co. 7K5 docu mint is not intended br trw as a survey product- td ng County shaft ml N Zia for any general, special, lulled, incidentak or consequential damages indudng, but not linited to, lost revenues or lost profits cos uting from the use or misuse of the informal ion canlained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by wdten permission of King County. King County GIS CENTER Date:6/7/2016 Notes: CU Z N N LL a 3� a z wt oSSE N N C C O S d O C C Z L a LL N m L N 9 o O m N a 0 Z o m 3 a3 c w ¢ � a d r m°Ewe a� l0 N w N L d p C C U N N a O _ U d U L U N C N cc N U 0 a C N Z N L 0)(p N I- u7 a a ❑0 C U � C O O lL � N O (6 (0 L L N O N LL LL J ❑❑■ N 3 C C Q (6 (6 N 0 N N C C N c N (0 � E C C W N a)C C 3 'C (p (6 (6 L 7 7 O N En W W LL 0El❑ c L m N .N L w O r. U py N 7 E 9-6 Q N o �O � � c o � a w C 9] Q N o. � LL � ❑ N O N WCL C E CA m 07 O 0 d1 Q Cl) O Q O �a ttE. S W a N 3 3 T O O ❑ = [G O 4r N=a= E E w ro W W l4 �E y m.. a 0 @p°� a a m�n� S N O ..N N Cl) (n (A co L d, V) Z Q Z Q p 3 F W 7 C1 l0 Q v a) 3 20 w-Q a. a c CL 6 0 C .0 U L d V! (0 Q I Na c N, d) C py7 N l� V) O y JIS wm J (6 y W LL V) d Q Q z Z a_z Q Qcn Z d y N (6 C 7 U LL M w u J O M [v_�� c E 3 a-2 E Y J_ o m " m N a co0 Q � �77 F U _p (D U TO E O a o Z O o a z C — O w = N tll y ' U) p y _ O O = N O E 4 U N E LL OU Far. 1a � r� o N ro,-7� w c-0 CD= L = ca N° y Z m mm o a O2 2 >>a Q Q LQ Q Z t mE�o�y F o z �w Z Z v :2 Q g wJE a3 Q CO 0- F— r- Cc w QL W p`c F— K Z s�r5 c E o Z m N DO p W A = \ p m wCOQp o a o z r- = i v�i v°s v`� z Z H 2 o a m LI_ W U) L n 7 E O y1 0, en N (A O ~ ~ ED _oE m 2 'a o ❑ Q E LL CL n o UZ OL O ❑ d O w ° a E Q U O 3 N N Ul�'i c cc N �Ya c o UgE LO a 2 Ny x U) 0 V) Z W 0 g S a'w 0 0 cfl 0 N r OO O .f41 �.,� Lake Depot J It L6 FL June 7.2O1G 118.056 o um ou oo,m AJ|8sdmonSoapmSpecies 0 ouo us 1mn USGSINHD OpenStrestMep corThributors, and the GIS User Community FOREST PRACTICE WATER TYPE MAP, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH HALF 0, RANGE 04 EAST (W.M.) HALF 0, SECTION 29 Application #: 1 ,UUU Date: 6/7/2016 Time: 11:22:13 AM NAD 83 Contour Interval: 40 Feet Figure 6 King County Mapping ao. H It bo The information included on this erep has been compiled by King Counlystafffrom a variety of sources and is Sub]act to Mange wihoul notice. King County ma kes no representations or warranties, express or implied, os to accuracy, ramp8tanuss, Iifnelnese, or dghta in ft use of such Infiamwilrn. This document is not Intended br use as survey pmducL hfi ng County Noll not be liable for any general, special, ndi red, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not Iinilect to, lost revenues or lost profils res uling horn the use or misuse d Oa Information iottwnea on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by wrilen permission of King County. Date:6/7/2016 Notes: a ►9 King County GI5 CENTER Legend Parcels Seismic hazard (1990 SAO) Landslide hazard (1990 SAO) class 1 — class 2 perennial class 2 salmonid class 3 r unclassified Wetland (1990 SAO) ■Sensitive area notice on title Streams 47° 16 S2" N 47° 1646" N Soil Map —King County Area, Washington (Figure 7 Soils Mapping) 3 Map Sole: 1:897 if printed on A portrait (8.3' x 11'� sheet Mete� N 0 10 20 40 60 :Feet 0 40 80 160 240 Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 47° 16' 52" N 47° SE 46" N t;so,\ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/7/2016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 The map features are approximate and are intended only to prov7dB an Indication of said feature. AddEnal areas peat have not Deal) mapped may be present This is ndt a surrey. The orlhopholos and other data may not align. fierce County and Habilal TeWnologles assume no liability for v,0 alions ascertained Dy aqua! survey. All data Is expressly Ided AS i and WITH ALL FAULTS. Pierce Habitat Technelogles aunty and make no warranty o} fi ass for a particular purpose. Map Legend Wetland B Wetland A Highlighted Tax Parcels - King County Tax Parcels - King County Third Party - 2009 - USDA- NAIP (1m) Ortho Highlighted Tax Parcels (] Tax Parcels Roads p Possible F+W Habitat Areas Roads - King County 6W Interstate Limited Access State Routes 4e Other Slate Routes Ramps MajorArteriai Collector Local Access •• �„ Unknown 1� R Figure 8 Wetlands and Buffers 0 50 100 ft. 7/5/16 3:43 PM Habitat Technologies REFERENCES AND BACKGROUND RESOURCES Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology, Operational Draft Technical Report Y-87, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist. 1977. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Publication #14-06-029. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland Values - Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Research Report 79-R1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service. Soils Survey of King County Area Washington, February 1979. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1., 1975 12 16125 APPENDIX A — Field Data 13 16125 /—) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcels 2921049060 and 292104 p91 City/County: City of FadBral Wav King County Sampling Date:16 MAY 16 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP1 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: sec 26, town 19N. Farce 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight sloe Slope (%): 1 % Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47'16'49.19"N Long: 122" 19'05.80"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam 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 ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: edge of excavated pond VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Siralum (Plot size: 15ft radius] % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66% (A/B) SanTin (Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius 1. Salix sitchensis 20 yes FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus procera 15 yes FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 =. 5 FAC species x 3 = 35% = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius UPL species x 5 = 1. Phalaris arun 'nacea 60 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Ranunculus reoens 10 no FACW 3 Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 5 ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6 ® Dominance Test is >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' 7 ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 70% = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratums (Plot size: 15ft radius] 1' Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: wet plant community with blackberries on excavation side cast US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP1 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) % Tvae' Locz Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/1 100 loam 8-18 10YR 4/1 60 10YR 4/6 20 C N GL 60% 10YR 411 & 20%10YR 312 'T e: C=Concentration, D=De lelion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ® Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ® Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (176) 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: drains somewhat poorly and at edge of excavated pond HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minlmum of one re uire , check all that apply) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ® Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ® Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 4 inches Secondary Indicators (2 or more reguired), ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), field Indicators of wetland hydrology US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcels 2921049060 and 2921049091 City/County: City of Federal Wav King_County Sampling Date:16 MAY 16 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP2 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: sec 26, town 19N._range 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight slope Slope (%): 1 % Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47'16'49.19"N Long: 122*19'05.80"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam 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 ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: northern edge of excavated pond VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratu (Plot size: 15ft radius] % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Thuja plicata 35% ems FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A) 2. Alnus rubra <10% no FAC Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) $aplinqtShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius] 1. Salix sitchensis 30% yes FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus procera trace no FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. Lonicera involucrata 20% yes FAC OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 50% = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1'5fi radius] UPL species x 5 = 1. Phal ris arundinacea <10% no FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Ranunculus repens 40% eyes_ FACW 3. Poa spp. <10% no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Holcus lanatus 20% - ey- s- - FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Ilex pseudacorus <10% no OBL ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Carex obnu to 20% yes OBL ® Dominance Test is >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' 7 8 ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 100% = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15R radius] 1' Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: wet plant community adjacent to excavated pond US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)_ Color (moist) % Color (moist % Type' Loe Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 2/1 100 loam 10-18 10YR 4/1 80 10YR 4/6 20 C N GL "Tye: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ® Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ® Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ 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: drains somewhat poorly and at edge of excavated pond HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one reouired: check all that apply) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ® Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ® Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (66) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): surface Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ (includes capillary fringe) Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: field indicators of wetland hydrology US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcels 2921049060 and 2921049091 City/County: City, of Federal Way King County Sampling Date:16 MAY 16 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP3 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: sec 26. town 19N, range 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight sloe Slope (%): I% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47*16'49.19"N Long: 122*19'05.80"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam 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 ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: edge of small wetland VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius} % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1_ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 Io (A/B) Sa lip /Shrub ra m (Plot size: 15ft Eggiqs 1 Prevalence Index worksheet: 2 Total % Cover of: MUltiDly by: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radlus) UPL species x 5 = 1. Ranunculus acris 35% yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Ranunculus repens trace 3. Poa s r10% no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Holcus lanatus 30%_ yer. FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Alopecurus pratensis 2511A yes FACW ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. A rostis alba 10 no FAC ® Dominance Test is >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' 7 ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 100% = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Wo Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft rodius] 1' Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: wet plant community in managed pasture US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Fe�tun (inches) Color (moist) % Color (,,,moist) % woe' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR 2/2 100 loam 5-10 10YR 3/2 100 loam 10-18 10YR 4/2 60% 1 QYR 4/6 20% C M GL 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Lccation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF.2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ® Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ® Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: drains somewhat poorly and at edge of managed pasture wetland HYDROLOGY Wetland Hvdrol Pf imary Indicators minimum pf qnQ re uired: check all ha a I ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ® Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): 8 inches Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): surface Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous i Remarks: field indicators of wetland Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 46) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ 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: Parcels 2921049060 and 2921049001 City/County: City of Federal Way King County Sampling Date:16 MAY 16 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP4 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: sec 26, town 19N, range 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight slope Slope (%): 1 % Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47*16'49.19"N Long: 122*19'05.80"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam 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 ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: outside of edge of small wetland VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Siralum (Plot size: 15ft radius] % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66% (A/B) Saolino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Prevalence Indexworksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = 3_ 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft rad+us] UPL species x 5 = 1. Ranunculus acris 25% yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Festuca spp. <10% no 3. Poa sop. <10% no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Holcus lanatus 30% yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Alovecurus pratensis <10% no FACW ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Agrostis alba 10% no FAC ® Dominance Test is >50% 7. Dactylis glomerata 20% yes FACU ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8 ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11 ' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 100% = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius] 1. Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: wet plant community in managed pasture US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features _(inches) Color (moisa % Color (moist) % Twe, LocZ Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 3/2 100 loam 6-11 10YR 3/3 100 loam 11-18 10YR 4/3 75% 10YR 4/6 <5% C M GL 75% 10YR 413 & <25% 10YR 3/3 'Type: C=Concentration. D=De letion. RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (All0) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 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: drains moderately well and at upland edge of managed pasture wetland HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply.) ❑ Surface Water (All) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4113) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Secondary Indicators (2 or more reouired) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4113) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 11 inches Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: field 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: Parcels 2921049DBO and 2921049091 City/County: City of Federal Way King County Sampling Date:16 MAY 16 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SP5 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: sec 26. town 19N, range 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slight slope Slope (%): 1 % Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47*16'49.19" N Long: 122*19'05.80' W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes E No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes E 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 E Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No E within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No E Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No E Remarks: manage pasture VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius} 1. 2. 3. 4. SaOing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft rad€us3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius] 1. Ranunculus acris 2. Festuca son. 3. Poa sipp. 4. hlglpo lanatus 5. AJopecurus prAtensis 6. A rostis alba 7. Dact lis gigmerata 8. Ant ozanthum o oratum 9. Geranium spp- 10. Cirsium arvensis 11. Hygochaeris glabra Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radiusl 1 IPJ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: upland plant community in managed pasture Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 -- FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = <10% no FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) <10% no <10% no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 20% yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: <10% no FACW ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 10% yes FAC ❑ Dominance Test is >50% 20% yes FACU ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' 10% ves FACU ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) <10% no ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' <10% no FACU ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 15% yes FACU 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 100% = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑ No E US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP5 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' LocZ Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 3/2 100 loam 6-10 10YR 4/3 100 GL 10-18 10YR 4/4 100 GL 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, 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 Sotls3: ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 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: drains moderately well and at upland edge of managed pasture wetland HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one reouired: check all that apply) _ ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): o&r rgguired) ._ecpndary ,n icators,(2-or „ ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): _ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: field indicators of wetland hydrology not met US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 APPENDIX B — Wetland Rating Worksheet 14 16125 PEMCx Figure W1 Habitat Technologies PEMAf vier The map features are approxlmste and are intended only to provide an indication of said feature. Additional areas that have not been mapped may be present. This Is not a survey. The onhophotos and other data may not align. Pierre County and HaNtat Technofogias assume no liability for varialions ascertained by actual survey. All data is expressly provided A$ IS and VNTH ALL FAULTS. Pierce County and Habilel.Technelogies make no warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Map Legend p Wetland A GPS Tax Parcels - King County Third Party - 2009 - USDA- NA1P (1m) Ortho Highlighted Tax Parcels p Tax Parcels Roads Roads - King bounty jW Interstate Limited Access State Routes Other State Routes r. Ramps MalprArterial Collector Local Access Unknown 0 50 100 ft. 7/5/16 9:56 AM The map features are approximate and are intended only to Provide an irmficalion or said feature. Additional areas that have not been mapped may be Present This is not a sunray. The orlhophotos and other data may not align. Pierce County and Habitat Technologies assume no tlaoility for vertations ascertained t) actual survey. All data Is Wressty AS IS WITH ALL FAULTS. Pierce provided and County and Habitat Technologies make no warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Map Legend o wetland A GPS Tax Parcels - King County Third Party - 2009 - USDA- NA1P (tm) artho Highlighted Tax Parcels p Tax Parcels Roads Roads - King County Interstate of Limited Access State Routes 1,01 Other State Routes Ramps Major ARerial collector Local Access Unknown 'Seasonally Sa#crated i Seasonally FloodedI P121r Figure W2 0 50 100ft. Habitat Technologies 7/5/16 9:58 AM 0 Wow- 1. y ■ 21s. Contributing Basin • `1��-� F -J Figure W3 r1 t I Habitat Technologies ie tty mtoepaadtures SIndlCaUwnae afd lure[E.iniended oneCld sdltwrtal areas that have not been mapped may be eSenl. This Is not a survay. The orthophotos and her dale may not align. Pierce County and HaWlat 3ohrmksgies assume no liability for varialions ;oenained py actual sTurvey All dais is exprasSly ovlded AS IS and 1NIiH ALL FAULTS. P+erco cu sty and Habitat Technologies make no warranty hlilasS for a Particular purpose. Map Legend Contours - 5 ft (LiOAR) King County O Wetland A GPS 0 Tax Parcels - King County Third Party - 2009 - USDA- NA9P (1m) Ortho Highlighted Tax Parcels p Tax Parcels Roads Roads - King County jf Interstate Limited Access State Routes dW Other State Routes Ramps Major Arterial Collector Local Access i Unknown 0 100 200 ft. 7/5/16 10:04 AM E o�� Y i,a v g IA Q iCD C m CC in O r•, LEI u c a a a W. c z LM f6 •fA .in .5 •D th ,q.S�:�E 9r�90 ID dsXa o 0 Eq •m d p G aa�es�b�HL7hC7 F-� TF-�a �dl�][X�a7 a t as Diu o 'tip milf cow O l Gh � cU o S J'9 3nV � • 8 . en v. F m a- .:ifCr' ` to G f••y •.�i w I� �1�. 5 4r � N ,; .; ;� • ..� lfi{sT 4 � I S _ r >: i r. •i f � + ,f S-rL m $:=JIV fiIJ 4' v 1ra�V 1L• � ._ Q 1 li Y F . � r �S d •N _ ry ! LC i csN • A41 �� vl `R � `w �F,l�rpy��5,, . � N ■� aZJ,' S A 4 £ Few C 7 O U U1 u Q. n An W 41 wu W •O L a Z4 C O U 0) wu W r.-I C O m o E � o o c CU Q c E v L Y Q U Q (v O Z L (� a m C a) E L Q > 0 _ a E N 6 � L N ra m N 3 a w � c c 0 o 0 u E Y Q C Q v Q L H O L O y� T O1 i0 C � U N o : o ,o E a o x o fu H E o v c E iA In v N co fao E J rn ^ �7 C7 'o (7 0 �+ O O j 0 j v c o c o c o c o c 0 ko o o 0 M D M M 0 C O C O L N a a a a a U) ' w o w '� o w w Y E E u = aJ a) c N a)N v v d Q E L O_ v N v CD o C E o E o Q o (0 a)J CL InC a 10 cm n (a OCL a a a =._ a a ++ (U Ili m al `o Ow O o Lo w w a > a) U > U v U n n E c p 70- u u u ui uT In Li ii d Z m C L O Y ar u O N N E U U [Oi N — 3 L 11� N E U f U U 2 2 e 2 e 2 e\ 7 G 3 7 e 7 \ o \ 2 \ 2 \ \ j \ j \ j k \ / \ ± ± ± ± i u = L� w m E m = _ _ $=a = o a)a)2 !oa e E § / J '§£ J ' c a _ C. / C n_ C� }ƒ C. / /2f a / < I \ 0 / ) $ e § o } E? J w ) E a E \ 2 a 2 _ m � ] ) k $ & { k 2 0 ` k 2 3 0 E° k u % ° CL u ƒ°'' / 2 § ` k\ 2 a 3 }$ 2 2 § k e ° / ® Y \ G G w \ G u / £ ) \ z f Q) ) e g E 8 G// / r£" m o o u c ® ° / / E & - cu u o a LO § e / 2 2 § § § / ) k/ » o - 3 k k \ o R= R u= 3cl0- u ¥ D. . . . . . . . _ = I \ j \} i/ Wetland name or number A RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): A - Parcel 29210490060 Date of site visit: 16 MAY 16 Rated by Habitat Technologies Trained by Ecology? x Yes No Date of training 2014 HGM Class used for rating Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y x N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map King County GIS OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY 2 (based on functions x or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 x Category II —Total score = 20 - 22 Category III — Total score = 16 -19 Category IV —Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H L H❑ M L H MQ L Landscape Potential H O L H ® L H M Q Value M L H MQ L ]H:] M L TOTAL Score Based on 7 7 6 20 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 x Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 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 1 Wetland name or number A 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 W1 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 W2 Location of outlet (con be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 W2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) D 2.2, D 5.2 W2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 W3 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 W4 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 W5 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 W6 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 N/A 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) I R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Frinige 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 (con 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 N/A 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 N/A 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 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 201S Wetland name or number A HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 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. 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 Ifyour 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 Tj 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 anytime 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). N - 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. 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number A 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 sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO -go to 7 1 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. NCB- goto8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more -of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number A DEPRESSIONAL AN 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. 3 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 layerlayerl is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4 No = 0 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 > %: of area points = 3 1 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 pondine or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > Y. total area of wetland points = 4 2 Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < X total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 6 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H X 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 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 1 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes =1 No = 0 1 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes =1 No = 0 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H X 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 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 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 2 3 Rating of Value If score is: X —2-4 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 5 Wetland name or number p` 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 4 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 storaee during wet eriods: 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 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed_: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 3 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 14 Rating of Site Potential If score is: X _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 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 1 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes =1 No = 0 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 = H X 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 landsca pe that has floodi ng 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 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? 0 Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is: _2-4 = H X 1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number A These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of '4 ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 X Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 2 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 X Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if.• X 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 X ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). X Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 X Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 X 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 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name 2 the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed conarygrass, 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. (:D (:0 ) (*) (:. (::-_�D 1 None = 0 points Low =1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number A H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) X At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above $ Rating of Site Potential If score is:--15-18 = H X 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). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 5 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]-5--= 10 % 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. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 25+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 15= 40 % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 1 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points =1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) (-2) <- 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:4-6 = H 1-3 = M X < 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 X 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) 2 — 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 anv of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: X 2 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 14 Wetland name or number A WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats lister! by WDF (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. litti./ Iwdf%,v.wa.,ov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http1 f wdFw.wa.gov/consei-vatir)ijnbs/fist/) 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). X — 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). X 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). X — 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Page 1 of 1 http://gismaps.kingeounty.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisoutputIPrintingIPrintingService... 12/6/2016 King County Department of Assessments: eReal Property Page 1 of 2 98 Amazon.com customer reviews Baby's Favorite r( These Stage 3 Sprout Products are wonderful . The flavor combinations are unique and enticing. » ADVERTISEMEN' New Search Property Tax Bill Map This Property Glossary of Terms Area Report Print Property Detail M Parcel 292104-9060 Name SOKALSKYY PAVLO+VIKTORIYA S Site Address Residential Area 054-021 (SW Appraisal District) Property Name PARCEL DATA Jurisdiction FEDERAL WAY Levy Code 1205 Property Type R Plat Block / Building Number N I NE-29-21.4 — Plat Lot / Unit Number Quarter -Section -Township- Range POR OF S 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 LY NLY OF NEAL RD LESS E 1168 FT PLat Block: Plat Lot: Highest & Best Use As If Vacant SINGLE FAMILY Highest& Best Use As (unknown) Improved Present Use Vacant(Single-family) Land SgFt 38,915 Acres Q 89 Rainier Territorial Olympics Cascades Seattle Skyline Puget Sound Lake Washington Lake Sammamish Lake/River/Creek Other View Views Deshmations Historic Site Current Use (none) Nbr Bldg Sites Adjacent to Golf Fairway NO Adjacent to Greenbelt NO Other Designation NO Deed Restrictions NO Development Rights Purchased NO Easements NO Native Growth Protection Easement NO DNR Lease NO LAND DATA Percentage Unusable 0 Unbuildable NO Restrictive Size Shape NO Zoning RS15.0 Water Sewer/Septic (none) Road Access PUBLIC Parking Street Surface PAVED Warprrrnnt Waterfront Location Waterfront Footage 'D Lot Depth Factor 'D Waterfront Bank Tide/Shore Waterfront Restricted Access Waterfront Access Rights NO Poor Quality NO Proximity Influence NO Nuisances Topography Traffic Noise Airport Noise Power Lines NO Other Nuisances NO Problems Water Problems NO Transportation Concurrency NO Other Problems NO Environmental Environmental YES Environmental Type Information Source I Delineation study Percentage I Affected Wetland JURISDICTION N 10 BUILDING TAX ROLL HISTORY http://blue.kingcounty.com/AssessorleRealPropertyIDetail. aspx?ParceINbr=2921049060 12/6/2016 King County Department of Assessments: eReal Property Page 2 of 2 Account 29210490600612016 Valued Year Tax Year 2017 Omit Year Levy Code Appraised Land Value (;) Appraised Imps Value (S) is Appraed Total Value (S) New Dollars (S) 0 Taxable Land Value 82,000 Taxable Imps Value 0 Taxable Total Value 82,000 Tax Value Ranson 1205 82,000 0 82,000 292104906006 2015 2016 1205 79,000 0 79,000 0 79,000 0 79,000 292104906006 2014 2015 1 11205 79,000 JO 79,000 0 79,000 iD 79,000 292104906006 2013 2014 1 1205 18,000 0 18,000 0 18,000 10 18,000 292104906006 2012 2013 1205 18,000 0 18,000 0 18,000 0 18,000 292104906006 2011 2012 1205 20,000 0 20,000 jo .20,000 0 20,000 292104906006 2010 2011 1205 22,000 0 22,000 jo 22,000 10 22,000 292104906006 2009 2010 1205 22,000 0 22,000 10 22,000 IO 22,000 292104906006 2008 2009 1205 22,000 0 22,000 10 22,000 10 22,000 292104906006 2007 2008 1205 22,000 0 22,000 0 22,000 0 22,000 292104906006 2006 2007 1205 22,000 0 22,000 10 22,000 10 22,000 292104906006 2005 2006 1205 66,000 0 66,000 0 66,000 0 66,000 292104906006 2004 2005 1205 63,000 0 63,000 0 -63,000 iD 63,000 292104906006 2003 2004 1205 46,000 0 46,000 j 0 46,000 iD 46,000 292104906006 2002 2003 1205 44,000 0 44,000 0 44,000 0 44,000 292104906006 2001 2002 11205 42,000 0 42,000 0 42,000 0 42,000 292104906006 2000 2001 1 11205 40,000 0 40,000 0 40,000 ID 40,000 292104906006 1999 2000 1205 40,000 0 40,000 0 40,000 0 40,000 292104906006 1998 1205 40,000 0 0 40,000 0 040,000 0 40,000 292104906006 1997 L1997 1205 0 0 32,000 ID 32,000 292104906006 1996 1205 0 0 0 jo 32,000 0 32,000 292104906006 1994 1995 1205 0 0 0 10 32,000 0 32,000 292104906006 1992 1993 1205 0 0 0 0 26,300 0 26,300 292104906006 1990 1991 1205 0 0 0 10 21,900 0 21,900 292104906006 1988 1989 3490 0 0 0 jo 18,100 0 18,100 292104906006 1986 1987 3490 J0 0 0 0 18,100 0 18,100 292104906006 1984 1985 3490 0 10 0 0 9,000 0 9,000 292104906006 1982 1983 3490 In 10 10 j 0 9,000 10 19,000 SALES HISTORY Excise Recording Document Sale Number Number Date Sale Price Seller Name Buyer Name Instrument Reason 2792146 20160425001614 4/13/2016 VERMUELEN SOKALSKYY PAVLO+VIKTORIYA Statutory Warranty None $150,000.00 JOHN+MARY SOKALSKA Deed 2670890 20140530002016 4/29/2014 $15,000.00 VERMEULEN PARK 16 LLC Quit Claim None JOHN E+MARY E Deed 2478806 20110215002376 2/15/2011 $0.00 ANDERSON I VERMUEULEN Statutory Warranty Other GREGORYM JOHN+MARY Deed 2368014 20081020001065 10/6/2008 $0,00 ANDERSON ANDERSON Quit Claim Property KIMBERLY A GREGORY M Deed Settlement 1674219 199903241152 3/3/1999 $255,000.00 KAVENY ANDERSON StatutoryMARK+SHANNON Warranty None GREGORY M Deed 1491939 199606241385 I6/12/1996 $173,500,00 CLARKGORDON KAVENY Statutory Warranty None V+SUSAN L MARK+SHANNON Deed REVIEW HISTORY Tax Review Review Appealed Hearing Settlement Year Number 10600029 Type Value Date Value Decision Status 2007 1 Local Appeal 1 $70,000 11/1/1900 $0 Completed PERMIT HISTORY HOME IMPROVEMENT EXEMPTION New Search Property Tax Bill Map This Property Glossary of Terms Aree Report Prinl Property Detail 71 ADVERTISEMENT http://blue.kingcounty.com/Assessor/eRealProperty/Detail.aspx?ParcelNbT=2921049060 12/6/2016 King County Department of Assessments: eReal Property Pagel of 2l ADVERTISEMENT New Search Property Tax Bill Map This Property Glossary of Terms Area Report Print Property Detail 71 Parcel 292104-9091 Name SOKALSKYY PAVLO+VIKTORIYA S Site Address Residential Area 054-021 (SW Appraisal District) Property Name PARCEL DATA Jurisdiction FEDERAL WAY Levy Code 1205 Property Type R Plat Block I Building Number Plat Lot / Unit Number Quarter -Section -Township- Range NE-29-21-4 Legal Description FOR OF W 123.50 FT OF E 1168.00 FT OF S 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 LY NLY OF NEAL RD Plat Block: Plat Lot: Highest& Basktl4e As If Vacant SINGLE FAMILY Highest & Best Use As (unknown) Improved Present Use Vacant(Single-family) Land SgFt 33,576 Acres 0.77 Rainier Territorial Olympics Cascades Seattle Skyline Puget Sound Lake Washington Lake Sammamish Lake/River/Creek Other View Views Desionationa Historic Site Current Use (none) Nbr Bldg Sites Adjacent to Golf Fairway NO Adjacent to Greenbelt NO Other Designation NO Deed Restrictions NO Development Rights Purchased NO Easements NO Native Growth Protection Easement NO DNR Lease INO LAND DATA Percentage Unusable 0 Unbuildable NO Restrictive Size Shape NO Zoning RS15.0 Water Sewer/Septic (none) Road Access IPUBLIC Parking Street Surface I PAVED waterfront Waterfront Location Waterfront Footage 0 Lot Depth Factor 0 Waterfront Bank Tide/Shore Waterfront Restricted Access Waterfront Access Rights NO Poor Quality NO Proximity Influence NO Nuisances Topography Traffic Noise Airport Noise Power Lines I NO Other Nuisances NO Problems Water Problems NO Transportation Concurrency NO Other Problems INO Environmental Environmental YES Environmental Information Source Delineation study Percentage Affected tType Welland I JURISDICTION1 N 110 BUILDING TAX ROLL HISTORY oTrALa•Wa ADVERTISI http://blue.kingcounty. com/Assessor/eRealProperty/Detail.aspx?ParcelNbr=2921049091 12/6/2016 King County Department of Assessments: eReal Property Page 2 of Z. Account 292104909109 I Valued Year 2016 Tax Year 2017 Omit Year Levy Code Appraised Land Value (§) 87,000 Appraised Appraised New Taxable Taxable Taxable Imps Total Dollars Land Imps Total Value (§) Value (§) (§) Value Value Value 0 f87,000 0 87,000 0 87,000 Tax Value Reason 1 1205 292104909109 2015 2016 1205 83,000 0 183,000 0 83,000 0 83,000 292104909109 2014 2015 1205 83,000 0 .83,000 0 83,000 0 83,000 292104909109 2013 2014 1205 18,000 0 18,000 0 18,000 0 18,000 292104909109 2012 2013 1205 18,000 0 18,000 0 18,000 0 18,000 292104909109 2011 2012 1205 20,000 0 20,000 0 20,000 0 20,000 292104909109 2010 2011 1205 23,000 0 23,000 0 23,000 0 123,000 292104909109 2009 2010 1205 23,000 0 23,000 0 23,000 0 23,000 292104909109 2008 2009 1205 23,000 0 23,000 0 23,000 0 23,000 292104909109 2007 2008 11205 23,000 0 23,000 10 23,000 0 23,000 292104909109 2006 2007 1205 23,000 0 23,000 0 23,000 0 23,000 292104909109 2005 2006 1205 70,000 0 70,000 0 70,000 0 70,000 292104909109 2004 2005 1205 67,000 10 67,000 0 167,000 0 67,000 292104909109 2003 2004 1205 146,000 10 46,000 0 146,000 0 46,000 292104909109 2002 2003 1205 44,000 0 44,000 0 44,000 10 44,000 292104909109 2001 2002 1205 42,000 0 42,000 ]0 •42,000 0 42,000 292104909109 2000 2001 11205 40,000 0 40,000 0 .40,000 0 40,000 292104909109 1999 2000 1205 40,000 0 40,000 0 40,000 0 40,000 292104909109 1998 1999 1205 40,000 0 40,000 0 40,000 0 40,000 292104909109 1997 1996 1205 0 0 0 0 31,000 0 31,000 292104909109 1996 1997 1205 0 0 0 0 •31,000 0 31,000 292104909109 1994 1995 1205 0 0 0 0 31,000 0 31,000 292104909109 1992 1993 1 1205 0 0 0 0 .25,100 0 25,100 292104909109 1990 1991 1205 10 0 0 0 :20,900 0 20,900 42104909109 1988 1989 :3490 10 0 0 0 17,100 0 17,100 292104909109 1986 1987 3490 0 0 1 0 0 17,100 0 17,100 292104909109 1984 1985 3490 0 0 0 0 15,000 0 15,000 292104909109 1982 1983 3490 1. 0 10 0 10 15,000 0 15,000 SALES HISTORY Excise Recording Document Sale Sale Price Seller Name Buyer Name Instrument Number Number Date Reason 2792146 20160425001614 4/13/2016 VERMUELEN SOKALSKYY Statutory $150,000 00 JOHN+MARY PAVLO+VIKTORIYA Warranty None SOKALSKA Deed 2670890 20140530002016 4/29/2014 $15,000,00 VERMEULEN PARK 16 LLC Quit Claim •None JOHN E+MARY E Deed ANDERSON VERMUEULEN Statutory 2478806 20110215002376 2/15/2011 1$0'00 GREGORY M JOHN+MARY Warranty Deed Other 2368014 20081020001065 10/6/2008 j 1 $0.00 ANDERSON ANDERSON Quit Claim Property KIMBERLY A GREGORY M Deed Settlement ANDERSON ANDERSON Quit Claim Community 2094138 20050103001383 12/21/2004 $0,00 GREGORYM GREGORY Deed property M+KIMBERLYA Established KAVENY ANDERSON Statutory 1674219 199903241152 3/3/1999 $255,000,00 MARK+SHANNON GREGORY M Warranty Deed None 1491939 CLARK GORDON KAVENY Statutory 199606241385 6/12/1996 $173,500.00 V+SUSAN L MARK+SHANNON Warranty None Deed REVIEW HISTORY Tax Review Review Appealed Hearing Settlement Year Number 110600030 Type Value Date Value Decision Status 2007 Local Appeal 1 $75,000 1/1/1900 $0 1 1 Completed PERMIT HISTORY HOME IMPROVEMENT EXEMPTION New Search Property Taz Bill Map This Property Glossary of Terms Area Report Print Property DetailIn http://blue.kingeounty. com/AssessorleRealPropertyIDetail.aspx?ParceINbr=2921049091 12/6/2016