The URL can be used to link to this page

16-103312 (2) F L" ` GITY OF CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South '�..,. Federal Way Federal Way,WA 98003-6325 (253)835-7000 r. www.cityoffederalway.com Jim Ferrell, Mayor June 6, 2018 Alexey Ancheyev Emailed:alexeylZi urbandesigns.us Urban Design Group 879 Rainier Avenue North, Suite A200 Renton, WA 98057 Ati Re: File#16-103312-00-0'; PROCESS III REQUIRED-REASONABLE USE Interplast NW,SW Dash Point Rd.(Parcel#416660-0608),Federal Way Dear Mr. Ancheyev, This letter serves as reminder that technical comments for the abovementioned building permit submitted in June 2016.The site contains wetlands and geologically hazardous areas(landslide and erosion)and separate third party reviews are being processed under city file#s 1 6-1 03 3 1 2-00-AD and 16-105471-00-AD.A resubmittal responding to the city's consultants AMEC and Perteet also remains outstanding. REVIEW PROCESS Based on the findings of the city's consultant Perteet,the following review processes are required to construct a single family house within the buffer area of the above-mentioned property. Intrusions into a regulated wetland buffer—As mentioned in the enclosed Perteet October 2016 and'April 2018 technical reviews, contrary to Blue Heron's findings,all relevant portions of the property are impacted by the wetland and wetland buffer. Reasonable use approvals on neighboring tax parcel 416660-0600 indicate a Category II 100-foot wetland buffer applies. The construction of a single family'house and associated improvements would intrude into the buffer.Ordinarily,your next step would be to request a reduction of the wetland buffer in accordance with Federal Way Revised Code(FWRC) 19.145.420(5)and(6). However, it is likely the maximum reduction allowed under that section is 25%and it appears the house improvements would intrude more than that(to confirm on the conclusion of Perteet's review);the exact amount of intrusion and exact location of the wetland buffer edge is unknown at this time(a response to Perteet's review remains outstanding). Therefore, pursuant to FWRC 19.145.090,Reasonable use of the subject property,you may request a modification or waiver of the buffer requirements to allow"reasonable use"of the property based on the following criteria: (a)The application of the provisions of this chapter eliminates all reasonable use of the subject property; (b)No feasible and reasonable on-site alternatives to the proposal are possible,such as changes to site layout and/or reduction of impervious improvements; (c) It is solely the implementation of this chapter,and not other factors,that preclude all reasonable use of the subject property; (d)The applicant has in no way created or exacerbated the condition that forms the limitation on the use of the subject property, nor in any way contributed to such limitation; and (e)The waiver or modification will not lead to,create, nor significantly increase the risk of injury or death to any person or damage to improvements on or off the subject property. Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.090(4), if the city grants Interplast NW LLC a request, it shall grant the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with some reasonable use of the subject property,considering the factors described above. It is the applicant's responsibility to show hoWthe proposed wetland intrusions meet the Mr.Ancheyev June 6,2018 Page 2 of 2 criteria of FWRC 19.145.090. 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.t For projects on single-family residential lots,a reasonable use modification or waiver requires Process III land use review. Process III is an administrative review conducted by city staff with a final decision issued by the Director of Community Development before building permit issuance. The building plans submitted in June 2016 prepared by Urban Design Group will require significant revisions in order to grant a reasonable use approval, including a house footprint reduction in order to grant a buffer disturbance that is the minimum necessary to facilitate reasonable site development. In particular,the applicant has the opportunity to reduce front yard setback by 120 feet. At present the plans depict a 130-ft. +/-front yard, whereas only a minimum 20-ft. front setback is required for the detached dwelling unit. Although the applicant proposes private servicing and a drain-field,the applicant has yet to propose a building redesign including reducing gross floor area and bedrooms. Please find the enclosed site plan redlines outlining the above. CLOSING The formal land use application must be prepared in accordance with the City's Development Requirements checklist(enclosed)and must be accompanied by the appropriate fees. As fees change annually,please contact Development Specialist staff at the time of submittal for the current Process III application fees for Process III review,and if applicable mailing envelopes for public noticing. Development Specialists can be reached at 253-835-2607 or permitcenterluicityoffederalway.com. Should you have any questions about this letter, I can be reached at 253-835-2644 or leila.willoughby- oakes@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, < (,..)„._.__ .____a_47, Leila Willoughby-Oakes Associate Planner c: Kevin Peterson,Development Services Scott Sproul,Building Official,via email Sarady Long,Traffic Kim Peterson,Blue Heron Services,Email:bherona,seanet.com Bill Kidder,Perteet,Email:bill.kidder@perteet.com Pitor Raiter,Interplast NW LLC,Email:interplast_8@mail.ru(Owner) Keith Schembs,LEG,GeoResources LLC,EmaCkeiths@georesources.us Urban Design Group,Email:mok_ka@yahoo.com enc: Redlined Site Plan(received June 2016) Perteet Technical Memorandum,dated October 2016 Perteet Technical Email Comments,dated April 6,2018 AMEC Foster Wheeler Geotechnical Comments,dated April 4,2017 FWRC 19.145.090 'Reasonable use of the subject property' Process III Submittal Requirements Master Land Use Application 1 Once under review the city will evaluate and may elect to utilize a 3`d party reviewer for comments or feedback on the reasonable use plan, mitigation sequencing and wetland mitigation,at the applicant's expense. 16-102972-00-SF Doc.I .77805 g, y� CITY OF CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Fed era I Way Federal Way,WA 98003-6325 (253)835-7000 ;3r wwwcityoffederalway.com Jim Ferrell, Mayor May 16, 2018 Alexey Ancheyev Emailed: alexey@urbandesigns.us Urban Design Group 879 Rainer Avenue North, Suite A200 Renton, WA 98057 Re: File#16-103312-00-AD; 3RD PARTY WETLAND REVIEW Interplast NW, SW Dash Point Rd. (Parcel#416660-0608), Federal Way Dear Mr. Ancheyev, On March 30, 2018,the City of Federal Way received your revised wetland delineation rd'port of the Critical Area Review for the Interplast Corporation for parcel number 416660-0608,prepared by Blue Heron (revised March 27, 2018). WETLAND REPORT The city forwarded your revised report to our wetland consultant, Perteet, for their review pursuant to their technical review comments dated October 6, 2017. Perteet completed a second site visit on April 4, 2018, reviewed relevant documents, and prepared a technical review email (April 6, 2018) in which they do not concur with some components of the Blue Heron report, including the wetland rating and corresponding buffer width. The city concurs with Perteet's review and requests more information to proceed with building permit file no. 16-102972-00-SF and determine the buildable area. NEXT STEPS Please review the comments in the enclosed technical review email prepared by Perteet. A revised wetland delineation and rating report-must be submitted; the applicant shall apply the correct environmental regulations. Blue Heron applied the shoreline critical areas code to this site. Per Perteet, the site development will be subject to a Process III review for reasonable use of the subject property. The revised report will be peer reviewed at the applicant's expense in accordance with Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145.080(3)and additional review deposits will be required as $800.00 remains of the initial third party review budget of$3,510.00. Please find the city's wetland delineation regulation enclosed, FWRC 19.145 Article IV. Wetlands. Perteet requests you schedule an on-site meeting with the city and the applicant's wetland biologist in an effort to finalize the critical area determination. An applicant may apply for a modification or waiver of the provisions of this chapter using process IV;except, that applications for projects on single-family residential lots may use process III. Mr.Ancheyev May 16,2018 Page2 Should you have any questions about this letter, I can be reached at leila.willoughby- oakes@cityoffederalway.com, or 253-835-2644. Sincerely, Xch Leila Willoughby-Oakes `1 Associate Planner c: Kevin Peterson,Development Services Kim Peterson,Blue Heron Services,PO Box 393,Index,WA 98256,Email: bheron''alseanet.com Bill Kidder,Perteet,Email:bill.kidder'Iperteet.com Pitor Raiter,Interplast NW LLC,Email: interplast 8amail.ru(Owner) Urban Design Group,Email: mok ka(a),yahoo.com enc: FWRC 19.145.410-440 Article IV.`Wetlands' Resubmittal Form r Perteet 2nd Technical Review Email(April 2018) • I6-103312.00-AD Doc.I . 77729 RESUBMITTED DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South MAR 3 0 2018 Federal Way,WA 98003-6325 CITY OF 253 835-2607;Fax 253-835-2.I Federal A1ayç CITY OF FEDERAL WAY WC1tVOflCdOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • r • RESUBMITTAL INFORMATION 4; • This completed form MUST accompany all resubmitfa"l.:`'V V **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 if you are not sure about the number of copies required. ** ANY CHANGES TO DRAWINGS MUST BE CLOUDED. Project Number: it 6 - ( 0 3 3 ( 2. - 0 0 - D Project Name: -4e-4piO S1- IJW Project Address: 3 'i 3 e S t) F€ d Wasy Project Contact: ffeKe 19-no&e_yev Phone: 253 Z 20 060S RESUBMITTED ITEMS:/ #of Copies** Detailed Description of Item Cr c£? a,r'P_cx ✓e..0 i e h L1,(.43 _et`tev' **Always submit the same number of copies as required for your initial application.** Resubmittal Requested by : i- 101 Letter Dated: (0 / 28/ �(6 (StaffMember) RESUB#: Distribution Date:, By: Dept/Div Name # Description Building Planning PW Fire Other Bulletin#129—January 1,2011 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Resubmittal Information • © [Dr) Vv RESUBMITTED coy HA CITY OF MAR 3 0 2018 33325 8th Aver South ' Federal Way CITY of FEDERAL WAY Fed 0.t- eral Way,WA 9806325 (253)836-7000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT wwwdtyresom October 28,2016 Alexey"Ancheev Emnailed:alexey( urbandesigns.us Urban Design Group 879 Rainer Avenue North,Suite A200 Renton,WA 98057 RE: File#16-103312-A1)t 3's PARTY WETLAND DELINEATION RATING&REviEW lluterp ast NW,30543 ' "Ave SW,Federal Way(Parcel:416660-0608) Dear Mr.Ancheyev: On July 18,2016,the City of Federal Way initiated a third party review pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code(FWRC) 19.145.080(3)'for the`Critical Area Review for l'nterplast Corporation,Parcel 41666-. 0608'report,prepared by Blue Heron,LLC(dated March 22,2016).The project includes construction of an approximately 3,738 sq.ft.;two-story residence and sharing a portion of an existing driveway with the parcel to the south(Parcel:41666600-0600) The City forwarded the request to our wetland consultant Perteet'inc.Petted completed a review of relevant plans,studies and critical area permitting records on file with.the City.The City received a technical review memorandum on October 8,2016,in which Perteet Inc;does not concur with Blue Herons-critical area report findings(wetland rating,wetland buffers and delineation). The City concurs with Perteet's October 6,2016,technical review. Please reference the enclosed memorandum from Perteet for revision details.Upon completion of delineation and report revisions, please resubmit a revised Report for review pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code(FWRC) 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas. The following additional items must be addressed prior to building permit approval: 1. Page 8 of the Blue Heron report notes the use of wetland regulations contained in Title 15"Shoreline Management".The subject property is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction,and that code section is not applicable.Re-rate the wetland and update the report using FWRC 19.145 'Environmentally Critical Areas'. Mistake has been corrected 2. Staff is aware of ongoing wetland report reviews at 30XXX 28*Avenue SW(Parcel:41666-0600), which are within 225 feet of the subject property, reviewed information supplied 3. Sewer Line Development in Wetland—The site plan submitted with the building permit depicts a new sewer line running from 28 Avenue South through the wetland and wetland buffer.The road is an unopened/unimproved road.Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.130,the applicant must`demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas'. In this"case,the applicant shall determine the feasibility of and extend the sewer line further Sewer line is no longer part of the project proposal Mr.Aneheyev October Z8,2016 Page 2 of 2 along 28*Ave,S.five feet from the southern property line to avoid bisecting the wetland and intruding into the wetland buffer, 4. Construction staging and equipment cannot be located in the wetland buffer area or wetland.A construction fence must be located outside the buffer so when digging and setting the silt fencing, the buffer will not be impacted pursuant to FWRC 19.145.190 and FWRC 19.145.210.Please depict the fence and silt fence location on revised plans. Urban Design will adjust this placement NEXT STEPS Please review the comments and required revisions contained in Perteet's mein°Prior to the City's concurrence e with a critical area determination on the subject property,a revised wetland report must be submitted.The. project must comply with FWRC 19.145.410-440. Critical area report revisions will be reviewed by Perteet at the applicant's expense,with the remaining balance;you will be contacted if additional fees are necessary. CLOSING No wetland delineations,rating or buffers can be approved at this tifne.No impacts to critical areas or critical area buffers are approved at this time.Please submit four copies of the revised site plan and report with the enclosed re submittal form,along with a written response addressing how all comments have been addressed.A Planning Division technical review letter will follow antler separate cover. If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me atleila.willougbby-oakcesrr.cit,yoffeder'alway.eow or 253-835-2644. Since y Lei i oughby- es Associate Planner c: Peter Lawrence,Plans Examiner Ann Dower,Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer(attach peer review) Kim Peterson,Blue Heron Services,PO 393,Index,WA 98256,Ettiail:bberon+ .coin(attach mail memo) Brad Biggcrstaff,GeoResources,Email:flradB4ssotesources.us Bill Kidder,Lead Ecologist,Pelted;Email:bill,kidder(&pertect..com Jason Walker,Environmental Manager&Wetland Ecologist,Perteet;Email:jason.watkertaip t.cont Interplast NW LLC,Email:interplant afmnail ru(Owner) enc: Resubmittal Form Perteet Technical Memorandum,dated October 6,2016 i .103312.06.AD Elot:''.A.74$51 • ' pq Memorandum Perteet ,.. ..xAd'. ..r .. ... .. �.., ,. _ .:uYi,73'�'{{Y�''hF✓".,4i1�...''Y ,4;..;.K i Yn - To: Lela Wiilaughbya, ate Planner,C tyolPederal Way From: Jason Walker,PIA,PWS,Environmental Manager and Wetland Ecologist;Perteet Bill Kidder,PWS,Lead Ecologist.Perteet Date October62016 ,43 5 .. a ProPertIr'—CriticalAnna(We"nds)Review lRlfl Perteet Inc.conducted a°Critical-Areas Wetland Review for the Incerplast parcel*416660-0608(subject parcel) located at 30543 28a'Ave SW,Federal Way,Washington in the NW quarter of Section 12,Township 21 North. Range 03 East The parcel is bordered by an unconstructed forested 2.9dt Ave SW right-of-way on the east Dash Point Road on the wed two vacant parcels to the north,and one single family home with appetences to the south.The applicant kproposingiXtconitructone single family residence on the subject parcel, DOCUMEN fSREVIEWED The following documents and resource information websites were reviewed by Perteet prior to the site visit • Critical Area Review(Report)fbr"Interplast Corporation,Section12 Township 21N,Range 3 E,WM„Tax* 416660 dated March 22,2016,Prepared by Blue Heron Services Inc Prepared for Interplast Corporation. • Wetland Assessment of the Adzhigirey Property 30XXX.2Sth Ave 5,Federal Way,WA 98023,Prepared for SeseyArizhigirey,Prepared by 1.5.Jones and Associates.Inc.dated May 2&2014. • King County Online Parcel Viewer(htttr//wyw.ltlpgcovncv s +/ooei ations/GiJMansliMAP,asoxl accessed August 16,2016. • City of Federal Way Critical Areas map(https j/www,citvoffederalway.co /raaae/maps),accessed August 166 2016., • • City of Federal Way Munidpal Code(http://www.codeptiblishing.cart/WA/FederalWay/) • Googfe Earth Pro Only the west The March 22,2016 Blue Heron Critical Area Review(Report)describing one category III palustrine part of the lot scrub/shrub(PS$)and forested(PFO)wetland was reviewed pursuant to the City of Federal Way(City) was flagged,no municipal code Chapter 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas.The Report contains a hand drawn sketch disturbance is illustrating one wetland boundary bisecting the subject parcel north to south with a Category lit wetland proposed east of the present on the east half of the parcel.it is unclear from the Report text or the Report's wetland boundary drawing if the wink'oronly-a portion of the subject parcei.s ear half is being identified as wetland.The flagged wetland line delineation boundary is es imated tsing incomplete sample plot data collected from two off-parcel and one on-parcel sample locations.The Report's attached Ecology 2014 updated rating system form calculates the wetland to receive a Category IIi rating.The Report asserts on pages 7 and 9 that the wetland receives a 50-foot. buffer pursuant to the City's code Chapter 15.10 Shoreline Management Critical Areas code The City also provided from their records a copy of a May 2%,2014 Wetland Assessment of the Adzhigirey X Property(Adzti ey Report)submitted as part of an adjacent parcel development application.This earlier wetland assessment contains a figure with surveyed wetland boundary flags that illustrates a palustrine X forested wetland that was delineated extending ontcrthe subject parcel from the adjacent parcels to the north X and east The wetland boundary and rating documented.in this report were approved by the City for X neighboring parcel*416660.0600 to the north during that parcel's development application.The Adzhigireyr Int erplast NW Critical Area Wetlands Review Ns l liftf+L44 f ,d4ev(,c1 OciT poi 1# • [i! Methorandum Report was provided to Perteet by the City for reference purposes only and is not the primary subject of this review. srrE VISIT AND AL.OBSERVATIONS Perteet Wetland Scientist(Bill Kidder)completed a site visit on September 56,2016 to assess site conditions and. wetlands on and adjacent to the subject parcel.Lela Willoughby0alcris,Cityof Federal Way Planner,met Perteet on site for an initial site briefing.The subject parcel boundaries and corner points could not be predkely located. However,review of submitted Information was accomplished with reasonable approximation using existing site features,King County iMap aerial photographs overlaid With parcel lines,and it formadon available In the A,dzhigtrr yReportprovided by the City. Additional survey work has been completed and site should be easier to review The subject property is undeveloped and dominated bya multi-story mixed conifer t deciduous forest that extends to adjacent parcels on the north,south,and east.One small mowed cleating ispresent in the center of the parcel accessible.from the single-family home parcel arthe south.MAryr mold tees arepresent.tftroughout the subject:. property that include westernred cedars(T,hupa*zeal Douglas fir(,P et saga inertziestl,blgleafmaple earl' naatophyle4 and western hemlock(Tst g t hem +}..Red alder(Nnustribal vine maple(Acerdrefisa wn) and various willows(Safirsp.)were also present around dte dea ring,and in the east of the subject property. Invasive and noxious weed specks were common on the east half of the subject property,including Himalayan blackberry(Rebus armeniacta),morning glory(or field bindweed.;G/ 'ase hum),and English Italy(Hex Vim). One palustrine wetland containing forested and scrub/shrub stratums Was:observed on the subject properwand extends to adjacent parcels.Two off-parcei sample plot flags corresponding to SP 3 and SP-4 in the Report found and observed by Perteet.Off-parcel wetland flags w/l a1,art;and e8 were also found and observed..One on- parcel flag w/146 was found and observed.The on-parcel sample plot SP-7 and wetland flags w/t-415 and a7`could not be found Flags are deemed on-site or off-site based on the reporeshand drawn wetland boundary sketch and not based on surveyed boundary information Other wetland delineation flags were also found in the approximate location of the subject pacers north boundary and on the parcel immediately adjacent to the north.These other wetland flags were labeled variously WL1-54 through WL1.65 and most accurately correspond in location and sequence to the delineation map contained in the J.S.Jones May 28,2014`Wedand Assessment with flags labeled A- 54 through A-65. All previous flags were found,cleared for view and added flagging included. REviEWcOmmENTS Additional flagging was added for clarity Listed below are our finding salong with requested actions in bold type 1. The subject parcel property lines were not flagged or marked for reviewers to locate property boundaries. Please s riy fake/demart to the parcel boundary lines so future a reviewers an clearly Wendt when they are on-property or off-pruPeTLY:(WWood lath stakes are recomt tded.) 2. The Report does not explicitly state or illustrate on the sket h which side of die wetland boundary lint the wetland occurs on.Based on site conditions,Perteet determined the wetland'to be located Mt of the wetland boundary tine Reese update the report andBaum *ore Detail has 3. Perteet could not find enough wedand boundary and sample plot flags to adequate ►assess the proposed been wetland boundary where it occurs on the subject parcel.Additionally,up(ami vegetation community was included observed on some portions of the east half ofthe subject property that die Report assumes to be wetland. Plags have been aeady degneate stakemag-wedand wundariesthroughout the subject property and duo depict added and veg. such flags and boundary on a Onensjonaley accurate map orsurrey. removed for 4. Three sal► a ats(sp#3,t*4,and 11 were used to define ...... r Pl PJ: � t�e`wetlarud bearnday,�++�t►ever,two of'the line of sight sample plots appear were located in the fOroF edarm on the adjacent parcel to the"north.The native vegetation composition and relatively undisturbed soils for sample"plots sps3 and#4 inthe offsite furated disc s and invasive species dominated shrub thicket present along the on-site wetland boundary.Sample plot sp#7 could not be relocated to determine its icy lnerrpt9uic NW tildes,.Area Wetlands Review Sample plots have been cleared for view,added plots soon t site were included in the review in Jan 2018 • fit Memorandum Peel: yx • ':e .. :. p...}.�.Q .�.(,tl,...ar' . ,Po ,5y.�.¢.q•.p.,+ ..'!>r y_.s • repeasents the Owsittseetkmd'condition,Pfau*addand dearly stake at least one upland sample plot Clear visible P 'Ince*to sisti on the subiett p pay"to disalbe the on-site upland can ls:eV.Update tthe flagging was t dim*. 'chaff the delineator used to determine and map the wetland boundary• added on 5. Theapplicant's wetland consultant must deneIy stake the wetland boundary and sample plot locations oh Jan 13 2018 theme"p ly for;o on and review(Wood lath stakes are recom rrrarrded�tlpat"i�anQe�'s aortlrmadoo of the staked wetland boundary,the appliciest ahaeil resurvey the updated wettan d boundarkes"consistent withstand survey. 6. The reps Methodology section explains that the delineation was"conducted per the Corps,;.1967 delineation manual and Ecology`s...2014 updated delineation manual."Per Washington Administrative 2010 Code WAC 173-22•03%wetland delineations should be completed using the current approved guidance manual andsu . ts.Pleaseatethewetlandandrda;tf, p� sample plots using the current wording approved Regia reiSsq a ernentuo"the CogasofE4eisteers Wetaraxt`Aripearton Manual ifiksaem included Aktunntias WeSeips we/t baatstR o ($n ersioro2OJcommonly referred to as the 2010R rt Sippkinent Update the Report based on jipildaoco provided In the 2070 ReglorralSumlemea4 Federal Way code 1M45a0.Cr'IddlAreas eports,and 19145,410 tj Wend Evaluation. 7; Sample plot data fames contain outdatedvim"FAC indicator status listings,and incomplete"soils and hydrology sections,Complete the wetlanddata plat and update the Report accordingly Use updated the current approved(2010 vegetation FAC indicator status listings for Western Mountains.Valleys,and Cost Region of Washington state i, f -u: .. i ni u t h.k i l & The wetland is inconsistently identified as a slope or depresslonal wetland in the report and the rating form.Small depressions were observed in the wetland that may retain shallow surface ponding.Please confirm the MGM dassiticatlorsand update the Reisartcomponents for consistency. 9 The Repostused"the City's Chapter 1510 Shc refine Management code to equate the subject property revised wetland and buffer to"the City's regulatory requirements.The subject parcel and the identified wetland do not occur fit a Shoreline Management zone`.The City regulates wetlands and other critical areas outside No off site the Shoreline Management zone using Chapter 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas.Reevaluate the wetland were wetland,wetland buffer,and other potential pet-side critical areas using Federal Way code Chapter 19.145. reviewed 10. Off-site wetland conditions were observed on the adjacent parcel to the north that extend west parallel though city to the subject parcel.This wetland or buffer is not described in the Report Characterize and illustrate all provided a off-site wetland buffers that may overlap onto the si*ect'parcel pursuant to Federal Way code map and that 19,145..410(2Xe)a nd( information 11to construct a tingle familyhome on the subject t was used in �tbriefly-proposes $l bj parcel,��?Impacts: w this report idoes not detail what l�"may occur to or within critical areas or critical area buffers.No mitigation; No new ipmacts is proposed for described for potential Impacts Please update the`Report to folly detail poaerrltisl critical are proposed to areas and bullies Impacts and proposed mitig Lion pursuant to 19.145.130 Midpdonsemmericksgand wetland or buffer. 19.145.140 fltNprt Plan Requirements. 12. No wetland delineations,ratings,or buffers can be approved at this time.Upon completion of delineation and rePort. Ono resubmit a revised Report for pursuant to Federal Way code 19.145 Envkaamentailly Critical Areas. 13. No Impacts era* aJ corcrtAo ►f area bufkrt ze appnavedat this*no in general,a mitigation plan consistent with Federal Way code 19,145.430 and 19.145.430 is required for any impacts and has not been provided or evaluated for code consistency for this preliminary review.Submit a complete mitigation plan if impacts mundane or buffers are proposed No impacts proposed in this revision, no mitigation required END OF MEMORANDUM inosrpla t NW Critical Area Weaiandc Review — page 3 PERTEET `3 INVOICE P.O. Box 1186 Everett,WA 98206-1186 (425) 252-7700 Leila Willoughby-Oakes July 10, 2018 City of Federal Way Invoice No: 20130090.003-4 33325-8th Avenue South Federal Way,WA 98003-6325 Project 20130090.003 Interplast NW Lakota Professional Services Agreement for Third Party Wetland/Stream Review and Evaluation Task 003 Professional Services from April 30. 2018 to July 1,2018 Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Lead Ecologist/Manager Kidder,William .50 140.00 70.00 Totals .50 70.00 Total Labor 70.00 Billing Limits Current Prior To-Date Total Billings 70.00 2,945.78 3,015.78 Limit 3,510.00 Remaining 494.22 Total this Invoice $70.00 Billings to Date Current Prior Total Perteet Labor 70.00 2,915.00 2,985.00 Perteet Expense 0.00 30.78 30.78 Totals 70.00 2,945.78 3,015.78 Billina Limit Detail: Perteet Labor 3,445.00 Perteet Expenses 65.00 Subconsultants Total 3,510.00 PERTEET PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT NO.29 2707 Colby Avenue,Suite 900,Everett,WA 98201 I P 425.252.7700 Project Name: City of Federal Way On-Call Wetland Review,Interplast NW Lakota Client: City of Federal Way Perteet Project Number: 20130090.003 Client Project Manager: Leila Willoughby-Oakes Perteet Project Manager: Jason T Walker Accounting Manager: Kellie Delisle Report Period: April 30,2018 to July 1,2018 Tasks accomplished by Perteet this period: • City Correspondence Budget Status: Budget Items: Total Contract maximum: $3,510.00 Due this invoice: $70.00 Billings to date: $3,015.78 Remaining Authorization: $494.22 Percent of budget expended: 86% Our estimation of task order completion this period: 86% Respectfully Submitted, Jason T Walker,PLA,PWS Project Manager ORS Pagel File location: X:\Federal Way,City of\Projects\20130090-On-Coll Wetland Review\Project Management\Progress Reports\Progress Report#29 Interplast_April 30 2018 to July 120I8docx.docx Leila Willoughby-Oakes From: Leila Willoughby-Oakes Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 9:47 AM To: 'alexey@urbandesigns.us'; 'mochabuddyr@aol.com'; 'interplast_8@mail.ru' Cc: 'William Kidder; 'Keith Schembs'; 'bheron@scanet.com' Subject: Interplast NW Wetland Delineation 03-2018 City Review Attachments: 2017_04-07_Interplast Review Letter_Sx.pdf; FWRC 19.145.130& 140 Mitigation Sequencing_Mitigation Plan.pdf Greetings Mr.Ancheyev and Mr. Raiter, The City's on call consultant requests a site meeting in order to proceed with your project. It is currently on-hold as critical errors still remain in Urban Design Group's critical areas review discussed in Perteet's October 2016 review: 1. Per Perteet's October 2016 memo item 9,the resubmitted Critical Areas Review report from Urban Design Group inserts comments referring to the Federal Way code Chapter 19.145.The report includes reference to Chapter 19.145 Environmental Critical Areas on page 10, but(item a) about a third down page 10 references evaluating the project pursuant to Chapter 1510.250. 2. The resubmitted Critical Areas Review report and attached figures propose a Category III wetland with 50 foot buffer based on the Federal Way Shoreline Mgt code Chapter 15.10.250. Based on the proposed wetland rating resubmitted with the Critical Areas Review,the buffer would be 105 feet from the wetland edge based on Chapter 19.145.420.The current proposed rating is also missing details that may change the rating. 3. Per Perteet's October 2016 memo item 10 and Pursuant to Chapter 19.145.410(2),wetlands within 225 feet of the subject property must be illustrated and characterized. Page 4 paragraph 4 of the Critical Areas Review mentions wetlands off site to the north and to the southeast but does not characterize them.The Critical Areas Report does not map or characterize the fish-bearing stream within 100 feet of the property on the west side of SW Dash Point Road.The offsite wetlands and stream's with buffer widths that may extend onto the subject property need to be mapped and described. 4. The Critical Areas Review includes 8 survey and map figures showing various wetland boundaries. All figures that include buffers show a 50 foot buffer based on the Chapter 15 Shoreline Mgt code. What project map and wetland survey line is the applicant proposing for Perteet's review? 5. One figure attached to the Critical Areas Review depicts a residential dwelling project but does not describe the project in the report for assessment of potential impacts.The proposed project would occur within correctly applied critical area buffers. Perteet's October 2016 memo item 11 request a discussion of impacts and a proposed mitigation plan for any proposed project that may intrude in critical areas or buffers. 6. Per Perteet's October 2016 memo items 6 and 7,the four sample plot data forms are still incomplete and lacking substantive details for soils and hydrology.Vegetation dominance calculations are incorrectly applied. As of today, Perteet has about$800 remaining in the task order budget.With the remaining budget, Perteet requests an on-site meeting with the property owner,applicant,and applicant's wetland delineator for a single discussion to resolve outstanding application and wetland report errors.This is in an effort to reduce the back and forth between the applicant and city(additional budget may be required due to the number of revisions)as the first resubmittal did not adequately address Perteet's review. Please note Perteet evaluated the Adzhigirey property(416660-0600)to the north, and are familiar with this wetland complex. The constraints on this property are far greater than those on the abovementioned site-their feasible site improvements and impervious surface may well exceed the development Interplast can accommodate. A three car garage and/or a building footprint greater than 1,600 sf will not be feasible on this property(presently the 2016 permit application notes a 2,079 sf first floor,the garage area and first floor must be reduced by 473 square feet)- 1 requiring a reasonable use exception reviewed under a Process Ill 'Project Approval' by the director.At present you propose a 3,185+sq.ft. residence,and mitigation sequencing(code attached) is required for any work proposed in a critical area or critical area buffer in the City of Federal Way. Please also note per conversations with GeoResources,they cannot resubmit pursuant to AMEC Foster Wheeler's comment letter(please see attached)at this time due to outstanding payments to them.AMEC does not concur with the prior geotechnical report that no geotechnical areas exist on the subject property.There are severe erosion hazard areas present, and city staff note that GeoResources must provide a more thorough explanation as to why the development should be exempt from the critical areas ordinance,why site testing is in adequate at this time to determine if landslide hazard areas do or do not exist on the subject property. GeoResources states that the slope is not naturally occurring in the rear of the property, however it is unclear if this is the case as GeoResources only states that the slope is not naturally occurring. As such appropriate mitigation will apply on this proposal, applicable geo-hazard buffers and wetland buffer pursuant to FWRC 19.145. 'Mitigation Sequencing'. The city and city's biologist cannot approved as it does not comply with best available science nor the city's critical area ordinance. Further the city and city's biologist require revised plans to understand the necessary site mitigation for improvements proposed.This is a difficult site to build upon on you are well aware,due to the extents of the environmentally critical areas on the property(wetlands,erosion hazard areas and potentially landslide hazard area as depicted on the city's critical area inventory mapping). Thank you, L.Willoughby-Oakes Associate Planner _._ Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way,WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com Planner on Duty 253-835-2655 or pinginauirv@citvoffederalway.com Permit Center 253-835-2607 or permit.center@cityoffederalway.com Applications http://www.citvoffederalway.com/node/1547 NOTICE: All emails,and attachments,sent to and from the City of Federal Way are public records and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) 2 ESUBMI"tTED ( 1 'e Blue MAR 3 0 2018 i, r✓d • (42 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Heron COMMBlue Heron Services T c t1N ry DEVELOPMENT PO 393 Index. A 9$ • "4. ..,; 360 793 7767 hone 4; ` ~ Services (p ) bheron@seanet.com CRITICAL AREA REVIEW FOR Interplast Corporation Section 12 , Township 21 N, Range 3 E WM TAX# 416660-0608 Date: 3 24 2018 Applicant Name and Contact information: Interplast Corporation Mailing Address: Interplast Corp. 30404 28TH AVE SW FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 Contact: Urban Design Group 879 Rainer Avenue North, # A200 Renton, WA 98057 Site Address: The property is located adjacent to the address 2902 SW Dash Point Road Federal Way, Washington Legal Description: LAKOTA ADD Plat 6 Lot 6 Proposal: The applicant, represented by Urban Design Group, proposes to construct a single- family home mid lot on the parcel using the existing access road for a driveway. Application is for the construction of a single family home proposed to be placed outside of the wetland and wetland buffer on site. Site is a single lot which is a total of 1.4 acres running length wise from west to east following an elevation change from 70 at Dash Point Road to 185 feet on the east side. The proposed development location is set adjacent to the lots main plateau (this is also adjacent to the location of the house to the south). Vegetation and conditions in the proposed development site are second growth forest and some cleared lawn and landscaping. Areas to the east include the open grass lawn and the sloped wetland as mapped. The wetland determination as flagged is based on the presence of the three criteria for jurisdictional wetlands: hydric soils. wetland adaptive vegetation and presence of hydrology. Urban Design Critical Area Review page 1 of 15 3/27/2018 My first field visit was August 17, 2015. At this time the site had not yet been surveyed, a sketch of conditions on site is provided with this report(WL sketch notes). The wetland boundaries were marked with consecutively numbered p ink flagging, with soil pits labeled with a GPS #and orange flagging. Follow up visits were in the fall of 2016 and again in January 2018. In 20181 visited the site to reestablish flags and assure that indicators had not changed. The Flagging is placed from the SE corner of the clearing(behind the offsite buildings)to the north, circling the open area. Offsite the wetland edge trends NE and is seen on the offsite mapping information included in this proposal. Directions: Pacific Hway South/509 Turn west 312th st Turn W onto SW Dash point/509 In the U stay on SW DASH POINT Enter driveway listed for 2902 SW Dash Point and park in open area on the north side of the driveway 47.327497, -122.369565 ro F .fg•'� s , s S• 1 K h try `aPy, F.. Y;,>S $ 3117411 ,� `%'u :., "• �3 Y e.�.' S�X1�ai f n f $� Methodology: Review was conducted using the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains Valleys and Coast Region (Version 2.0)commonly referred to as the 2010 Regional Supplement. Application is proposed to meet Federal Way code 19.145.080 And Critical Areas Reports, and 19.145.410(2) Wetland Evaluation. Urban Design Critical Area Review page 2 of 15 3/27/2018 040 Additional investigations were conducted using King County iMap and mapping programs State of Washington Soil Survey Dept. of Natural Resources program data sets National Wetlands Inventory Data set City of Federal Way documents as available Local Knowledge General Site Description: Portions of the lot, and surrounding lots, include undeveloped forested areas with trees that are typically 18" DBH to 28"DBH both conifers and deciduous species. Portions of the total lot area may exceed 15% slope though the proposed building area is on the plateau shown on the site plan. The site is in the drainage basin of Dumas Bay in the Duwamish-Green River Watershed and WRIA 9 (Duwamish-Green). DNR mapping indicates there is a fish bearing stream at the toe of slope on the west side of the road;this development is hundreds of feet away. Applications have been made on some of the adjacent lots for development. Review of this material has been conducted and inspection of offsite wetland flagging on the north lot was found. This flagging trends north away from the lot line and to the west. There is no iMap or NWI data addressing wetlands at this site (though an offsite stream is mapped at toe of slope). SITE � r t .4 .yMi Urban Design Critical Area Review page 3 of 15 3/27/2018 Vegetation: • Hydric vegetation is defined using the Washington State Wetlands Delineation Manual (2014)with the simple statement: `Hydric vegetation: 'prevalent vegetation consists of macrophytes that are typically adapted to areas having hydrologic and soil conditions described in a above. Hydrophytic species, due to morphological,physiological, and/or reproductive adaptation(s), have the ability to grow, effectively compete, reproduce, and/or persist in anaerobic soil conditions'. The proposed development location is west of the area which also serves as parking and yard with mowed grass. This area has a few old orchard trees and a gravel parking area. There are remnants of an old foundation at the west end of the clearing which will be near the proposed home site. The lot to the south is developed with a home and outbuildings as well as parking areas. The western treed portion of the lot typically includes: big-leaf Maple, Red alder, & Douglas fir. The scrub/shrub areas (to the east of the wetland) are dominated by Vine maple, Indian plum, Sword fern,with some areas dense in Himalayan blackberry. The wetland area includes Douglas Spirea,willows, dogwood and invasive blackberry. While this review is focused in the area of proposed development, I did review the overall lot. There are some wetland conditions off site to the north/northwest as well as the southeast. These areas are similar to the conditions found on the review parcel though include more areas with larger trees and less blackberry. Document for the review on the parcel to the north have been provided by the City and included as reference with this application. Vegetation near the edge of wetland as flagged includes a high percentage of invasive vegetation: Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus English holly Ilex aquifolium Morning glory Calystegia There are some native species in this area(often in the dense bramble of vegetation) such as Equisetum (ssp.) and Urtica dioica/Stinging Nettle. On the west side of the flagged wetland line is a cleared grass yard. In the undisturbed portions of the forested areas,to the west of the grass lawn,the typical vegetation is: Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla Vine maple Acer circinatum Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum as well as an assortment so scrub shrub vegetation species. Off site to the northeast there is a more typical slope wetland which includes: skunk cabbage, and purple loosestrife and less invasive vegetation. Urban Design Critical Area Review page 4 of 15 3/27/2018 Hydrology Hydrology is defined using the Washington State Wetlands Delineation Manual 2014 with the simple statement: indicating that wetland hydrology is identified: 1 "e areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water 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'. The hydrological conditions on the site vary from saturation and standing seasonal water in the wetland area to dry upland forest. Near wetland flag #1 there is a great deal of debris and garbage along with dense invasive vegetation. At this toe of slope the soils were moist in the dry hot summer of 2015; there were no standing water or saturated soil conditions. Soils showed indicators associated with hydric soils. In January 2018 no surface water was present but a water table was visible that had not been evident before. Away from the toe of slope, the soils did not show signs of hydric soil, concretions or redox colors. The soils are clearly "urbanized" with several areas in the grass lawn having debris and garbage buried at depths below 4". The water table in this area during the visit in January 2018 was at about 6"within 20 feet of the wetland edge. While many areas had high water tables not all had indicators of hydric soils. In the forest area the soils were dry and typically light and loamy, there were no indications of sheet flow or channels related to seasonal springs though the forested locations. As soil pits were dug north of the lawn area (moving northeast from the lot line) soil pits included saturated soils with indicators for hydric conditions. I re-visited the site in January 2018 with a wet winter underway. While soils were draining better than I anticipated, standing water was visible in the mowed lawn, on the neighboring yard and driveway and within the areas defined as wetland. There was no noticeable water flow in this area though in the eastern lot area surface water did flow towards the NW due to the run off from development to the east. Based on the soil review lacking significant indicators in this area (though a high water table was present) and that some areas included significant amounts of debris I did not flag the lawn as wetland. The wetland line defined on the maps is that which distinctly provides a soil, hydrology and vegetation finding on the data sheets to establish a wetland line as opposed to historical disturbance or other conditions. Urban Design Critical Area Review page 5 of 15 3/27/2018 Soils Hydric soils are soils that are `saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (COE, 1987)." They are either organic soils (peats and mucks), or are mineral soils that are saturated long enough to produce soil properti es associated with a reducing environment. These soils have hydric characteristics such as a reduced matrix (a matrix that changes color when exposed to air), redox depletions (gleying ), or redox concentrations (mottles)'. Soil color was determined using Munsell Soil Color Charts (MacBeth, 1990). Soils were evaluated per the currently adopted US Army Corps manual as set by the State of Washington. Soils are mapped by the USDA Soil Conservation Service(SCS)as Indianola fine sand. "The Indianola series is made up of somewhat excessively drained soils that formed under conifers in sandy,recessional , stratified glacial drift". "In a representative profile,the upper 30 inches is brown, dark yellowish-brown , and light olive-brown loamy fine sand"(Snyder, et. al., 1973). While the soils in the lawn area are highly disturbed(and likely have undergone several decades of change),the majority of the undisturbed soils appear to be similar to the description in the soil survey. The Alderwood soils are loose and gravely and are common in the western lot area,with the Indianola soils making up the remaining conditions. Kug Cathay ben,tdtasdfktgton(wAG33) Nap Unit Nap Unit Natea Acres Percent Symhot in A01 of Aol Akf Alderwood and Ktsap .... 3.5: 1'_i% tolls,von steep Inc Indenola loam),sand,5 to 3.4 ,- IS percent dopes f•Totals for Area of Interest 5 t"IOU.O% Soil Survey Urban Design Critical Area Review page 6 of 15 3/27/2018 O. General topographic layout of site and vegetation conditions on the lot While the topography of the lot is extreme from west to east,the area of proposed development is part of a bench sitting in the center of the lot with gradual slopes to the west. King County Erosion Hazard mapping Mapping indicates this site is not designated as erosion hazard but has been marked with the review notes for `landslide' hazard. ,,, , - . :;*T-774':.,14'-':-. at Lays 14 BwtronmIntalI l 9eamM Arass: Era sloi:haaNE 11990 SAO a Se SfillC haeari r ilO SACS -sk 3y ®de hazard 1799k$ACJ% . Coal mHre hAzarE.t 199a SAOr y 3 65{ a3 ;..: et, £;it,, ,,.,,,„;„,.L.: 5Uaam S 1990 SALE: A - GA581 e �a •. flees 2 psA/mnnil erennial. • -- IIas,I f 4 ' ..3ansl5ve suss 1 a1Ml aea Aa4LV An ml. 0b4Ere0 '"' ,, a Urban Design Critical Area Review page 7 of 15 3/27/2018 Habitat Conditions: Habitat Conditions on site are limited to those typically found at residential development sites. The clearing is surrounded by native vegetation swaths in excess of 50 or 60 feet wide and as such some species will be using these forested areas (as well as the invasive brambles) for various aspects of their life cycle. The wetland and buffer include downed woody debris, standing snags, and water which is available most of the year. The wetland does have the opportunity to provide habitat for wildlife because portions of the buffer are relatively undisturbed, however connections to the larger habitat in the watershed are broken by roads and development. There were no indications of any significant use by mammals though birds and other small animals would use the forested and wetland portions thoughotu the year. The undisturbed portions of the lot include a mix of forested conditions,with both conifers and deciduous trees. Sword fern, Indian plum and vine maple are mixed in the understory of the forested portions. Brambles of invasive and native species make up a good portion of the western wetland on the lot. The Washington State Priority website provides only this comment for the general area of the site: Common Name Saen�.c Name l arty AreaIDSPIaY Feat, orridc diversely(show yeas And Null Ter aural Habitat l AS MAPPED Area • rThe State objectives for these rated areas is : • Keeping large, connected patches of undeveloped native vegetation intact. • Encouraging and maintaining low zoning densities within and immediately surrounding high-value habitat areas and encouraging maintenance of native vegetation. • Managing road systems to minimize the number of new roads and new barriers to important animal movement corridors. • Planning open space to incorporate high-value habitat and corridors for animal movement. • Zoning for higher densities within urban and developed landscapes to avoid sprawl. Urban Design Critical Area Review page 8 of 15 3/27/2018 Wetland Assessment: y yvety/op ys {yym /r adjoining lots,with varying conditions on each lot. The lot to the north has a less disturbed condition throughout the majority of the parcel while the lot to the south has been cleared and is mostly developed. The wetland is rated as a Category III scrub shrub wetland with a forested component which extends mostly off site. On site the wetland, at the wetland edge, in dominated by blackberry,willow and spirea. The mowed lawn adjoining the wetland edge was found to be flooded during winter months and hard and dry in the summer. Functional Assessment The functional rating for this site is highest for surface water control and possible groundwater recharge. The vegetated slopes are capable of trapping sediments and pollutants from surface runoff which could be released onto the lot from the larger development above in the east. The areas of both native and invasive vegetation can aid in reducing surface flow velocity during storms and periods of high run off. The on and off site wetland has opportunity to provide some reduction to the negative impacts of sheet flow flooding though the wetland. The size of the wetland is small compared to the basin which is effected down flow. Impacts This proposal is able to provide the required City of Federal Way's Critical Area Buffer (50 foot) without new impacts to the wetland or buffer(though both areas are degraded at this time). The site plan provides a five foot setback from the buffer edge also. While the critical area buffer will be mapped at this time no planting or restoration is proposed. Urban Design Critical Area Review page 9 of 15 3/27/2018 Wetland Determination, Ratings, and Buffers Per FWRC 19.145 Determination of wetland and regulated wetland. The March 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual(Department of Ecology Publication No. 96-94)as set forth in WAC 173-22-080, as it exists as of November 1, 1999, or as subsequently amended, will be used for identification and delineation of wetlands within the city. As such we have reviewed the site with reference to the 2010 (as directed in the 2016 letter) and the updated 2014 manual and the Army Corps Manual (1987) The City code indicates that an evaluation will include: (a)An evaluation of whether the area in question is a regulated wetland based upon the definition of a wetland and the size thresholds outlined in FWRC 15.10.250. Included (b)An overview of the methodology used to conduct the study. Included (c)A description of the wetland and plant communities found therein, a map delineating the edge of the wetland and location of plant communities, and a detailed description of the method used to identify the wetland edge. Included (data sheet attached) (d)The wetland classification, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service"Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats in the U.S." Included (rating forms attached) (e)A list of observed plant and wildlife species, using both scientific and common names, and a description of their relative abundance. Included (f)A list of potential plant or animal species based on signs or other observation. Included (g)An evaluation and assessment of the existing or potential functions and values of the wetland based on the following factors: surface water control; wildlife habitat; pollution and erosion control; groundwater exchange; open space and recreation; and educational and cultural opportunities. Included I flagged a wetland edge at the east end of the lawn/clearing, this is at the toe of slope descending from the east. This is a sloping wetland associated, in part, with run off and sheet flow from development higher on the slope. Please Note: First wetland flagging was conducted in 2016. Site was surveyed in 2017. Follow up visits to site were in 2017 and a final visit in January 2018. At 2018 site visit I attempted to clear around flagging, refresh surveyed flagging without any changes and conducted one soil pit on the western side of the lawn. Urban Design Critical Area Review page 10 of 15 3/27/2018 I lost track of the fact the survey indicated a SoilPit#4 near the north lot line and so this forest 2018 data sheet is also labeled#4. �r. ... I have marked up the data sheets to try to avoid confusion. In January all wetland flags (1 to 6) and all soil pits (1 to 4 and added forest#4)have been refreshed and cleared for view. 2016 data sheet SP7 has been changed to sp#2 in this submittal set, flagging was not visible so this is not a surveyed location. Ground water and sheet flow seems to contribute a high percentage of the hydrology found in this wetland. I did not find any flow through or stream conditions on site or off site within 100 feet of the proposed development. The soils at the wetland area were typically a low chroma matrix(Indianola fine sandy loam), with concretions and mottles which were common and distinct, or fully saturated soils with a low chroma and few other distinguishing features. • The wetland flagged on site is palustrine scrub/shrub (PSS)at the edge of a palustrine forested condition (PFO). The flagged wetland edge is dominated by non-native • invasive species at a width of 15 to 20 feet. The western portion of the lot includes soils which are not hydric(though portions have been urbanized). The vegetation community is a non-hydrophytic plant community dominated by big-leaf maple, Indian plum, Oregon grape, beaked hazelnut, and sword fern. Based on City code, 19.145.160 Building setbacks. "Unless otherwise provided, structures shall be set back a distance of five feet from the edges of a critical area buffer" this proposal maintains a minimum 5' setback. As such no mitigation sequencing(19.145.130) is required. Authority: This wetland determination is in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the objective of which is to"maintain and restore the chemical,physical,and biological integrity of the waters of the United States(DOE, 1997). " Wetlands are "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water 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. Wetlands generally include swamps,marshes,bogs,and similar areas (EPA, 0 CFR 230.3 and CE, 33 CFR 328.3)." Urban Design Critical Area Review page 11 of 15 3/27/2018 Limitations Wetland determinations and delineations are not final until approved by regulatory agencies and/or the local jurisdictions. References Cowardin, Lewis M. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jamestown,North Dakota. Department of Ecology. 2014. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication #14-06-029 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Report Y Technical -87-1. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksberg, MS. MacBeth. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Revised Washable Edition. 617 Little Britain Road, New Windsor ,NY 12553. The National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014-02-26 Kim Peterson 11 I i Blue Heron Services Inc PO 393 Index WA 98256 LU* 360 793 7767 (o) �� ` 425 3275799 (c) i, bheron@seanet.com 3 26 2018 Urban Design Critical Area Review page 12 of 15 3/27/2018 7 Looking east from forest to edge of wetland Table of Contents Proposal 1 Directions 2 Methodology 2 General Description 3 Vegetation 4 Hydrology 5 Soils 5 Habitat Conditions 7 Wetland Determination 8 Buffers 9 Authority 11 Limitations 11 References 11 Attachments Routine Field Data Forms DOE Rating Forms for Functional Assessment Wetland Sketch Urban Design Critical Area Review page 13 of 15 3/27/2018 TDML 303d map i \ i s M � ,� .y ;a ;,ems q i !gii 2� �' fit 1 } ��T,- 74...,E 5 .i�� A r' V _ 3'"'Iri"'-• 7.; i ,,,,,..."1"'',:,;!,,1!"`,":"'''' . '":t.VrilltalfiW:''''Mrn Ft- $ t •3 � y, e ,i1:I.,,,,!.i.§,i, ,-;,,..,:. .,..i':::iiiiXtrgit,(1:::::;;;;,,.:74T1 "',';,;,',- ' ';,-4,,,,"'---':;,. �u o 5 yyi £ Site ik \ . \ ' . ' . Y' W 3/27/2018 Urban Design Critical Area Review page 14 of 15 • a My _1Ft.►. i,aw 4101011 ei LAKOTA i Report Prepared by: Blue Heron Services Inc PO 393 Index WA 98256 360 793 7767 bheron@seanet.com Urban Design Group 879 Rainer Ave North#A200 Renton WA 98057 mok ka@yahoo.com Participants in application include: Blue Heron Services Inc Brenda Kim Peterson Duncan A. Medlin Erin Derrington Alexey Ancheyev Urban Design Sadler Barnard&Assoc. Inc Survey Urban Design Critical Area Review page 15 of 15 3/27/2018 4. v µU SOUTH N ‘�Sj3 `• vi - �a M 28TH A ,02 ° • —~ ••am _r--' "" rn ro cs F r'".1540 loit 4 •ate ! O -----r . , 4C t — • -- `4. 1,6 ------ "N\ /sit co 7 ,..„.........v._ , 4 cr.' • ii , Art...4010...,40100._.. . , oct i m - N CO (n t.i. Eg,.. , N Wetland name or number • RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID#):OrbI n h Date of site visit:_ -I Z - 15 Rated by Kim Peterson Trained by Ecology? Date of training 3/2015 HGM Class used for rating 5tlaVS Wetland has multiple HGM classes? _Y N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested(figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map SC folio and on site survey OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functions.) ,_or special characteristics _) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category l-Total score=23-27 Score for each Category II-Total score =20-22 function based Category Ill-Total score =16- 19 ratin three Category IV-Total score=9-15 (order of ratings ,s not FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat important) Water Quality 9=H,H,H Circle the appropriate ratings 8=H,H,M Site Potential H ! M L H M f ) 7=H,H,L Landscape Potential H L H M LAI M L 7= H,M,M Value rF M L H MOH M (2) TOTAL 6= H,M,L Score Based on 1~� 5 6=M,M,M J 5= Ratings `7 5=M,M,L 4=M,L,L 3=L,L,L 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update 1 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington • Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes D 1.3,H 1.1,H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4,H 1.2 Location of outlet(can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1,D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland(can be added to another figure) 0 2.2,D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin 0 4.3,D 5.3 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat • Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) D 3.1,D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Mapof: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant dasses H 1.1,H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 • Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland(can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants R 1.2,R 4.2 Width of unit vs.width of stream(can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2,R 2.3,R 5.2 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat 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 lasses L 1.1, 1 4.1,H 1.1,H 1.4 Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland(can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-Including H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat 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: Fi re# 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 S 4.1 (can be added to figure above) A Boundary of 150 ft buffer(can be added to another figure) S 2.1,$5.1 Rte. 1km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat 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 1/ Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update 2 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7,the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. 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? go to 2 YES-the wetland class is Tidal Fringe-go to 1.1 1.1 s the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt(parts per thousand)? O Saltwater Tidal Fringe(Estuarine) YES-Freshwater Tidal Fringe i I ur wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source(>90%)of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. '0- :o to 3 YES-The wetland class is Flats r wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland,use the form for Depresslonal 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; Y At least 30%of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft(2 m). NO-go to 4 YES-The wetland class is Lake Fringe(Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope(slope can be very gradual), _The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional)and usually comes from seeps.It may flow subsurface,as sheettlow,or in a swale without distinct banks, _The water leaves the wetland without being impounded go to S 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. YESiVe e wetland class is Riverine NO- :o to 6 YES-The wetland class is Riverine E:The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update 3 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds,or is saturated to the surface,at some time during the year? This means that any outlet,if present,is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO-go to 7 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 eico to 8 YES-The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example,seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain,or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT(make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10%or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10%of the unit;classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90%of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit HGM class to being rated use in rating Slope+Riverine • , - Slope+Depressional Depressional Slope+Lake Fringe - ge Depressional+Riverine along stream Depressional within boundary of depression Depressional+Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine+Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other Treat as class of freshwater wetland 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 PEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the she 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 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points=2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points= 1 Wetland is a flat depression(QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points=1 D 1.2.The soil 2 in below the surface(or duff laver)is true day or true organic(use NRCS definitions).Yes=4 No=0 D 1.3.Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants(Emergent,Scrub-shrub,and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent,ungrazed,plants>95%of area points=5 Wetland has persistent,ungrazed,plants>34 of area points=3 Wetland has persistent,ungrazed plants>1/1 of area points=1 Wetland has persistent,ungrazed plants<1/lof area points=0 D 1.4.Characteristics of seasonal pondina or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months.See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is>34 total area of wetland points=4 Area seasonally ponded is>Y.total area of wetland points=2 Area seasonally ponded is<34 total area of wetland points=0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above !0 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 s H t n (11=iiJ O-S=L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0.Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1.Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes=1 No=0 1 D 2.2.Is>10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes=1 No=0 D 2.3.Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes=1 No=0 0 D 2.4.Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? 0 Source Yes=1 No=0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4=H 4 1 or 2= ) 0=L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0.Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? _ 0 3.1.Does the wetland discharge directly(I.e.,within 1 mi)to a stream,river,lake,or marine water that is on the r 303(d)list? Yes=1 No=0 J D 3.2.Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d)list? Yes=1 No=0 D 3.3.Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality(answer YES if there is o 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 3 Rating of Value If score i2-4=H 1 1=M 0=L Record the rating on the first page M -1-4 Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update 5 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number 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 outietpoints=2 Wetland is a flat depression(QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points=1 Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points=0 D 4.2.Depth of storage during wet periods:Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet For wetlands with no outlet,measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry,the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points=7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to<3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points=5 3 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to<2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points=3 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 15 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: t2 (-16=t) 6-11=M 0-5=L Record the rating on the first page 0 5.0.Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1.Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes=1 No=0 D 5.2. Is >10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes=1 No=0 D 5.3.Is more than 25%of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses(residential at >1 residence/ac,urban,commercial,agriculture,etc.)? Yes=1 No=0 Total for 0 5 Add the points in the boxes above .5 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:.,. 1 or 2=M 0=L Record the rating on the first page ..C..D 6.0.Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? 0 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 odd points.Choose the hiohest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources(e.g.,houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points=2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points=1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points=1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood.Explain why points=0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. t joints=% 0 6.2.Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? O Yes=2 No=0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4=H 1=M 0 0 Record the rating on the first page IA Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update L� 6 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 1 L • • Wetland name or number These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM dasses. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0.Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? r..,uc. ;,.:.•.....:,,,��,...,::.s., r.. .,aa.r._..�.r.--..�:.'..., s,...,., .....:..-.._.>...n•...-a,._..c ,sr�+•1�0 ..,,..;....d.>....._ ..:r-.. c.�.' .'+a• ,. .. H 1.1.Structure of plant community:Indicators ore 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 Y<ac or more than 10%of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac.Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more:points=4 Emergent 3 structures:points=2 _ _Scrub-shrub(areas where shrubs have>30%cover) 2 structures:points=1 j )(Forested(areas where trees have>30%cover) 1 structure:points=0 If the unit has a Forested class,check if: The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata(canopy,sub-canopy,shrubs,herbaceous,moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20%within the Forested polygon H 1.2.Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes(hydroperiods)present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10%of the wetland or%ac to count(see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present:points=3 )C Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present:points=2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present:points=1 ,Saturated only 1 type present:points=0 Permanently flowing stream or river in,or adjacent to,the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in,or adjacent to,the wetland _ Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tkial wetland 2 points H 1.3.Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian mllfoll,reed conarygrass,purple loosestr/Jie,Canadian thistle If you cod nted:>19 species points=2 2 5-19 species points=1 ' <5 species points=0 H 1.4.Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes(described in H 1.1),or the classes and unvegetated areas(can include open water or mudflats)is high,moderate,low,or none.If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water,the rating Is always high. • .... . . .. . .: ..: :. None=0 points i p• Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update 13 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 • Wetland name or number 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. K Large,downed,woody debris within the wetland(>4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags(dbh>4 in)within the wetland __Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft(2 m)and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft(1 m) over a stream(or ditch)in,or contiguous with the wetland,for at least 33 ft(10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30 degree slope)OR signs of recent beaver activity are present(cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least i4 ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) _Invasive plants cover less than 25%of the wetland area in every stratum of plants(see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18=H 7-14=M rh0-6= 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:0%undisturbed habitat_+[(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2) 30 + If total accessible habitat is: �s ) 7Z 5e)7v 4.5 o�o >1/ (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_+[(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2) =% Undisturbed habitat>50%of Polygon points=3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50%and in 1-3 patches > 5 p points=2 3 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) S 50%of 1km Polygon is high intensity points=0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above �Q Rating of Landscape Potential If score is(i 4-6=H, 1-3=M .<1=L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0.Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1.Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws,regulations,or policies?Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points=2 — It has.3 or more priority habitats within 100 m(see next page) It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species(any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) --- It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan,in a Shoreline Master Plan,or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats(listed on next page)within 100 m points=1 Site does not meet any of the criteri. Ratingof Value If score is: 2_2=H 0=L points=0 Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update • 14 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW(see complete descriptions of WDFW riori habitats an Op ietatitio W Thington1 epai menf of Fish ifiaw f _;,.,,.. v P w l a i _t a...'§pe ies L. .�' .`i'r�`o�r(`yiia�itatand Species List. y Was n. 177 pp.bts;p://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: h //wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/hstll 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). — Biodiverstty Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife(Pull descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest-Stands of at least 2 tree species,forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac(20 trees/ha)>32 in(81 cm)dbh or>200 years of age.Mature forests-Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in(53 cm)dbh;crown cover may be less than 100%;decay,decadence,numbers of snags,and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth;80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.158-see web link above). — Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous,non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.161-see web link above). lnstream: 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 • Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Category Checkoff any criteria that apply to:the wetland.Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met • SC 10.Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? —The dominant water regime is tidal, —Vegetated,and —With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes-Go to SC 1.1 • of an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge,National Park,National Estua Reserve,Natural Area Preserve,State Park or Educational,Environmental,or Scientific Reserve designated under W 32-30-151? CatYes=Category I o Go to SC 1.2 ' SC 1.2.Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed(has no diking,ditching.filling,cultivation,grazing,and has less than 10%cover of non-native plant species. (if non-native species are Sportina,see page 25) Cat I —At least%of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. Cat —The wetland has at least two.of the following features:tidal channels,depressions with open water,or 'II contiguous freshwater wetl nds. Yes=Category I l =Category 11 SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) V SC 2.1.Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to indude the list of We . ds of High Conservation Value? Yes-Go to SC 2.2 o Go to SC 2.3 Cat.I SC 2.2.Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes=Category I No Not a WHCV SC 2.3.Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://wwwl.dnr.wa.eov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes-Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No =Not a WHCV SC 2.4.Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Val -a d listed it on their website? Yes=Category I • =Not a WHCV SC 3.0.Bogs Does the wetland(or any part of the unit)meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs?Use the key below.If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on Its functions. SC 3.1.Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons,either peats or mucks,that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes-Go to SC 3.3 No-Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2.Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils,either peats or mucks,that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock,or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash,or that are floating on top of a lake.or pond? Yes-Go to SC 33 No=Is not a bog SC 3.3.Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70%cover of mosses at ground level,AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes=Is a Category I bog No- Go to SC 3A NOTE:If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory,you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep.If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present,the wetland Is a bog. Cat.I SC 3.4.Is an area with peats or mucks forested(>30%cover)with Sitka spruce,subalpine fir,western red cedar, western hemlock,lodgepole pine,quaking aspen,Engelmann spruce,or western white pine,AND any of the species(or combination of species)listed in Table 4 provide more than 30%of the cover and he canopy? Yes=Is a Category 1 bog 0 k not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update 16 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number SC 4.0.Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats?ff you answer YES you will stiII need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — = a`" w" o�ae crest : tan oat east two tree speaes,forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac(20 trees/ha)that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height(dbh)of 32 in(81 cm)or more. —Mature forests(west of the Cascade Crest):Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR the species that makeup the canopy have an average diameter(dbh)exceeding 21 in(53 cm). Yes= Category I (P Not a forested wetland for this section Cat.I SC S.O.Wetlands In Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? —The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks,gravel banks,shingle,or,less frequently,rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish(>0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon(needs to a measured near the bottom) Cat.I Yes-Go to SC 5.1 ?=Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1.Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed(has no diking,ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing),and has less than 20%cover of aggressive,opportunistic plant species(see list of species on p.100). Cat.II —At least%of the Landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10ac(4350 ft2) Yes=Category I tga=Category II SC 6.0.Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetlar4west of the 1889 line(also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on Its habitat functions In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula:Lands west of SR 103 — Grlyland-Westport:Lands west of SR 105 Cat — Ocean Shores-Copalis:Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes-Go to SC 6.1 No=not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1.Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form(rat:. - - H or H,H,M Cat.II for the three aspects of function)? Yes=Category I No-Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2.Is the wetland 1 ac or larger,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes=Category II No Go to SC 6.3 Cat.III SC 6.3.Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 c? Yes=Category III o=Category IV Cat.IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types,enter"Not Applicable"on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update 17 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 , WETLAND MONONA ATA FORM-Western Mountains,Valle,...,...nd Coast Region Projectsug 0 ti46*4 li)esCobi at N Olt ie clocounty: ie./Aiet frompling Date S •114/1 4 t li) Aapikanit04V4W: allea: rei awivplity Poi* ._;_ihia...r lemiesamokat MaIstasta Swoon.rovmsup.Raw i a• al' 3 ---F--r-co, 2 . tandforrefrablops.lens"eict ,.,AD Pik Leon man Nonni*convisi.corm): simpon ...ix .-, • • , sig*.• irk- Mal- 11"• Are carrieltf hydOloalc coedit*an sw saieta***Os eraPOWABO Yis jit re) 0 Of 110.80,010in In rterigkl.) At.VetwAlAion a $S 0. 9r 0/0004702 a iimondohibiteta Amitosis)Orcumstarnee present? Yss • pto o Am negotiant Q. Sea Cl. or lineology C. ratunillyerobleersic2 (If needed,median any answers kr Monads.) StilititARY OP FINDSIOS-Mbebbitits map showing sairipitegfoin!iocotinse,tranfillOts,important features,etc. flPdforkvic Wenn*Prowl? Yes 0 * 0 Hydric,S01Promarift ven 0 No 0 le Ilio Semple.Area Vie)11:) ObjC) iffsbond PtittroldflYP*1001? Yoe 13100 Remarks: VECIXTAIION-trio sclanalbt MMUS of plants ItaftS525aM(Pit 1112ce--.) em ocf0.1.65 alb a 2. 3. . 4. ..--_ s_ so ' Istosisbastasan(Pbt/160;,,,,,,a) Aba°141. °M.Inard 1624:4". Dominanes Tan Wedieliset 1, C -. • v ) 91Dondnoni Spobee ti.,1 _Mkt melee%OK,FACW.or MC: a twat cower. Toad Number of Dominant •••41•naw, ••••••1. . ........ ... ... ,..„... SPed55 Acro“AS Strata! Peoria of 00erlutient 5Seises mega cat,Peak or PAC . 2.. i. floc clipieeittot Ili av9re .3Z1, 4. .40.,..44.0 Pary maw.wow 2. womotoltt a- _____ V..........., OW** . da fA *" '"' ". ''' 5. ......-. — ca.gparmATaisf IL Cover at rAcIN:04000$014:A 00 s _...— fA) (5) 50% .20% SOP. 45051t452 x1* • •••-x x2 44 ri 14.7 $ el , ,..... ........ -.,......... x3• SOS• 2** •Tern Cover PACO softies .M xe• MO tradlAtIl14040, size:---..) UPL semen -...._._ raw . i. —al y 544#ok "ziv*sot.31) a. .1.1_,_.,1 --.-= column mws: etot,(A) yfots) 2. Providence Index s WA s,tetp ........ ....... .1•••••m. n a 4.11.,.. 14Y"OhOlt2 Vdaefotion Ineacessew — 4. _ 0 I-Rend Ten for Hydrating*Vopenion —_ _ • 5. — — — 0 2.Dominance Test is 5014 & .......... II* aomm.Nom 01 3-Pm/0mm Index it 0.04 7. — • — **,- a ......1% ............. 4'Aforlgoaajdol AdsPleionel(Providesupsoring 5. WM In Remake or ens toper*sheet) .....1.01.41 & a 5.INettind Nan-Iissoular Pismo* — — — 10. ----. - - Ci Prebignogic HYdloP11000 Vivellallm1(MOW) 11. Omla•••••• .0111110.1 .10,•••••• 2*s .20%s Tears Cover Indlosiors of hydrIc soil and onion trongy mu ricigdir Vine&rasa(Plat _____) sl - ........ be posent,unless cosbobed or eroblemobe. slab: f.., _ IN,*atklartj floikr5.ftitifiA* 's/ I PlYdrePhYne 50% 20%s =Tani COW vollefewon Yes yik No 0 . — Pnissat? %Boos Ground in Hob Orman---, Remo* i . Piro*h le- a te,I. Old SP 7 location 1f. US Army Corps a Engineer. :--1,!,bli *own Mountains,Villevs.en/Coast-Vernon 2.0 p "---:-%.„fr.,7 ` 4..... „,,, .,..., .....- clx -77 . c...- , - ,......... t ♦ 4/1 Sprlot SOL setup Paint SF 2 Oicalo tiosedotood Owned*te die depth needed w douUnint it.Indlosloror conkai lb.shame of andlaator } Depth Mibis kfat M//*Perl [ {etches) Ceito(a'oie(} % Color Omit) 1i TWO e W Tatum Reraerks "'WE G=Clentailirntba. epteion,RMNRe(1uoed Matrix.CaaCal4Wad *Crooted$01031105. i.ocartort—M..aPOre LMdn iiMMaitg Hydfle Solt Indicators:fApploabte to ell LRRs.unless oltrerurkreeroliid•) Winton for Pro6lpptleHYltk,Soly; L7 ROM*(Rt) 0 Stagy Red=pm ❑ 2 all 140ais(A1O) 0 tibia$pipedawt(A2)' O StrippedMeila(as,). 0 RedParent Meted*(7P2 Q Moak ttfltbc(A3) 0 Low hioaitt l(F1) X*.BRA 1) F Vert Urn.,Mat Strtiaptfi't a Hyde x►t;rrlede.Ail) a Loamy Greyed M er dtt 0 Other(Expietnin Rehabs) 0 Daakead Seim DOM Stems(nit) O DepMnd Mode, CI 'Y1 Dr*Suitoe(At2) 0 atom.tantlt ia, -( ) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(a1) O Othribed Obit Stelae(F7) oinerbarors et hydraphyttt%Ara ilia►tuft Q Sec*GlovedMilein t$4) 0 Radar Depwi teria(M) wallar+tl hydrolep�r.aaa be pre.erR temeniad n.-Lerer(+,pr+ s Type: MOM(ienahtsk ROM:lois Pessent7! Yee 0 NO 0 Rent rkttt { ,.. 1 HYDROLOGY • *.Marts Mydmloaytndicalaric , Primary Indicators(rainimurtt of one required;brace al that apily) Secondary kndcaiors t3armors rewired) Q Surtarie Waist(Al) 0 water-st st Waver*) 0 Winer-Stained imOs) a Hip WsterTable(A21 - Wale Mt.RA 1,2.dkend 48) (ML to 1.2,U ,and 18 0 Ssitrnon(A3) 0 Sett Cnst(el1) 0 Liainage Potence 1O) 0 WOW Mobs01) O kink°finarMeheelettO ) 0 tiry.Aaason Warm Ube 4C2) II Sedirmat Drpbarie(e:) 0 Myttroeen Odor(C1) 0 tmlureibirtriebia eeMAet lmseery(G9) O DO 4trpodla OS) 0 Coarf eri Rhbeepheres bone Lehi Roots(C3) 0 'Geomorphic P ion(D2) 0 Aiwa PA tort nutwt) ❑ Presence of Reduced.iron(C4) 0 Shelby/Abiterd(DI 0 kan;fepoeiis(e5) Q ,Roan iron-Ridl Adler at 7i1ed sdb(t ) 0 FAC-Neitrel Tot(06) 0 Stadioe Soil Creche(S) 0 Stetted or Slintact MenbIGIIILitit Ai 0 Reined Ant:Mounds MS)ERR A) Q inu doorroV le on*NW imagery OM 0 Omar(Eiptin is Remerke) -0 F o tk a ve l*xnnv ars(137) 0 Spindly Yepa d-omore sartace486) Reid tab.errettanes St am Wrier°Present/ lure a No 0 Ds"(web* Weser Table Presets? Yes 0 No 0 Dapm4irstsso &auras/an es were Yas 0 No 0 Osplhf000hnok _.Y_._ 1001000 1•nre.nt7r Volt C! Met o Dessau.Records l Dam(sawn%Via*.rearilionrs2 wet aerial phone,Pmdasts w +e).If wobble' us Army Cstps of kxrp near. diedom Mot sins.Volleys*and Coed—Newton 2.0 W31 4. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region prow s's: Ulta.l41441,644.161N lit cis cxyro2soir. va, wn444 Ors $ '11.1• L ApotcardOwooc Gims: ,WA Slsrpiirp Po(rd 3 i (ax Section,Township. !2. 2l• 3c j Landform(1111001re.lerrao%ate.x rip • Wool re4E(aorsrane.condo.mine): Slope(%): . may. /may. - ..,s....w '-.�Q� (. A.� r,-..,.«aese,, -4.tsr. ,.r.-. .-.441-:, : M' 4010 � ,�/� yFFsmos....fi,.- MO.M M*a . apt.sjloslliR Are 0*Ifl* o itydrologio ONMIletrson the IMO gAksi for Ibis Mori beta Yeas No 0 (It no,explain in R0etnaaks) Ana Vogsbrion 0. SON' Q. or Hydrology 0, a1Dr stag rAMvbad? Are"Ions*C s'preen!? Yea p No 'O AgeVOSWelb* 0. Su* EL at HITifolari C'#. twogr yretaimJ? (1'tMeri0.MIllbnanyanswersti SUMMARY 00'FINDINGS-Ash ash map*Wen",donpido pciu dioa'u. .Important teatur s.tic. ribiroottylic t Preseret Us a So 4 iliage Hyddo Soil areeent? Off' No W Yee 0 010 g Welland NOtoloo7 Yas 0 No 0. fkonlifilV VEi.3ETAl'ON-Uss scientific name o1"plants Mangum ' indiarrkar T3R. fi+bt axs_,� faianfasrertss Test Workslroeit 4. '® Tall R.� Nurnberg(Dominant Species A Z. TMEAM OBL.FAVW.**FAO ( — 3` - • -,�-.+. - . ToldM 1 tm snbsrofnsnt _ 4_ 0Pooles Amass_ AD Sinews --- (g) ---*'' = — °Tot- Pats*al �} ��` our** Meths 00,,FACN.or FAC! 5,!0 we) - 1. 'jc .. c f i�rlq 4o vv-- Poloist**Ind**workshs .�- 2. -.. TAN%Cover oJ ! .....„ ......„.. 4. C� on. P CB specie* '.. raw 5. — — foe ,�� gmo pax• .20%* =WM CIPler PACIlr><tecies e0' ,4= 32 1., a 1 S$allaort a eta) Tao* 1 (A) 't t TP1,r"(S1 2. tI l.&Y45t•I c1 t 5 I ��s+o/ Riwal:nos kdaor=alai- 4, 3. s. 0 1-Rebid Tailor H7drCp0100Y60et11i2n -..-M•- O. 2-WominanoeTroia*50% 6. CI 3-PAIMIl anot kilts IS ;0' olopital ?NAM supporting a. -...- „... ......... ", ma Ro etke f guilt D. ,ammm. y 0 6-W iAdlaon-Vascurar WNW to. — 0 P obieroadc tbdrootbic yepeh9an1 M ); 50%IF .20%`a ,,,_ a Tad oo r irldlteldra t(iiydrk:sal and Mredartd hydrology nub bit* r yrocdv Virs Slreese(Prot 9 ei -1 N gnaws°ek+bsenr prabA Mc. I. $, 2 N 50%. ,20%• r To!Ceder Yee a No yik Pteaeet?" r %Nee(round le Herb Strom , Remarks: . H at act. t.. US Amry Corps of Erfptnsar: WsA'm Mountains,waeya:and Cobs-Version 2.0 2/Z Pealed Sla: OW 4 04111113A 43P 3 SOL Samt*Ig Point , - Profits D000dptiom(Clemallpo to the depth needed to doeumordthe Indloalor or twins the absence of Ma(adors.) 1 Depth AM* PagooPooduroo Putt) Color Mott) % Colt 0m141) % TWO WO Tedunt ROM** --,--. --- --,...-- ,-,-- STIle R ( .......-- ........- ----- ....--kteo 1 ..,...... ie. 514011 ..IW ........ .......... ..... ..... ....• 511e. ....... .......P ....... .. .., '.".' tirt'4.Tek kii""'"'It ar#20 41 1 M. SIEN W _ ...TT ........ 4.40.01. ........ 4.010.11., 1....... 311 ............ ....... ........ .........„ angyonom. ......, .1.1 •••••••••••••• ••••,...... '1! cm coommuloo.comesplollw RAPPReduond MON.CS-covoretter Cedtetl Sand Oroina gitoodur PLuPare Ursine,Mathinx Ityddo;SO ll lofts/ono thdplimito toill LRR*.will Wombs oolod.) Indlostors rot P/ohlosulle Hyddo 0 tidevot(A1) 0, Sy Modu(SR 0 2 0 Mist Holoodati(.2) 0 *Omit/WM tlt% 0 Red Pomo.ono*OM O BOO itillo(A3) 0 Wow Iduakykilnomil(P1)(MONO littitA 1) t) Votylinallave Dui&MU.(ff12) O *Mow ettedif.A4 0 Lawny Gloved WON(F2) 0 OW,(Zoom In Nornants) O Cupiame Maw DadrSalsol Oki tj 0 pool 0101/21**01) O TIM/OM*NW 012) 0 %Wm Writ Surloo(IV , 0 Swot lackytittuol MI 0 Ombled OW*Woe On lirdallw othYdo/Phy*imeekliair and wound Itytholooy mot Ito paella © Sandy GISMO tidtdx(84) 0 Rodox Owstiom(F8) Wino dlotodted or P*Moulle. I f r Sao**,uder O WW1* ikAA Tot Domv(lochol* — Hy*IF dodo Prod? Yea Cl No )4 Rontitair HYDROITOGY - .. Woolood Hydrology Indationo /Wary Infest=(minimum of am voquinatt ormok al thot apply) Seloodory Inclooloal(2 arrow teatime 0 Sodeoll Wlegr01) 0 Vfalluatiled Lams OW 0 PatioNteldoo Loom/1110 . •0 Highbrow Tot*(A2) 401Meptilkitit I.2.44.emilt4J14 (IALRA 424.out 4%) 0 Saututo(A3) 0 SoittrudgM) - 0 Drekulei P*111014010i 0 Witisr****11 0 Mu sil Fa 11voorlihrs1ns 0110 0 0474alsonWiliirliskt(C2) 0 *Minot 01.0011 0 02) 0 %Wow fdadoOduleit 0 Winglorridiela onduidloupproi 0- Di%WOold%(Ss) 0 *dew Rtkoophorm otagthIng Rods ray 0 Geortargthic Poolllort(02) 0 Mgt Motor Cam(134) 0 Ammo/a/Rod000d Iron(C4) 0 shabor missed gm) 0 tonlimoollo OS) 0 Wow Iron Rroustiort to TWO SPIIIICS) 0 MC-Notdol Too(OS) a swim WICrocks(00) Et Strad millftown/001011**1410 0 Paine Ant mounds ttNtuutft 44 0 two***vie*On Awl*imererY(P) 0 Oittet(liladain in argnorko 13 riosiiinvi Nummocks Oil . 0 $0,110f*StAtenonomeSuitue Mk PIM/Obsimodooto Subtle YAW Prowl? Ylio a No QZ DINIP4bitill): WOW Tat*Plum*? is 0 Na fel Depirtindoe) Samson Promo oncgoos.cioloeff fogs Yes 0 No iii Dias ....,._ WiNtandNydrolegyPestoart vs. 0 No aucsbe awesomei osiutt glum ourdoong dm.woe pima,viehoM MO***1),-Swiloblie _ • Rworkly US morW000/ToMmus Woosomilmottos.vokig.am Cal-Memo 2.0 N\L-- WETLAND DETER TA FORM—Western Mountains,Valle_ * ci Coast Region . S tT . • Avoid s aRx3i 1) 16t t !Pt 4/4 omit B . itvi. is Applionvoft er &mew sect on, as o . __=p f 3e Landestn(bastope.lrmee.a�.k , p toad nsiet(corona,convax,none (" ��✓� Subregion 0 x Z74 g7.3 ,q- Low 122..344154 5 Dom — ,___r Ara olleteielbresieOid obleliblos'on eu 411.t 1 tot Ws I lrs dytisrt Yes iii. No 0 of no. in Rohe Lta) Are 0, SO 3o arti iirpnopk O. selllemosittle~ AntlempanJ' "prinont? Yes p No 0 Are Vsgiestion 0, Boil D. or liy ckblbpy 0, rialutelbrostbisholie Of naeded;regasin any anshom to Remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Mach OW rasp gip sar$n point toa�orrs.erartsticts.important Isatu.s,Wm. V Yee 0 N t «�-a iiydAb sot Preasarttt Yes 0 Ne C3 lith.fisalViltdWeassed? Yes )11 Np Q Wetland"tiyd elogy Plem*R? Yee Q NO Cl Fterreaho VEGETATION-Uee eoi meSe r astwee of plant* Tw6e 3(Bide(Plot aim___Y Absolute illdkollY Deneinerro 1ui Workshek —t 1 1 a tk k, 'r Dammed m j o Dominate Speedo 2 2 . - r+raG1b lohTi+st'Ate GBC,MO.or FAC: - (A) 3. — tobolletenbsrofDominant —.-- Swim Across Al strata: M1' w+`. =Total Coen Patent ofDemlnent Sperm 4 4.:. '., (A8) e_ MPAaim,,., f ` }per f ThstAm09t..FACW.orMAC: 1. . I%e% `. f.. . ..f,�!!Z.: '.`.s 1rr ...41di7r MO Inter. (� . ....- +l _ V si* .54 ,.... R4CIN softiies . it 50%. • ,2006....,. *Tatty cow MCI)sparhss es a O 1 —I 1. 7401 tit %'*1 -- 4 I...I......- caisson Tor.* IO(A) Q 2. L � d ica lu .+1. Por ten a Index=BA* ill . _.. :. _... HYdnattylio Ineasoelon,Indiemens: . 4. O 1-Raid Test for Hydrorehdo Vepar.Nrn 5. ..., ,- 0 2:-Donrrance Test is 30% & — , a-ileradenee tides Is 43.01 I. . ---.. — MAorPtakdicM AdepMriar•(Provide supporerc d' Q date In Remelts or on a eeperaie sheet a' 0 5`-WOW*Non-Vascular Pants' 10. — — — 0 Poaian.ro tlymoototto weg.t ono( i 11_ -.. MS it_2011.- a UNA Cow I- — e(hydde ad hM o,�must wow Vk Stain(PMof t ) be prieerk wiles.disturbed or prohwrmtic 1. 1 ttYdroitteitte 50%_ .2tl%= =Tayit;ov4r Viammikot Yes f,tO No Q Pressed? %%arne Wound in Hue So*kn . . Remarks: °Pen Wellaind 7‘'?`°''.g.%>1.' , US/1itrly Cams d ESgMtsees tt'' wedeln mountains.Val'and Conlin-Sodden 2.0 ZDttc ` T"t ► • Liz D .... si.o.Nit .. . Profile DescripieW Oadditha lo Vie depth needed*daemon*the insicelor or testiness eseurtee of indidetetell.) Meet Weft *saw Fdiddn (itches) Color(maid) IS Color(nads0 % . Type'. Lee' Talons_ Restudus....., ---... _ I CAt. __-__ ....___ _.... vt. .0.1.4.... ..,.,.... •........ ..... ... ..... .104.4.41.* 0101Y*. . ... ........ .1*-....., 44•••••1••• ...,,",". ••••• •••• . ..•••••• ..1..... . ..-.-no—r. ............ g..n..,..... nomo..• ..-.--- •• .••• .......4.... ...Pg. ....1...... ......P...• '..... • admi. ....... .... ........... ...,,,,.. ......... *... ....... .-.. ........ ••••••woraw ......,..... .......... .. ..r. •••••,..., ..• ••• 4.•••••••.- ...... ., .. ...... „...,...... ,,... ..... ... ....,.., ,,,,,..... ,........... ............ .............. r...•••••. ............ ITOO:C6 OetcentratiOn.DaDapleiort,Ritfteduced Mails,OSI=Goolled Of Coded Send Grains, *Lensicer Pl_PPere Linind,ladAstat *Ate Sol 1ndicetenn(ApMeade to ad tibia,unless ettleowise naiad.) inaltuderitt for enablansellc Hydras&VA • LI HeissollAt) 0 *Pik Reda(86) 0 2 an Muck fA10) a HwEpipoon 0.2) 0 strew maw tato 0 coo Pews morpol‘TF* 0 Nock iisec.(A2) la Wray Study iinersifF1)(except&RA$) 0 Vs. Gorden Dant Sedans(W12) C) tiydrapai Wide(A4) 0 Lawny Gleyed Reels n o mar tEn in Reensis) O GROW aglow De*Surface(Ai I) 0 Dittgaid tams(Fa) O Too ark Stoats 0123 0 Redo MA&Om et) O Sandy Maley lainand(8I) 0 • &WOW Os*Stodate(P7) Nnalcalocsof hydesphilic repulsion sad seernebYdrekatranta ea Pow* ri Sandy Gloved Wain OW 0 Rectos Oestsolions(Fe) , Fitleafriceve torer Of propertit Two- Ow*(inalits). - Hydde Solis Present? Yas 0 alp 0 .---,.. stem • HYDROLOGY - Wieland Hydrate,/Indinunrs: Pitmen,Indicates fnanitreen of els r sweet check al tea SPA ) ' Secondary indscoori p or MOO&fictitettl ........,......... 0 Sadao,*saw(4141) 0 War-Staisd Leaves 00) 0 waor,sumed"ems v.wAst .0 HiOnWreselebis(isi) ' texoset OKRA 1.2,4A.and eili OILRA 1.2,4A.**tali) 0 satisailono* 0 Sart Crust(Sil) - 0 Onlinege Potions(MO) 0 Weis Mates 031y C) Afeesiolnueleinviao 0313) 0 Dry-Season Wafer raili(C2) 0 Seder.*Otcoalts gm a FlydriVan Sub:1000S(CO a Ssainilien Vallbleen Aetna Imsperytcp) 0 Oda*emits 033) 0 Ondiaed 00001011110ai taro uvt*Roots(o) 0 Gestnerphic Peeltion0:12) 0 Alpal ailst or Crust(8m) 0 Presence et Reduced iron(Ce) 0 shallow Aggiurci•to* 0 iron Waft OS) 0 n4COnt Iron linloWen in Tilettlislie Me) 0 FAO-Ream Yost(05) 0 SurisoiScal Omits(06) .0 &unto erolfews mints(0i)om A) 0 Raised Ana Mounds(Di)tuiR Ai 0 mundoSon vicalilt on Affilo IrmaltrY(BW) 0 Otain atapann In Ins) 0 Frout•Heeve Hortenodo(07) 0 Seersely Wilideled Concave Sodom(88) Field Obrowsderts: Stakes Wailer Presere? Yes 0 Ho 0 Nem Ottents* ~Table toisiene Yes C) No 0 Osseo Onshosy Ssiuralion Presort? Otchelaa°Was/ ' .0 Yes CI No 0 Dadit*Ickat ....;... Wadand*Amboy Pamela' Yu* 0 to Q staigese sommiesive.imitosow,wet seettilihein priwo•mbeistanal/• iravaubv_ , , Renstos: , . . US Pony Corer el Ereinears Westerrtalesinhans.Way&and Cent-Vension 2/3 . , . 4-- , f)„ ,. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Western Mountain%Valleys,and Coast Region 4(i. 1(} Project/etc , Urban Depign cllyicoustyKing tkunping 13et e: 1 13 2018 Applicant/owner: Interplast State: WA sampling Pow: 4 Investigator(a): Blue Heron Services Inc SWAM,Township,Range: 21 21 3 Subregion(LRR): Let 47.327497 Long: -12236956 Down: Soil Map Unit Name: indialida NM classification: Are climatic/hydrokoic conditions on the Site typical for this kme of yew? Yes,, X , Na_ (If no,explain in Remade.) Are Vegetation •Soil .or IteirolosY eifinecenilv disk/Merl? Are liorMiti Circumstances*present? Yes_ No____ Are Vegetation, .Sod ,or Hydrology,. maturity problentalle? (If needed,explain any aftSWeint in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.- Attach site map showing sampling point locations,Iranian*Important feature*,etc- , HYrireOtWOO Vegete00.1 PreSOnt? Y410 < _ No • HYdric Soli Present? yes No, )r,„ IS the Sampled Area ,/ vAlkin a Vietland? Yes Ne 1 Wend Hydmiowir Preeerirt Yee No ,, - ,_. Remad VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Moak* PominantAndicalcir Dominance Test warkeheet itee-Stallim,(Pte$eta: ) . .. .,.,.A /WW2 40,1 NUntber of Dornirtard Spades 2Z (A) 2. Fv,:v. ..4. fe:tiloe ,.. , .er tio., r.."1.t: t •.• kl • - , —ii---. .p ,, v Total Nutnber of DoMlnent . r '7,I i.,'"," Species Acmes All trata: (a) ------• Percent of Dominant Specie* 442Pgi at Tatar:Xs, ........--.- That Are 013L.PAM,.or FAC: .,_, - , (NB) . ta"1". initAga (Plfit" ) I ' k,.......tr^:€grrof--Pre . z,) 4 vAe Prevalence index worksheet 2. pel`„r5+4,et /,...7yr, Yr t.,rf•• --y.j.,..,.„--: to i....1',,,,,,,,,.,3 total%Cover of. Multiply by: 3. 4--' OBL species x 1= FACW Specie. x 2= 4. & - ---- FAC species 4,2 x 3= . a Cover FAcu vales (:z,' -.1 x4. f:::. ,-.... I) *Total tisdattem (Plot size: ) UPL spades --- x 6= ",,l'..- --\, ' 1. Column Totals: : , (Ay 2. _______*--,-,------ Prevalence index *WA* & - -„----- Hydrophytic Vegeta**indicators: 4. ---- _ 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation & — —,--- 2-Dominance Test 4140% 8. _____________________ 3-Prevalence Index is s3.0' 7. -------- — 4.Montfittiotitorg Adaptritionel(Provide supporting & data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 10. _ Problematic Hydraphytic Vegetation"(Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must _Iota Cover be present,unless disturbed or emblematic. ' IfiliSkAstasiktfa (Pktt size: ) 1. „—,_..,--•••M./...••••••••••••.....M...110.... Hydrephytic 2. Vegetation Prompt? Yoe No dr Total Cover %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks .. 4: 1 ,. Aef-,* el.).-4.` ....I 2,e)!,' ‘4,e-, 4 " 0 T-7)1re .-4,... US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast-Version 2.0 2.6f , . 5114 1 20 1F) SOIL Paint —_,..,, Pro*.Description: (tioecrimi to do depth needed to document the irooftcator or audios the abaranco of lonftcatoon.) Depth Mai* _ ,.., Rodox Fifillwili anchor) Cofer Imolai % uoior hrroisti 52 3:112gL Lodz "...TzgE1 y Remarks 0 I 1-- i Th . t_, , 1 , ,„17,,,,, ,i _.,_ i,.... c,a rd, -., - . , aN....-- 1.1.............., ITVDIK OnConceneallas 0213spietion,RtacRaducood Monk CS=Covened Of Coated Band Grains. 11,ocadon: PloaPtwelakeitat P4/AZ Mythic sell Indleadoes: (Applicable to all LltRa,ardess othentrles noted.) Indlostang for Problematic fryotrio - _ Histosol(Al) Sandy Radon(SS) 2 an Malt ..„,„ Made Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(86) Red Parent Material(TF2) — Block Hisao(A3) Loamy Mucky lateral(F1)(except alLRA 1) _Very Shadow Dark Surface(1F12) — Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loam),( eyed Not*(F2) _Other Moon in Retreldle) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(Fs) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surf**(F6) 'indicators of hydrephytit vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(81) — Depleted Ds*Sokoto(F7) welisnd hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix(84) Rados Depressions(Pe) unseita disturbed or problematic- Roonotive Layer(If wood): Type: _ Depth dnches): 1 frydric SoN Present? Yee No X Remarks: . , ,-v- 1 .,,,/ 71 1 t!,,. ,:, 4.p • ''`• .0 77f'; •lt(7.,`."..-- )4,- HYDROLOGY • triedand Hydrology Indicator*: FriniWY lritlicobwo traintrawa clone laoSsire:Shoch alithatAbolld §econdary Indicatorg(2*more reaukad) — Surface Water(Al) — Water-Stakoed Leave;(86)(except _ Water-Stained Leaves(EIS)(MLRA 1,2, _ High Water Tabi•(A2) Watt,2,4A,end 411) 4A,and 413) —Saturatkin(A3) — SOS Cruet($11) — Drainage Pekin*(R10) — WOW Mar*(31) _,Arbillicirotertalmoom(sta) _ orposepon Water Table(02) — Sediment elepoeits(112) ---HYdregerr SUMO Odor(Cl) — Saturation Visible on Acid Mogan,(CS) Drift Deposits(B3) Oxidized Riezospheres along Living Rools(DS) — Geomorphic Position(02) _Algal Mat or Goat(134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(Cat) _ Shallow Aqultard(D3) _ Iron Deposits(135) _ Recent iron Reduction in Wed Soils(06) FArefteutfal Test(DS) Surface Soil Cracks(136) — StootOd or Stressed Plants(Dl)(UM A) Raised Ant Mounds(DS)(1.1tft A) ,,,..„ inundation Visible an Aarlet imagery(B7) Other(Explein in Remick* — Frost4104Y0 thalialeabli(07) — SParliely Vegetated Concave Surface(DS) Field Obsonlions: Surface Water Present? Yes No `,.' Depth(inches) Water Table Present? Yes_ No,..2L,..„ Depth(Indies): SetisatiOnPritsard/ Vas__ No , Death ilaaheak t/ Wetland llydrollogy Present? Yes No P,,, andladee COMM*lade) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring tog,"sofa"photos,promoter insperitions),if available: - Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys.and Coast—Verelori 2.0 r ——A 111111111110.1 I 1...— .f. Oh' AP s .S, Cn `Ki t]. 06 » ``�^ 4. V, 8 h. M rri rrl ....MCI e A @ 8- ©aT , Q Z /441"------- Ot 00 11 H Mr. 50 SUFFER C N OTT o :Z s c Q0 e z w til z 1 6 c Q (/),..,0.11i3 i m z rnt_i al r- OAT g Z Z in -ri. '© K., t?ET lr 03 4 OAT s' dSt R w /*N. ir Os q ?•` 7(4_ dX1P cr) A 1 Z CO is, cg g o ol (.0 I * . 02 co * c °)' , .4. *.... S . a) z. to * ' V , alkb. . ..... , , ,,,,,i .„, 6 i Ail : tt At x li, -tfr. 0 i 1# ri 5• 4.\ 45 tt -4 4- qi .....0 ir ' L. illirek CO h n O I z Im a On o s oau•is-r 1 " d t tad HSd a q !G ! 1 — — , ` " / ' iiqq i you i a A. / } ii 1 iii.C4, ----____I___\._ ., /' / OF. a d / — ( x \ 1//--- r 6 ° 1 Lk_j_ 100 1. 4714' _ i � m s N � \ Yllo 9 , Ink I (-----,-\... .. , ,, . .. ,, ,.... . .. ______, r_...._ i i . .. _ ______. , ,.., j ____ 021 rt.' ,--- "-------- /7/ _= - J O !G A _.,.__________ _--- 1 —— C Pso Hl9Z - - OS 3f N tl iv- Ii;i ..., •'� ,�', 7... k -4 lii&il! P.i,0 4 1 ii I!!: fl i � 1 9Y88 q ta it a Old s 8 �1��47 °°'� S ZgTH AVE W wA°47 10,E 35' 00 54 85 03 gL d- 0 0 M , ^ a_ 4,4,.(2__ :. 4 , a_ __.L. = to N m = 3 Z (Ni 41::3 m cn 0- ct CD 0 o < 3 co z 5g 106 __ . S P�� ' PN , - S`N• � / ,,°6 5g N19.420°,� I W 201AVENUE SOUTH- N ��o w e 16 • ,�4�' �3$'�L el PI: gem d 1t 140 tot.g4 c3 itnt -11 d 4£I i --------------* 3 3 3 v) 3 3 in CV on b IV 1 -------------- _ Ili % 4 0 0 N N J T _ Fci \z____,___._______L cn 00I - ._________________________, 2O --_________ ______ _ J y, '---\/ ____ ill__.__ ,„., ,~ 90 7*. -' :1, 1.,•04. ‘069 RO P 11 0ASHpOtO' uE souTM ,,,M v. 28TH Ate" "'%ate 140 ^�w OEI `" L w \ 6 • en it ff oQ N O n 1 1WW E' W s3 .N X Alk\Z .- ' N , s .m W .oS rill `� "G p W fri W O M- - z ez 90le 7.".*:::•:•• ( ril ... . 4,0 ..(z z ° �� ' ' n '�z . -.el 3*iiiii_1 �� o ,aP�� N D V O((,V �° '�rote*pool loop — v X U a m"z F)1614 tO '" �a . .. 0 8 �co � �Nzo N ? te ( v 0 .) JO,a 8 RZ x b 88a s b y Pf 7i<i es ¢$ a 4 Y, l i E A 8 14 hi; ;:iIii 2a _ nh saE 0a,, i oR 1 A SOUTH + - 5 28TH AVENUE " sue/ R c c "I�Q —� _ —��ii______; ill Cn 7.---- 1—gi U try ,-J : a al'---�° �� 6. ai C9- — (---�� "' L4 J : m 111 on : d`� :?---- _____ AL- — /_ —�oor — 1 —�— - _ J /L.,7*.....11 .____. - -/- /� ....4 \ .\..._ ---- —___.,_____— _______N--r.:_...------- 7.--,--\\"/"/4..._. _,..---- 1 �0::: 9 , • .9' - Feti 0 --� � .� Y rr v \/ /� / s� R« go ¢ , 33$4 IN 72!. �� // ss "� ,IT RpPO %8 fiLITh\ b'— 56- e' 121 OPSN Pa g / R ` it gi '-'45 - 'ti „ .se el — .ww. _ 80 I E 20 r a a � =a - xa aA1.00 ss - gg W cc c U o " Q CC Q CC U m C tk :n�! )n xK 1 q �g cr�llA ' SsR 1d lail Leila Willoughby-Oakes From: William Kidder <bill.kidder@perteet.com> Sent: Friday,April 06,2018 4:51 PM To: Leila Willoughby-Oakes;Jason Walker Subject: RE:Interplast NW Residence-Wetland Report Resubmittal Hi Leila, We stopped briefly by the Interplast parcel on Wednesday after our other site visit. Jason and I were stepping in water sheet flowing across the lawn downslope from the wetland flags.We did find the applicant improved the wetland flags and added one sample plot(flagged), but no property boundary flags were present to accurately represent the property line to know when we were on or off property.Critical errors still remain in Urban Design Group's critical areas review that Perteet discussed in our initial October 2016 review memo. 1. Per Perteet's October 2016 memo item 9,the resubmitted Critical Areas Review report from Urban Design Group inserts comments referring to the Federal Way code Chapter 19.145.The report includes reference to Chapter 19.145 Environmental Critical Areas on page 10, but(item a)about a third down page 10 references evaluating the project pursuant to Chapter 1510.250. 2. The resubmitted Critical Areas Review report and attached figures propose a Category III wetland with 50 foot buffer based on the Federal Way Shoreline Mgt code Chapter 15.10.250. Based on the proposed wetland rating resubmitted with the Critical Areas Review,the buffer would be 105 feet from the wetland edge based on a er 19.145.420.The current propose ra mg is also missing details that may change the rating. 3. Per Perteet's October 2016 memo item 10 and Pursuant to Chapter 19.145.410(2),wetlands within 225 feet of the subject property must be illustrated and characterized. Page 4 paragraph 4 of the Critical Areas Review mentions wetlands off site to the north and to the southeast but does not characterize them.The Critical Areas Report does not map or characterize the fish-bearing stream within 100 feet of the property on the west side of SW Dash Point Road.The offsite wetlands and stream's with buffer widths that may extend onto the subject property need to be mapped and described. 4. The Critical Areas Review includes 8 survey and map figures showing various wetland boundaries.All figures that include buffers show a 50 foot buffer based on the Chapter 15 Shoreline Mgt code.What project map and wetland survey line is the applicant proposing for Perteet's review? 5. One figure attached to the Critical Areas Review depicts a residential dwelling project but does not describe the project in the report for assessment of potential impacts.The proposed project would occur within correctly applied critical area buffers. Perteet's October 2016 memo item 11 request a discussion of impacts and a proposed mitigation plan for,any proposed project that may intrude in critical areas or buffers. 6. Per Perteet's October 2016 memo items 6 and 7,the four sample plot data forms are still incomplete and lacking substantive details for soils and hydrology.Vegetation dominance calculations are incorrectly applied. Is there a development proposal? Likely critical areas buffers constrain most of the uplands on site. No development proposal, impacts discussion,or mitigation proposal is provided to review for potential impacts and mitigation. As of today, Perteet has about$800 remaining in the task order budget.With the remaining budget, Perteet requests an on-site meeting with the property owner,applicant,and applicant's wetland delineator for a single discussion to resolve outstanding application and wetland report errors. If you have questions or need clarifications,contact me at 206.617.3740 or reply all to this email. Thank you, Bill Kidder 1 t • A From: Leila Willoughby-Oakes[mailto:Leila.Willoughby-Oakes@cityoffederalway.com] Sent:2 April, 2018 15:34 To:William Kidder<bill.kidder@perteet.com>;Jason Walker<jason.walker@perteet.com> Subject: RE: Interplast NW Residence-Wetland Report Resubmittal Excellent let us know if there's enough budget. I know we updated our contracts. L.Willoughby-Oakes Associate Planner Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way,WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com NOTICE: All emails,and attachments,sent to and from the City of Federal Way are public records and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) From: William Kidder [mailto:bill.kidder@perteet.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 3:33 PM To: Leila Willoughby-Oakes; Jason Walker Subject: RE: Interplast NW Residence-Wetland Report Resubmittal Thank you.Got the two files electronically. From: Leila Willoughby-Oakes [mailto:Leila.Willoughbv-Oakes@citvoffederalway.com] Sent:2 April,2018 15:18 To:William Kidder<bill.kidder@perteet.com>;Jason Walker<jason.walker@perteet.com> Subject: RE: Interplast NW Residence-Wetland Report Resubmittal Hi Bill, Apologies please find here: ftp://ftp.cityoffederalway.com/ Outbox 4 CD 4 Interplast NW resubmittal Please let me know if you have issues accessing the site.. Kind regards, L.Willoughby-Oakes Associate Planner Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South 2 Fedlzral Way WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.com Planner on Duty 253-835-2655 or pineinquirv@citvoffederalway.com Permit Center 253-835-2607 or permit.center@citvoffederalway.com Land Use Applications http://www.citvoffederalway.com/node/1547 NOTICE: All emails,and attachments,sent to and from the City of Federal Way are public records and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) From: William Kidder [mailto:bill.kidder(a>perteet.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 2:56 PM To: Leila Willoughby-Oakes; Jason Walker Subject: RE: Interplast NW Residence-Wetland Report Resubmittal Hi Leila, You point us to an FTP site, but there is no link in your email.Can you kindly forward that link to us so we can download the files? I recall the Adzhigirey project. I did the review and CAO reasonable use siting recommendations for that project. I believe we incorporated that project's wetland delineation,observations,and rating results into our previous review memo for this Interplast project. Thanks Bill From: Leila Willoughby-Oakes [mailto:Leila.Willoughbv-Oakes@citvoffederalway.com] Sent:30 March,2018 16:50 To:Jason Walker<jason.walker@perteet.com>;William Kidder<bill.kidder@perteet.com> Subject: Interplast NW Residence-Wetland Report Resubmittal Hi Jason and Bill, Please find the Interplast NW Single Family resubmittal (City File No. 16-103312-00-AD) HERE on our FTP Site. A hard-copy with come to you formally in the mail. Please advise on a time-line for this review,we are kindly requesting between 2-3 weeks(April 23rd,2018). Also advise if this the project needs any additional deposit to continue with your review. It appears the sewer line has been removed from the wetland buffer, however the structure/improvements have not. No constructions plans were submitted with the report. Let me know if you have any questions or issues accessing the files. Have a great weekend, Leila L.Willoughby-Oakes Associate Planner 3 Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way,WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609 Land Use Applications http://www.citvoffederalway.com/node/1547 Planner on Duty 253-835-2655 or pInginouirv@citvoffederalway.com Permit Center 253-835-2607 or permit.center@citvoffederalway.com NOTICE: All emails,and attachments,sent to and from the City of Federal Way are public records and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.If you are NOT the intended recipient and receive this communication,please delete this message and any attachments. Thank you. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking.action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS)for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient and receive this communication,please delete this message and any attachments. Thank you. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS)for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient and receive this communication,please delete this message and any attachments. Thank you. Disclaimer 4 FILE ` GITY OF CITY HALL Federal Way 335 8thW Avenue South Federal Way,WA 98003-6325 (253)835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Jim Ferrell, Mayor October 28, 2016 Alexey Ancheyev Emailed: alexey@urbandesigns.us Urban Design Group 879 Rainer Avenue North, Suite A200 Renton, WA 98057 RE: File#16-103312-AD; 3RD PARTY WETLAND DELINEATION RATING&REVIEW Interplast NW,30543 28th Ave SW,Federal Way(Parcel: 416660-0608) Dear Mr. Ancheyev: On July 18, 2016,the City of Federal Way initiated a third party review pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code(FWRC) 19.145.080(3)for the `Critical Area Review for Interplast Corporation, Parcel 41666- 0608' report, prepared by Blue Heron, LLC(dated March 22,2016). The project includes construction of an approximately 3,738 sq. ft. two-story residence and sharing a portion of an existing driveway with the parcel to the south(Parcel: 4166600-0600). The City forwarded the request to our wetland consultant Perteet Inc. Perteet completed a review of relevant plans,studies and critical area permitting records on file with the City.The City received a technical review memorandum on October 8,2016, in which Perteet Inc.does not concur with Blue Heron's critical area report findings(wetland rating, wetland buffers and delineation). The City concurs with Perteet's October 6, 2016,technical review. Please reference the enclosed memorandum from Perteet for revision details. Upon completion of delineation and report revisions, please resubmit a revised Report for review pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code(FWRC) 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas. The following additional items must be addressed prior to building permit approval: 1. Page 8 of the Blue Heron report notes the use of wetland regulations contained in Title 15 "Shoreline Management".The subject property is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction, and that code section is not applicable. Re-rate the wetland and update the report using FWRC 19.145 `Environmentally Critical Areas'. 2. Staff is aware of ongoing wetland report reviews at 30XXX 28`"Avenue SW(Parcel: 41666-0600), which are within 225 feet of the subject property. 3. Sewer Line Development in Wetland—The site plan submitted with the building permit depicts a new sewer line running from 28th Avenue South through the wetland and wetland buffer.The road is an unopened/unimproved road. Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.130,the applicant must`demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas'. in this case,the applicant shall determine the feasibility of and extend the sewer line further Mr.Ancheyev October 28,2016 Page 2 of 2 along 28'h Ave. S. five feet from the southern property line to avoid bisecting the wetland and intruding into the wetland buffer. 4. Construction staging and equipment cannot be located in the wetland buffer area or wetland. A construction fence must be located outside the buffer so when digging and setting the silt fencing, the buffer will not be impacted pursuant to FWRC 19.145.190 and FWRC 19.145.210. Please depict the fence and silt fence location on revised plans. NEXT STEPS Please review the comments and required revisions contained in Perteet's memo.Prior to the City's concurrence with a critical area determination on the subject property, a revised wetland report must be submitted.The project must comply with FWRC 19.145.410-440. Critical area report revisions will be reviewed by Perteet at the applicant's expense,with the remaining balance;you will be contacted if additional fees are necessary. CLOSING No wetland delineations, rating or buffers can be approved at this time.No impacts to critical areas or critical area buffers are approved at this time. Please submit four copies of the revised site plan and report with the enclosed resubmittal form,along with a written response addressing how all comments have been addressed.A Planning Division technical review letter will follow under separate cover. If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at leila.willoughby-oakes(t�cityoffederalway.com or 253-835-2644. Sincere y Lei i oughby- es Associate Planner c: Peter Lawrence,Plans Examiner Ann Dower,Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer(attach peer review) Kim Peterson,Blue Heron Services,PO 393, Index, WA 98256,Email:bheron(a'•seanet.com(attach/mail memo) Brad Biggerstaff,GeoResources,Email:BradB@georesources.us Bill Kidder,Lead Ecologist,Perteet;Email:bill.kidder!4erteet.com Jason Walker,Environmental Manager&Wetland Ecologist,Perteet: Email:jason.walker@perteet.com Interplast NW LLC, Email:interplast 8 i mail.ru(Owner) enc: Resubmittal Form Perteet Technical Memorandum,dated October 6,2016 16-103312-00-AD Doc.I.D.74857 / t:01 �!.-z A • / ,oi? ' lad !a. rr/'w (:C /4/ )�I �jR Ve.b oa. �tn� i . 1�; I c � 3 � Memorandum Perteet To: Leila Willoughby-Oakes,Associate Planner,City of Federal Way From: Jason Walker,PLA,PWS,Environmental Manager and Wetland Ecologist,Perteet Bill Kidder,PWS,Lead Ecologist,Perteet Date: October 6 2016 Re: Interplast Property—Critical Areas(Wetlands)Review PROJECTDESCRIPTION Perteet Inc.conducted a Critical Areas Wetland Review for the Interplast parcel#416660-0608(subject parcel) located at 30543 28th Ave SW,Federal Way,Washington in the NW quarter of Section 12,Township 21 North, Range 03 East.The parcel is bordered by an unconstructed forested 28th Ave SW right-of-way on the east,Dash Point Road on the west,two vacant parcels to the north,and one single family home with appetences to the south.The applicant is proposing to construct one single family residence on the subject parcel. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED The following documents and resource information websites were reviewed by Perteet prior to the site visit: • Critical Area Review(Report)for Interplast Corporation,Section12 Township 21N,Range 3 E,WM,Tax# 416660-0608,dated March 22,2016,Prepared by Blue Heron Services Inc,Prepared for Interplast Corporation. • Wetland Assessment of the Adzhigirey Property 30XXX 28th Ave 5,Federal Way,WA 98023,Prepared for Sergey Adzhigirey,Prepared by J.S.Jones and Associates,Inc,dated May 28,2014. • King County Online Parcel Viewer(http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/GIS/Maps/iMAP.aspx), accessed August 16,2016. • City of Federal Way Critical Areas map(http://www.cityoffederalway.com/page/maps),accessed August 16,2016. • City of Federal Way Municipal Code(http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/) • Google Earth Pro The March 22,2016 Blue Heron Critical Area Review(Report)describing one category III palustrine scrub/shrub(P5S)and forested(PFO)wetland was reviewed pursuant to the City of Federal Way(City) municipal code Chapter 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas.The Report contains a hand drawn sketch illustrating one wetland boundary bisecting the subject parcel north to south with a Category III wetland present on the east half of the parcel.It is unclear from the Report text or the Report's wetland boundary drawing if the whole or only a portion of the subject parcel's east half is being identified as wetland.The delineation boundary is estimated using incomplete sample plot data collected from two off-parcel and one on-parcel sample locations.The Report's attached Ecology 2014 updated rating system form calculates the wetland to receive a Category III rating.The Report asserts on pages 7 and 9 that the wetland receives a 50-foot buffer pursuant to the City's code Chapter 15.10 Shoreline Management Critical Areas code. The City also provided from their records a copy of a May 28,2014 Wetland Assessment of the Adzhigirey Property(Adzhigirey Report)submitted as part of an adjacent parcel development application.This earlier wetland assessment contains a figure with surveyed wetland boundary flags that illustrates a palustrine forested wetland that was delineated extending onto the subject parcel from the adjacent parcels to the north and east.The wetland boundary and rating documented in this report were approved by the City for neighboring parcel#416660-0600 to the north during that parcel's development application.The Adzhigirey Interplast NW Critical Area Wetlands Review Page I 4111411 Memorandum Perteet Report was provided to Perteet by the City for reference purposes only and is not the primary subject of this review. SITE VISIT AND GENERAL OBSERVATIONS Perteet Wetland Scientist(Bill Kidder)completed a site visit on September 16,2016 to assess site conditions and wetlands on and adjacent to the subject parcel.Leila Willoughby-Oakes,City of Federal Way Planner,met Perteet on site for an initial site briefing The subject parcel boundaries and corner points could not be precisely located. However,review of submitted information was accomplished with reasonable approximation using existing site features,King County iMap aerial photographs overlaid with parcel lines,and information available in the Adzhigirey Report provided by the City. The subject property is undeveloped and dominated by a multi-story mixed conifer/deciduous forest that extends to adjacent parcels on the north,south,and east.One small mowed clearing is present in the center of the parcel accessible from the single-family home parcel to the south.Many large old trees are present throughout the subject property that include western red cedars(Thuja p/icata),Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii),big leaf maple(Acer macrophy//um),and western hemlock(Tsuga heterophylla).Red alder(Alnus rubra),vine maple(Acer circinatum) and various willows(Sa/ixsp.)were also present around the clearing and in the east half of the subject property. Invasive and noxious weed species were common on the east half of the subject property,including Himalayan blackberry(Rubusarmeniacus),morning glory(or field bindweed, Ca/ystegia sepium),and English holly(//ex aquilifo/ium). One palustrine wetland containing forested and scrub/shrub stratums was observed on the subject property and extends to adjacent parcels.Two off-parcel sample plot flags corresponding to SP-3 and SP-4 in the Report were found and observed by Perteet.Off-parcel wetland flags w/I#1,#2,and#8 were also found and observed.One on- parcel flag w/I#6 was found and observed.The on-parcel sample plot SP-7 and wetland flags w/I#5 and#7 could not be found.Flags are deemed on-site or off-site based on the report's hand drawn wetland boundary sketch and not based on surveyed boundary information.Other wetland delineation flags were also found in the approximate location of the subject parcel's north boundary and on the parcel immediately adjacent to the north.These other wetland flags were labeled variously WL1-54 through WL1-65 and most accurately correspond in location and sequence to the delineation map contained in the J.S.Jones May 28,2014 Wetland Assessment with flags labeled A- 54 through A-65. REVIEW COMMENTS Listed below are our findings along with requested actions in bold type: 1. The subject parcel property lines were not flagged or marked for reviewers to locate property boundaries. Please clearly stake/demarcate the parcel boundary lines so future reviewers can clearly identify when they are on-property or off-property.(Wood lath stakes are recommended.) 2. The Report does not explicitly state or illustrate on the sketch which side of the wetland boundary line, the wetland occurs on.Based on site conditions,Perteet determined the wetland to be located east of the wetland boundary line.Please update the report and figures to clearly illustrate wetlands from uplands. 3. Perteet could not find enough wetland boundary and sample plot flags to adequately assess the proposed wetland boundary where it occurs on the subject parcel.Additionally,upland vegetation community was observed on some portions of the east half of the subject property that the Report assumes to be wetland. Clearly delineate and stake/flag wetland boundaries throughout the subject property and clearly depict such flags and boundary on a dimensionally accurate map or survey. 4. Three sample plots(sp#3,#4,and#7)were used to define the wetland boundary.However,two of the sample plots appear were located in the forested area on the adjacent parcel to the north.The native vegetation composition and relatively undisturbed soils for sample plots sp#3 and#4 in the off-site forested area are dissimilar from the disturbed soils and invasive species dominated shrub thicket present along the on-site wetland boundary.Sample plot sp#7 could not be relocated to determine its accuracy Interplast NW Critical Area Wetlands Review Page 2 r Memorandum Perteet for defining the on-site wetland boundary.Please relocate and clearly stake sample plot spe7 that represents the on-site wetland condition.Please add and clearly stake at least one upland sample plot paired near enough to sp#7 on the subject property to describe the on-site upland conditions.Update the report to describe what characteristics the delineator used to determine and map the wetland boundary. 5. The applicant's wetland consultant must dearly stake the wetland boundary and sample plot locations on the subject property for observation and review.(Wood lath stakes are recommended).Upon Perteet's confirmation of the staked wetland boundary,the applicant shall resurvey the updated wetland boundaries consistent with a land survey. 6. The report's Methodology section explains that the delineation was"conducted per the Corps... 1987 delineation manual and Ecology's... 2014 updated delineation manual!Per Washington Administrative Code WAC 173-22-035,wetland delineations should be completed using the current approved federal manual and supplements.Please delineate the wetland and complete sample plots using the current approved Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual-Western Mountains Valleys and Coast Region(Version 20)commonly referred to as the 2010Regional Supplement Update the Report based on guidance provided in the 2010 Regional Supplement Federal Way code 19.145.080 Critical Areas Reports,and 19.145.410(2)Wetland Evaluation. 7. Sample plot data forms contain outdated vegetation FAC indicator status listings,and incomplete soils and hydrology sections.Complete the wetland data plot forms and update the Report accordingly.Use the current approved(2016)vegetation FAC indicator status listings for Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region of Washington state(httlr//rsaisias.crrel.usace.armv.mil/NWPL/). 8. The wetland is inconsistently identified as a slope or depressional wetland in the report and the rating form.Small depressions were observed in the wetland that may retain shallow surface ponding.Please confirm the HGM classification and update the Reportcomponents for consistency. 9. The Report used the City's Chapter 15.10 Shoreline Management code to equate the subject property wetland and buffer to the City's regulatory requirements.The subject parcel and the identified wetland do not occur in a Shoreline Management zone.The City regulates wetlands and other critical areas outside the Shoreline Management zone using Chapter 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas.Reevaluate the wetland,wetland buffer,and other potential on-site critical areas using Federal Way code Chapter 19.145. 10. Off-site wetland conditions were observed on the adjacent parcel to the north that extend west parallel to the subject parcel.This wetland or buffer is not described in the Report Characterize and illustrate all off-site wetland buffers that may overlap onto the subject parcel pursuant to Federal Way code 19.145.410(2)(e)and(f). 11. Page 1 Proposal briefly proposes to construct a single family home on the subject parcel.Page 7 Impacts does not detail what impacts may occur to or within critical areas or critical area buffers.No mitigation is proposed or described for potential impacts.Please update the Report to fully detail potential critical areas and buffers impacts and proposed mitigation pursuant to 19.145.130 Mitigation sequencing and 19.145.140 Mitigation Plan Requirements. 12. No wetland delineations,ratings,or buffers can be approved at this time.Upon completion of delineation and report revisions,please resubmit a revised Report for pursuant to Federal Way code 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas. 13. No impacts to critical areas or critical area buffers are approved at this time.In general,a mitigation plan consistent with Federal Way code 19.145.430 and 19.145.430 is required for any impacts and has not been provided or evaluated for code consistency for this preliminary review.Submit a complete mitigation plan if impacts to wetlands or buffers are proposed. END OF MEMORANDUM Interplast NW Critical Area Wetlands Review Page 3 PE RTE ET INVOICE P.O. Box 1186 Everett,WA 98206-1186 (425) 252-7700 Leila Willoughby-Oakes October 13,2016 City of Federal Way Invoice No: 20130090.003-1 33325-8th Avenue South Federal Way,WA 98003-6325 Project 20130090.003 Interplast NW Lakota Professional Services Agreement for Third Party Wetland/Stream Review and Evaluation Task 003 Professional Services from September 08. 2016 to October 02. 2016 Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Sr.Associate Walker,Jason .50 180.00 90.00 Lead Ecologist/Manager Kidder,William 13.25 140.00 1,855.00 Accountant Moan, Denice .50 85.00 42.50 Totals 14.25 1,987.50 Total Labor 1,987.50 In-house Expenses Mileage-$.54 57.0 Miles @ 0.54 30.78 Total In-house Expenses 30.78 30.78 Billing Limits Current Prior To-Date Total Billings 2,018.28 0.00 2,018.28 Limit 3,510.00 Remaining 1,491.72 Total this Invoice $2,018.28 Billings to Date i Current Prior Total Perteet Labor 1,987.50 0.00 1,987.50 Perteet Expense 30.78 0.00 30.78 Totals 2,018.28 0.00 2,018.28 Billing Limit Detail: Project 20130090.003 Interplast NW lakota Invoice 1 Perteet Labor 3,445.00 Perteet Expenses 65.00 Subconsultants Total 3,510.00 Page 2 . . . 4.1 i 6 f 0 itledi(1) i a' Z ., --Z, o •-.. .- 1-- >- t I ,10 71 c -2 1 I 1 =9. ...._ t,)- ----,- 1 :,-, i.4 h . I 1 0 .=..-- —. .—.—. — ,-- ... f., —. •(.. 4...... 1 4._ — — — 1 I ILL I ...1. 1 71.1 ...1"--LN ----- ---1-- — • , 0 li 1 ..... ... y• N ,it ,p)1.--1- 1,4) 1 E z f ,,, E —1 ,,S1 ":„."-$1 r., .-- ,1/4,.1 •ti Ls 1.1) tic, - cri t P I — I ., _. 4 : ey'' o -4,-,-,. —, o o -15- cci 6 ... n I__ ..,.. &'L . g IIMINIMMINVNII...* (9, — !Q....—.44_ ..._/1. _.....L., s.,..,.._ z 71. ...,,,-; Z; -1 ''t I 1_ elo -65 --(3. 1 j• .a E o i... ••—•--,..,_ 4..... . ._._ Tr_,......,_ •• C di ai 01 iii di ,11 al Lil isi id Ili al sil ill t 0 i § g greg 2 g vcg gi i g il,- 2: r if' `.6: g .., cd s 3 0 D 2 194R ict, 2 ''' R NR ( ck co s.... .... t... .z 0 _ k k k 2 R r . \%-6ig 2 e ...I (9, g .49, .43 T1 -1 ...I .43714 AO - a -11' 0 - R -5 = zi 0 •--c- 1 :Lc - *---- . ea T . , A „ ) o ,.. ....1 2 a - - I a) z< -4 ..I.A1— 1 ,1 "i' ..- • ' J --,. % E 00:4t rs . ; t" dr. .• a/ X Vt .,Y 0 ON ILI la r) • <-4 - 1 s- '',......4' oi %., .21 •am I as —, c: — A ..... .•1 al It cd ).„ 4.. u i "'' 0 0 Z.„2. 0 .....„\sg 0 ....,, (2 Z,,..0 g s•.......(2 ___,...*?, ...Si 9 F. 9. IC F. •1 0 1 3 13 C5 PERTEET PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT NO. 13 2707 Colby Avenue,Suite 900,Everett,WA 98201 I P 425.252.7700 Project Name: City of Federal Way On-Call Wetland Review,Interplast NW Lakota Client: City of Federal Way Perteet Project Number: 20130090.003 Client Project Manager: Leila Willoughby-Oakes Perteet Project Manager: Jason T Walker Accounting Manager: Kellie Delisle Report Period: September 08,2016 to October 02,2016 Tasks accomplished by Perteet this period: • Site Review and Memo Prep Budget Status: Budget Items: Total Contract maximum: $3,510.00 Due this invoice: $2,018.28 Billings to date: $2,018.28 Remaining Authorization: $1,491.72 Percent of budget expended: 57% Our estimation of task order completion this period: 57% • Memo finalization and submittal happened after above billing period;will be invoiced next period. Respectfully Submitted, Jason T Walker,PLA,PWS Project Manager Pagel File location: X:\Federal Way,City of\Projects\20130090-On-Call Wetland Review\Project Management\Progress Reports\Progress Report#13 Interplast_August 29-October 02 2016.docx Leila Willoughby-Oakes From: Leila Willoughby-Oakes Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 3:47 PM To: 'Alexey Ancheyev' Cc: Grace Skidmore; Peter Lawrence; Stacey Welsh Subject: RE: FW:Interplast NW Lakota Critical Area Peer Review(16-102972 -SF/16-103312-AD) Alexey, I am working on the review letter.The covering letter will be forwarded to the Planning Manager for review and approval.Alexey, I have emailed you in response to every call you have placed. There are a myriad of issues on the site, requiring land use approvals.This includes a Use Process III for a reasonable use exception for work within a wetland buffer and a Use Process IV(Hearing Examiner Decision)for development within wetlands.The site plan depicts a sewer line bisecting the wetland complex requiring Federal/State 404 and 401 permitting.You have not provided a critical area mitigation plan.The critical area report also references Title 15-Shoreline Management wetland regulations.The subject property is not within a state shoreline,the delineation method therefore is incorrect as is outlined in the City's third party biologist memorandum. It is my intention to provide you with a complete technical review letter for critical areas,servicing,access and zoning with an itemized list of the actions you must complete to construct in one step for one resubmittal;versus piecemeal information.As you are aware the parcel to the north has undergone a very similar critical area permitting process since 2013 under superseded critical area codes. If you prefer piecemeal information I can provide that to you. I gather from Permit Center staff you are aware of the environmental site and critical area constraints. The site is designated as a geologically hazardous area (landslide hazard and erosion hazard area),the city received a geotechnical study on September 22,2016.The city did not receive a geotechnical report on the initial building permit submittal in June 2016.The project was not transferred to a planner until mid-July 2016.The city received third-party review payment on September 6,2016.A cost estimate letter was sent to you on August 15, 2016 via email and mail. I have also assisted Mr. Henry Youn,who is also your client,today on the single family building permit JHLC Inc. (SW Dash Point Rd.).These are encumbered sites containing significant development constraints due to environmental features. Thank you for your cooperation with the City. Regards, L.Willoughby-Oakes Associate Planner Federal Way 33325 8`h Avenue South Federal Way,WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.com Land Use Forms:httn://www.citvoffederalway.com/index.aspx?nid=481 For general planning inquiries please call:253-835-2655. The on-call planner will assist you. 1 h a : r . RECEIVED SEP 15 2016 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Federal Way CDS WETLANDS CONSULTANT PEER REVIEW Date: July 18,2016 Consultant: Jason Walker,PIA,PWS—Environmental Planning Manager Perteet Inc. 2707 Colby Ave.,Suite 900 Everett,WA 98201 iwalk +.;.oenecz.con+ Project: Interplast Corporation-Stream/Wetland Report Peer Review Address:30543 28th Ave.SW,Federal Way,WA 98023 Parcel#:416660-0608 File: 16-103312-AD(Related File: 16-102972-SF) Project Proponents: Alexey Ancheyev Urban Design Group 879 Rainier Ave.N.,Suite A200 Renton,WA 98057 r.;lexev'ecurbatdesigns.us Interplast Corporation 28th Ave.Southwest Federal Way,WA 98023 ib.teralasst ru (253)205-5617 Project Planner: Leila Willoughby-Oakes,Associate Planner 33325 8th Ave S.,Federal Way,WA 98003 (253)835-2644 l .ila.w lot r b:�-oake^�i; 't crabgay'•�- � c..�c ffetl �.com Project Scope/ Background: A wetland report prepared by J.S.Jones and Associates,Inc.prepared September 1,2015 was submitted for development on a neighboring property (Parcel:416660-0600)identifying there are regulated wetlands on and within 225 feet of the subject property(Parcel:416660-0608). The wetland complex and associated buffers impact the following parcels:416660-0600,416660- 0605,416660-0608,416660-0670 and 416660-0595(Figure 2.).The wetland buffer of 50 feet depicted on submitted site plans is incorrect.The wetland report peer review identified a wetland buffer of 165 feet pursuant to the City's Critical Area Ordinance employing habitat scores. File No. 16-103312-AD Doc.I.D.74108 I. A 4 ♦ Currently,the applicant proposes to construct a 3,185 sq.ft.two-story single family residence with a 40 sq.ft.covered entry,120 sq.ft.deck and 553 sq. ft.attached garage on a vacant parcel(Parcel:416660-0608).There are several single family homes undergoing permitting/construction on abutting lots. Per FWRC 19.145.410(2)the applicant submitted a wetland report for the subject property(Parcel:416660-0608)prepared by Blue Heron Services (Parcel:416660-0608). A major stream(classified under the City's old system)is located directly west of the subject property.Geologically hazardous areas are also identified on the city's Critical Areas Inventory Map(see image on page four).A geotechnical report will be required per planning division comments. Task Scope: 1. A third-party review of`Critical Area Review for Interplast Corporation'dated March 22,2016,prepared by Blue Heron Services and associated materials for consistency with Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC)Chapter 19.145 `Critical Areas';specifically Article IV `Wetlands,'FWRC 19.145.410-19.145.440 and Article I. `Administrative' 19.145.010-19.145.210 requirements.' 2. Perform site visits confirming conditions. A single site visit is proposed. . 3. Prepare a brief memo of findings,in particular describing results of the site visit and letter review of the submitted wetland report based upon 'best available science' (BAS). 4. Review of study revisions if necessary on an as needed basis. Supplemental scope and fee will be provided for review of future impacts and mitigation. 5. Project management as necessary if additional land use review is required. A single meeting with applicant and city is budgeted herein for Sr. Associate. Documents Provided: 2016 Critical Area Report prepared by Blue Heron Services Proposed SFR Site Plan(Pending Designer Release Consent) 2015 Wetland Assessment of the Adzhigirey property(dated Sept. 1,2015) prepared by JS Jones Associates,Inc.2 2014 Wetland Assessment of the Adzhigirey property(dated May 28,2014) prepared by JS Jones Associates,Inc.3 Technical Memorandum,Review of Wetland Assessment for the Adzhigirey Property,prepared by Otak,February 9,200'74 Topographic Survey,prepared by Sadler Barnard&Assoc.Inc.,May 31, 2006 The proposal is located within 50 feet of a geologically hazardous area,therefore FWRC 19.145 Article IL Geologically Hazardous Areas also applies. 2 For reference only not a part of this third party review request 3 For reference only not a part of this third party review request. Incorrect wetland rating system used.For reference only not a part of this third party review request. File No.16-103312-AD Doc.I.D.74108 •Y f Task Cost: Not to exceed$ 3, 5-0 without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. Acceptance: City of Federal Way(Planner, eila Willoughby-Oakes) ate �( 7 /25/1L. Cons taut(. _-:,. _ / �y 5 . p o N w Date c 17//1 `., t P Pro' roponent baknta Adid of 6)(fterplast Corporation LLC) ate , . —Mk viii-? -41 .,..,..... ... ...,101 lil N r�: en 1 N\ r` , F— " my Th• <,-'— .i►�. ;"°w _` �'c. : Subject t. " + t �+/�` Property 1111146\Ill r.'\'.."'.3 :11141 ; 1 Z TreatmentIfii\ rati 4 ohl din iii,,is i.; .5 uok, situ •2!as.A...\-'‘ - '.- ' t---- i \ 1 :IiiiiifiLIFI':',-11".711114741.16.` ', %,, '. Figure 1.City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map,September 2012 Source:hcc :- :a-i_ci rai,•ly.ci..icplw.cozre Documen Cmte;111a-n'l Vie.i;15G File No. 16-103312-AD Doc.1.D.74108 • ferto } � t-uee� � t T.L>o t '� ect( SubjertIProp y' i !_ s1.i a -. -, t.�!' t1 ti r j .+ - .11 ir Figure 2.Wetland Perimeter,August 27,2015.Prepared by J.S.Jones and Associates,Inc. 1.D.74108 File No. 16-103312 AD Doc Consultant Fee Determination Summary Perteet 2707 Colby Avenue,Suite 900, Everett,WA 98201 I P 425.252.7700 F 425.339.6018 Project: Federal Way On-Call Wetlands/Stream Consultants - Interplast NW Lakota Client: City of Federal Way Hourly Costs Classification Hours Rate Amount Sr.Associate 7 $180.00 $1,260 Lead Ecol/Mgr 15 $140 00 $2,100 Clerical 1 $85.00 $85 Total Hourly Costs 23 $3,445.00 Reimbursables Expenses Amount Total Expenses 0 In-House Costs Qty Rae Amount Mileage-$.54 120 $0.540 $65 Total In-House Costs $65.00 Contract Total 3,510.00 Prepared By: Jason T Walker Date: July 22,2016 1446. CITY OF CITY HALL .4*•1 ._ Fed 6(v�ra I Way Wa 33 Avenue South Federal Way,,W WA 98003-6325 (253)835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.corn Jim Ferrell, Mayor August 15, 2016 Alexey Ancheyev Email: alexey@urbandesigns.us 879 Rainer Avenue North,Suite A200 Renton, WA 98057 Re: File#16-103312-00-AD; WETLAND CONSULTANT PEER REVIEW ESTIMATE Interplast II NW Lakota Residence,30543 28th Ave SW (APN.416660-0608) Dear Mr. Ancheyev: Please find the enclosed consultant task authorization to review the report `Critical Area Review for Interplast Corporation (Tax#416660-0608)' prepared by Blue Heron Services(dated March 22, 2016)to construct one single family home(File No. 1 6-1 02972-SF)and submitted June 17, 2016. City review comments are forthcoming under separate cover;the technical reviewers require a third party wetland report review. The Department's consultant, Perteet Inc., was asked to provide an estimate for their review of the submitted report. 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 Perteet Inc. Please note that if any of the funds are not used,they will be returned to the applicant. A check in the amount of$3,510.00, payable to the City of Federal Way, and signature on the consultant authorization form must be submitted before the review will begin. Additional reviews or meetings beyond that will require a supplemental cost and authorization. Following receipt, I will authorize Perteet Inc. to begin their formal review. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your project, please contact me at 253-835-2644, or leila.willoughbv-oakes@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, Leila Willoughby-Oakes Associate Planner enc: Annotated Task Authorization Form(dated July 18,2016) City of Federal Way Invoice c: Interplast Corporation,30604 28`h Avenue SW,Federal Way. WA 98023: Email:interplast 8'mail.ru(Owner) Doc.1.D.74247 „.r , INVOICE City of Federal Way k CITY OF Invoice Date: July 26,2016 88 Ph:(253)835-7000 iipFederal Way Pelrmit#: 161 0 312-00 Project Name: INTERPLAST NW LAKOTA Site Address: 30543 28TH AVE SW Applicant Name:URBAN DESIGN GROUP*ALEXEY ANCHEYEV * FEE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CD - DEP ENV PASS-THRU (8045) $3,510.00 001-0000-000-239-10-004 TOTAL DUE: $3,510.00 0 c Y H - T -"C? r * .- -' (7D = '* H ri.7 C=7 r,i- CD) N t- `-3r H a * o gym * # .D_m * — C3, -`- xt -X -X- •* �c mm o0 1-11 x � c� H * o p -mpg '-ra * -^ p •3E D .Z7 O T'. Z W it• CD _,. �.7 m C7 O if* rm # W --1 # v co * .. n * o � C •�F S jF iE �F r (Q 'p m CO -< r- * •f4• 3s * •3F m lD m -p .**. r Z * C r-l- 77 W r- � -x < * *if C� * v w * .* CD o D. w '-” �[- m iE• iE m �E 1- '< O - . r N C7 O C7 D '*' -* * - . 3a * O D * y rF U7 H m T : m )E 3f -1 II -i D CO iE CD O iE D CD -G m M * *. o H ..F II II II C.7J n r+ '*' 11 m O { iE '✓� -1 p. '*' { = T 0 CJ ...= x C �c- o Q _N' m s c o ' v _ oco rr 3 c © * mr- � H * .- * .mac- -< �- v w --* z °° 1� o CO 00 CO y -I y m -SE* - * * H * -1 * CT o --G m iE iF # * "Ea O CS W �t - -X- aF # o c # W W �E- a w ^ iE {� ) # ONL --x- tr-r iE '1f' fA CTI # iF U7 - iE C7 - _x_ O '� -IF iE -D CJl�" # C7 y * F c ' '*' rn 7` m - - m . August 15,2016 Alexey Ancheyev Email: alexey(cr�,urbandesigns.us 879 Rainer Avenue North, Suite A200 Renton,WA 98057 Re: File#16-103312-00-AD; WETLAND CONSULTANT PEER REVIEW ESTIMATE Interplast II NW Lakota Residence,30543 28th Ave SW(APN.416660-0608) Dear Mr. Ancheyev: Please find the enclosed consultant task authorization to review the report`Critical Area Review for Interplast Corporation(Tax#416660-0608)' prepared by Blue Heron Services(dated March 22, 2016)to construct one single family home (File No. 16-102972-SF) and submitted June 17,2016. City review comments are forthcoming under separate cover;the technical reviewers require a third party wetland report review. The Department's consultant, Perteet Inc.,was asked to provide an estimate for their review of the submitted report. 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 Perteet Inc. Please note that if any of the funds are not used,they will be returned to the applicant. A check in the amount of$3,510.00,payable to the City of Federal Way, and signature on the consultant authorization form must be submitted before the review will begin.Additional reviews or meetings beyond that will require a supplemental cost and authorization. Following receipt,I will authorize Perteet Inc. to begin their formal review. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your project,please contact me at 253-835-2644, or leila.willoughby-oakes(a,cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, Leila Willoughby-Oakes Associate Planner enc: Annotated Task Authorization Form(dated July 18,2016) City of Federal Way Invoice c: Interplast Corporation,30604 28th Avenue SW,Federal Way,WA 98023;Email:interplast Ko mail.ru(Owner) Doc.I.D.74247 J. S. Jones and Associates , Inc. WETLAND ASSESSMENT of the • A her Adzhigirey Property 30XXX 28th Ave S.W. Federal Way, WA 98023 Tax Parcel Number: 416660-0600 NW Quarter Section 12, Township 21N, Range 03E Prepared for: Aleksandr Adzhigirey 32022 5th Ave. S.W. Federal Way, WA 98023 253-661-3564 Dated: September 1, 2015 RECEIVED JAN 1 4 2016 CITY OF FEDERAL t%',A,Y CDS Prepared by: Jeffery S. Jones, Certified Professional Wetland Scientist, PO BOX 1 9 0 8 ISSAQI` AH , WASHINGTON 98027 253-905-5736/ jeff.jsjones.comcast.net Table of Contents 1.0 Project Description 1 2.0 Site Address, Identification and Directions 1 3.0 Methodology 1 4.0 General Site Description 2 5.0 Vegetation 2 5.1 Vegetation Methodology 2 5.2 Vegetation Results 3 6.0 Hydrology 4 6.1 Hydrology Methodology 4 6.2 Hydrology Results 4 7.0 Soils 5 7.1 Soils Methodology 5 7.2 Soil Series 5 7.3 Soils Results 5 8.0 Wetland Determination, Ratings, and Buffers 6 9.0 Functional Assessment 6 10.0 Impacts 7 11.0 Authority 7 12.0 Limitations 7 13.0 References 7 Figures 1.0 Vicinity Map 1 Tables 2.0 Plant Indicator Status 2 Attachments Field Data Forms Rating Summary— Western Washington Wetland Assessment Unit 1 Kilometer Radius Map 303(d) Map Cowardin Units Hydrology Water Quality Assessment Map Soils Map Soils Description National Wetland Inventory Federal Way Municipal Code, Sections 19.420 Wetland Map September 20/5 i J S.Jones and Associates,Inc. all subsequent versions." Where differences in the two documents occur, and there are significant differences, the Regional Supplement takes precedence over the Corps Manual (USACOE, 2008). The wetland was rated using the"Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update." The 2014 rating system was recently adopted in the Federal Way Municipal Code, 19.410(1), (DOE. 2014)(FWMC. 2015). The wetland delineation was completed on August 1st, 2015, by Jeffery S. Jones, PWS. The wetland flags are orange and tied on vegetation. See the attached wetland map for wetland flags and sample point locations. 4.0 General Site Description The site is a 1.03-acre parcel with a forested plant community. The parcel is approximately 474.3 feet long and 103.46 feet wide. The property is bordered by undeveloped forested parcel to the north and south, Southwest Dash Point Road is to the west and 28th Avenue Southwest is to the east. The upper site has slopes greater than 15%, from east to west. The plant community is dominated by big-leaf maple, red alder, Douglas fir, vine maple, Indian plum, stinging nettle, lady fern, sword fern, slough sedge, skunk cabbage, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry. The site is in the drainage basin of Dumas Bay, in the Central Puget Sound watershed, and WRIA 9 (Duwamish-Green). 5.0 Vegetation 5.1 Vegetation Methodology Hydrophytic vegetation has adaptations that allow these species to survive in saturated or inundated environments. These environments are classified according to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States(Cowardin, 1979). The probability of species being found in wetland environments has been determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the National List of Vascular Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary(USFWS, 1996). An indicator status was applied to each species according to its probability of occurring in wetlands (see Table 1.0). Vegetation data was recorded at three sample locations distributed across the property with at least one sample location in each plant community. At each sample location,the dominant species were assessed by indicator status to determine if the plant community was predominantly hydrophytic. Rules for determining dominant species were established in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual(DOE, 1997). Table 1.0 Plant Indicator Status Indicator Category Symbol Occurrence in Wetlands Obligate Wetland OBL >99% Facultative Wetland FACW 67-99% Facultative FAC 34-67% Facultative Upland FACU 1-33% Upland UPL < 1% Note: FACW,FAC,and FACU have+and—values to represent species near the wetter end of the spectrum (+)and the drier end of the spectrum(-)(USFWS, 1996). September 2015 2 J.S.Jones and Associates,Inc. 1.0 Project Description The applicant proposes to construct a single-family home on the subject property. This study was conducted to determine the type and extent of wetlands on or near the subject properties. 2.0 Site Address, Identification, and Directions The property is located at 30XX 28th Avenue Southwest, Federal Way, Washington, 98023 (see Figure 1.0). The tax parcel number is 416660-0600. The property is located in the northwest quarter of Section 12, Township 21 North, Range 03 East, of the Willamette Meridian. Directions to the site from Federal Way's City Hall are as follows: start going out Northwest on 8th Avenue South toward South 334th Street;turn left onto South 333rd Street;turn right onto 1st Way South; 1st Way South becomes 1st Avenue South;turn left onto Southwest 320th Street; turn left onto Southwest Dash Point Road/WA-509; stay straight to go onto 30th Avenue Southwest; turn right onto 28th Avenue Southwest; the property is on the right side of the cul-de-sac. 1,744 c4. o Q`- .,_.,..__gin.. ..• u) 342 0 PLGET s- S\ik Q SOUND o �4. G _ N OO t-- <a- � 4 N `-' SW SW 304TH ST �Tti 2100 > N i\ I Sw R .= /- 00 £ SW 30 6rhi P `v SW CN Si/ 50 ST ©2005 Thomas Bros Maps D E_ F Figure 1.0 Vicinity Map 3.0 Methodology The wetland assessment and delineation were performed using the Routine Determination methodology as described in Part IV, Section D of the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACOE, 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region(USACOE,2008), and the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE, 1997). The Routine Determination method was used with considerations for"Problem Areas". The Routine Determination methodology is"used when the project area is small, plant communities are homogeneous, plant community boundaries are abrupt, and the project is not controversial." "The regional supplement is designed for use with the current version of the Corps Manual and September 2015 I J S.Jones and Associates,Inc. 5.2 Vegetation Results At sample location 1 (SL-1), the plant community is dominated by big-leaf maple(Acer macrophyllum, FACU), Western red cedar(Thuja plicata, FAC), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU), sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FACU), and trailing blackberry(Rubus ursinus, FACU). The plant community is non-hydrophytic because no more than 50%of the dominant species are FAC, FACW, or OBL(see Table 2 and attached data forms). At SL-2, the plant community is dominated by vine maple(Acer circinatum, FAC), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC), lady fern (Athyrium filixfemina, FAC), skunk cabbage(Lysichiton americanum, OBL), and common horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC). The plant community is non-hydrophytic because no more than 50%of the dominant species are FAC, FACW, or OBL (see Table 2 and attached data forms). At SL-3, the plant community is dominated by Western hemlock(Tsuga heterophylla, FACU), vine maple (Acer circinatum, FAC), common horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC), lady fern (Athyrium filixfemina, FAC), sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FACU), and skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum, OBL). The plant community is hydrophytic because more than 50%of the dominant species are FAC, FACW, or OBL. Table 2.0 Dominant Plant Species Found at Sample Locations Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Sample Locations 1 2 3 Trees Acer macrophyllum Big-Leaf Maple FACU X Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar FAC X Tsuga heterophylla Western Hemlock FACU X Shrubs Acer circinatum Vine Maple FAC X X Oemleria Indian Plum FACU X cerasiformis Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC X Groundcovers Athyrium filixfemina Lady Fern FAC X X Equisetum arvense Common Horsetail FAC X X Lysichiton Skunk Cabbage OBL X X americanum Polystichum munitum Sword Fern FACU X X Rubus ursinus Trailing Blackberry FACU X Hydrophytic or Non-hydrophytic? No Yes Yes Note: An indicator of NI is shown when no indicator status has been assigned. An indicator of NL is shown when a species is not listed in the National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands(USFWS, 1996). September 2015 3 J.S.Jones and Associates,Inc. 6.0 Hydrology 6.1 Hydrology Methodology The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual requires inundation, flooding, or saturation to the surface for at least 5%of the growing season to satisfy the hydrology requirements for jurisdictional wetlands(DOE, 1997). Areas that are saturated between 5%and 12.5%of the growing season may or may not be wetlands. The growing season can either be defined by the number of frost-free days (temperatures above 28°F), or the period during which the soil temperature at a depth of 19.7 inches is above biological zero(41°F). The presence of wetland hydrology was determined at each sample location by evaluating a variety of direct and indirect indicators, consistent with the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual(DOE. 1997)(USACOE. 1987). In addition to direct visual observation of inundation or saturation, secondary hydrologic indicators were used to infer wetland hydrology. Secondary indicators include oxidized channels(rhizospheres) associated with living roots and rhizomes, water marks on vegetation or fixed objects, drift lines, water-borne sediment deposits, water stained leaves, surface scoured areas, wetland drainage patterns, morphological plant adaptations, and hydric soil characteristics. Another secondary indicator is the FAC-Neutral test, which is used to determine if the plant community is hydrophytic when all species with FAC indicator status are disregarded. 6.2 Hydrology Results SL-1 does not have wetland hydrology. The soil profile is dry to the surface. The water table is not present within the upper 18 inches from the surface. There are no indicators of wetland hydrology. SL-2 has wetland hydrology. A water table was present at 8 inches below the surface. Saturation was present at the soil surface. SL-3 has wetland hydrology. A water table was present at 12 inches below the surface. Saturation was present at the soil surface. September 2015 4 J.S.Jones and Associates.Inc. 7.0 Soils 7.1 Soils Methodology Hydric soils are soils that are"saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part(COE, 1987)." They are either organic soils(peats and mucks), or are mineral soils that are saturated long enough to produce soil properties associated with a reducing environment. These soils have hydric characteristics such as a reduced matrix(a matrix that changes color when exposed to air), redox depletions (gleying), or redox concentrations (mottles). Soils were visually assessed for hydric characteristics and organic content in an 18-inch soil pit at each sample location. In Washington State, soil color is the main indicator used to determine if a soil is considered hydric. Soil color immediately below the"A" horizon or at a depth of 10 inches below ground surface was determined using Munsell Soil Color Charts(MacBeth, 1990). Soils that had a one-chroma matrix or a two-chroma matrix with mottles were determined to be hydric. 7.2 Soil Series The on-site soils were mapped by the USDA Soil Conservation Service(SCS) as Indianola fine sand(InC) (see attachment). "The Indianola series is made up of somewhat excessively drained soils that formed under conifers in sandy, recessional, stratified glacial drift". "In a representative profile, the upper 30 inches is brown, dark yellowish-brown, and light olive- brown loamy fine sand"(Snyder, et. al., 1973). http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 7.3 Soils Results The soil at SL-1 is a non-hydric Indianola fine sandy loam. From 0 to 8 inches, the soil is a very dark grayish brown(10YR 3/2) Indianola fine sandy loam. From 8 to 16+ inches, the soil is a dark brown (10YR 3/3) Indianola fine sandy loam (see Table 3). The soil is non-hydric because it has a four-chroma matrix immediately below the"A" horizon or at ten inches, whichever is shallower(DOE, 1997). The soil at SL-2 is an inclusion of a hydric silt loam. From 0 to 8 inches, the soil is a black (10YR 2/1) silt loam. From 8 to 16+ inches, the soil is a dark gray(10YR 4/1) silt loam (see Table 3). The soil is hydric because it has a one-chroma matrix immediately below the"A" horizon or at ten inches, whichever is shallower(DOE, 1997). The soil at SL-3 is an inclusion of a hydric silt loam. From 0 to 10 inches, the soil is a black (10YR 2/1) silt loam. From 10-16+ inches, the soil is a dark gray(IOYR 4/1) silt loam (see Table 3). The soil is hydric because it has a one-chroma matrix immediately below the"A" horizon or at ten inches, whichever is shallower(DOE, 1997). September 2015 5 J S.Jones and Associates,Inc. 8.0 Wetland Determination, Ratings, and Buffers The central drainage pattern meets all three criteria for wetlands. The wetland has a black hydric soil. Dominant plant species include one obligate, skunk cabbage. Saturation was at the soil surface in August. The remainder of the subject property is upland. The non-hydrophytic plant community is dominated by big-leaf maple, Western hemlock, Western red cedar, Douglas fir, Indian plum, Oregon grape, salmonberry, beaked hazelnut, and sword fern. The soil is a non-hydric Indianola fine sandy loam. Its hydrogeomorphic classification is a slope wetland. The main sources of wetland hydrology are precipitation and seepage springs. The wetland has palustrine scrub shrub(PSS)and palustrine forested (PFO) classes of vegetation (Cowardin, 1979). The wetland has a total score of 18 and a habitat score of 6. It rates as a Category HI wetland, FWMC. 19.145.420(l)(c). The wetland buffer requirement for a Category III wetland with a habitat score of 6-7 is 165 feet, FWMC. 19.145.420(2). 9.0 Functional Assessment The wetland functions were assessed using the 2014 DOE Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. The rating system scores the wetland based on characteristics that contribute to habitat, hydrologic and water quality functions(see attached DOE Wetland Rating Form). The wetland provides moderate water quality functions. It has dense vegetation that traps sediment and pollutant from surface runoff or groundwater. The wetland has an opportunity to improve water quality because untreated water from residential areas and streets drains into the wetland. The wetland provides moderate hydrologic functions. The dense, uncut, rigid vegetation that covers greater than 1/2 of the wetland will help in reducing water velocity during peak flows that would otherwise flow directly into properties downstream. The wetland has opportunity to reduce the impact of flooding by moderating downstream flows. The wetland provides moderate habitat functions for wildlife. It has three types of vegetation classes with interspersion of plant species. There are special habitat features such as large, downed woody debris, standing snags, and thin-stemmed vegetation or woody branches that can be used by wildlife. The condition of the wetland buffer is relatively undisturbed and the corridors. Connections to the larger habitat in the watershed are broken by streets September 2015 6 J S.Jones and Associates,Inc. • 10.0 Impacts The wetland and buffer occupy the entire parcel. There appears to be enough room for a house in the northeast corner of the property, off of 28`h Ave. S.W. A reasonable use exception will be necessary for one single-family residence in the buffer. The square footage of impacts has not been determined as of the date of this report. 11.0 Authority This wetland determination is in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the objective of which is to"maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States(DOE, 1997)." Wetlands are"areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water 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. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (Federal Register. 1982.) 12.0 Limitations Wetland determinations and delineations are not final until approved by regulatory agencies and/or local jurisdictions. J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. does not guarantee acceptance or approval by regulatory agencies, or that any intended use will be achieved. 13.0 References Cowardin, Lewis M. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jamestown, North Dakota. DOE. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA. DOE. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington—2014 Update (Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029 Federal Register. 1982. Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters; Chapter II, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers. Vol.47, No. 138, p 31810. US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Federal Way. 2015. Municipal Code. http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington—Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #04-06-025. MacBeth. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Revised Washable Edition. 617 Little Britain Road, New Windsor, NY 12553. l0p+9 Charts. Snyder, et.al. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 102p. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx USFWS. 1996. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National September 20/5 7 J.S.Jones and Associates,Inc. Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. St. Petersburg, FL. USACOE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksberg, MS. USACOE. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, ERDC/EL TR-08-13, Vicksberg, MS. September 20I5 8 J.S.Jones and Associates.Inc. Attachments September 20/5 9 J.S.Jones and Associates.Inc. • • DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Adzhigirey Property—Tax Parcel No.4166600600 Date: May 17, 2006 30XXX 28` Av. SW, Federal Way,WA 98023 County: King Applicant/Owner: Aleksandr Adzhigirey State: WA 32022 5th Ave. SW S/T/R: NW 12/21N/03E Federal Way,WA 98023 Investigator(s):J S Jones/A R Josue Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes® No ❑ Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Yes ❑ No Z Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes❑ No ® Plot ID: SL-# 1 Explanation atypical or Problem Area: S.E. portion(downslope) VEGETATION (For Strata, indicate T=tree; S = Shrub; H = Herb; V=vine) Dominant Plant Species Stratum %Cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum %Cover Indicator Indian Plum S 80 FACU Big-Leaf Maple T 70 FACU Sword Fern H 40 FACU HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC 0% Check all indicators that apply&explain below: Visual observation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptation ❑ Areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database Morphological Adaptation ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other(explain): Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: %of dominants OBL, FACW, &FAC<50% HYDROLOGY Water Marks: yes ❑ No® Sediment Deposits: Is it the growing season? Yes ® No❑ On Yes❑ No El Based on: ❑ soil temp(record temp ) Drift Lines: yes❑ No Z Drainage Patterns: ® other(explain): Frost Free Days Yes ❑ No El Dept. of inundation: inches Oxidized Roots(live roots) Local Soil Survey: Depth of free water in pit: inches Channels<12 in.yes❑ no ® Yes❑ No Depth to saturated soil: inches FAC Neutral yes ❑ no ® Water-stained Leaves: Yes El No® Check all that apply&explain below: Other(explain): Stream, Lake, or gage data: ❑ Arial photographs: ❑ Other: Wetland hydrology present? Yes El NTo-Er No indicators of wetland hydrology June 2006 J.S.Jones and Associates,Inc. • Project:Adzhiairev Property Sample Location:#1 SOILS Map Unit Name: Indianola fine sand(InC) Drainage Class: Somewhat excessively (Series& Phase) well drained Taxonomy(subgroup): Dystric Xeropsamments Field observation confirm mapped type? Yes ® No❑ Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance, Texture, Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell, Moist) (Munsell, Moist) Size&Contrast Concretions, profile Structure,etc. (match description.) • 0-8" 10YR 4/3 Fine sandy Soil profile loam dry 8-14+" 10YR 4/4 Fine sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histol D Matrix chroma 5 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretion ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma(=lLmatrix ❑ Other(explain in remarks) Hydric soils present? Yes ❑ No 31 Rationale for decision/Remarks: High matrix chroma of 4 Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the sampling point within a wetland Yes ❑ No El Hydric soils present Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? Yes ❑ No (21 Rationale/Remarks: Notes: June 2006 J.S.Jones and Associates,Inc. • DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Adzhigirey Property—Tax Parcel No.4166600600 Date: 30XXX 28` Av. SW, Federal Way,WA 98023 County: King Applicant/Owner: Aleksandr Adzhigirey State: WA 32022 5th Ave. SW S/T/R: NW 12/21N/03E Federal Way,WA 98023 Investigator(s): J S Jones/A R Josue Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes® No ❑ Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed(atypical situation)? Yes❑ No Z Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes❑ No Z Plot ID: SL-#2 Explanation atypical or Problem Area: N.mid portion @ geotech pit#5 VEGETATION (For Strata, indicate T=tree; S=Shrub; H = Herb;V=vine) Dominant Plant Species Stratum %Cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum %Cover Indicator Big-Leaf Maple T 60 FACU English Ivy H 10 NL Sword Fern H 40 FACU Beaked Hazelnut S 5 FACU Indian Plum I S 30 FACU Lady Fern H 15 FAC+ Oregon Grape H 10 FACU Stinging Nettle H 10 FAC+ HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: %of dominants OBL, FACW, &FAC 28% Check all indicators that apply&explain below: Visual observation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptation ❑ Areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database Morphological Adaptation ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other(explain): Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: %of dominants OBL, FACW,&FAC<50% HYDROLOGY Water Marks: yes El No® Sediment Deposits: Is it the growing season? Yes ® No❑ On Yes 0 No ED Based on: ❑ soil temp(record temp ) Drift Lines: yes ❑ No 0 Drainage Patterns: ® other(explain): Frost Free Days Yes ❑ No Dept. of inundation: inches Oxidized Roots(live roots) Local Soil Survey: Depth of free water in pit: inches Channels<12 in. yes 0 no Z Yes ❑ No IZ Depth to saturated soil: inches FAC Neutral yes ❑ no ® Water-stained Leaves: Yes ❑ No Check all that apply&explain below: Other(explain): Stream, Lake, or gage data: ❑ Arial photographs: ❑ Other: Wetland hydrology present? Yes ❑ N� Soil profile dry June 2006 J.S.Jones and Associates,Inc. • Project:Adzhieirev Proveriv Sample Location:#2 SOILS Map Unit Name: Indianola fine sand(InC) Drainage Class: Somewhat excessively (Series& Phase) well drained Taxonomy(subgroup): Dystric Xeropsamments Field observation confirm mapped type? Yes ® No❑ Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance, Texture, Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell, Moist) (Munsell, Moist) Size&Contrast Concretions, profile Structure,etc. (match description.) 0-10" 10YR 4/3 Fine sandy loam 10-18+" 10YR 4/4 Fine sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histol El Matrix chroma<_2 with mottles Cl Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretion ❑ Sulfidic Odor El High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List El Gleyed or Low-Chroma(=1)matrix ❑ Other(explain in remarks) Hydric soils present? Yes El No Rationale for decision/Remarks: High matrix chroma of 4 Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the sampling point within a wetland Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? Yes ❑ No El Rationale/Remarks: Notes: June 2006 J.S.Jones and Associates,Inc. DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Adzhigirey Property—Tax Parcel No.4166600600 Date: May 16, 2006 30XXX 28` Av. SW, Federal Way,WA 98023 County: King Applicant/Owner: Aleksandr Adzhigirey State: WA 32022 5th Ave.SW S/T/R: NW 12/21N/03E Federal Way,WA 98023 Investigator(s): J S Jones/A R Josue Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No 0 Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed(atypical situation)? Yes ❑ No® Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes 0 No® Plot ID: SL-#3 Explanation atypical or Problem Area: N.E. corner,2'from WL1- 18 VEGETATION (For Strata, indicate T=tree; S=Shrub; H = Herb;V=vine) Dominant Plant Species Stratum %Cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum %Cover Indicator Big-Leaf Maple T 40 FACU Slough Sedge H 10 OBL Indian Plum S 40 FACU Spreading Wood Fern H 5 FACW Stinging Nettle H 20 FAC+ Lady Fern H 5 FAC+ Salmonberry S 20 FAC+ Skunk Cabbage H 5 OBL Beaked Hazelnut S 15 FACU English Ivy IIH 15 NL HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: %of dominants OBL, FACW, &FAC 67% Check all indicators that apply&explain below: Visual observation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptation ❑ Areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database Morphological Adaptation ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other(explain): Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes 0 No El Rationale for decision/Remarks: %of dominants OBL, FACW,&FAC> 50% HYDROLOGY Water Marks: yes 0 No® Sediment Deposits: Is it the growing season? Yes ® No Cl On Yes ❑ No Based on: ❑ soil temp(record temp ) Drift Lines: yes 0 No ® Drainage Patterns: ® other(explain): Frost Free Days Yes ❑ No Dept. of inundation: inches Oxidized Roots(live roots) Local Soil Survey: Depth of free water in pit: _inches Channels<12 in. yes❑ no 0 Yes ❑ No Depth to saturated soil: inches FAC Neutral yes❑ no ® Water-stained Leaves: Yes❑ No Check all that apply&explain below: Other(explain): Stream, Lake, or gage data: 0 Arial photographs: ❑ Other: Wetland hydrology present? Yes ❑ No No hydrology indicators present June 2006 J. S.Jones and Associates,Inc. Project:Adzhiairev Property Sample Location:113 SOILS Map Unit Name: Indianola fine sand(InC) Drainage Class: Somewhat excessively (Series& Phase) well drained Taxonomy(subgroup): Dystric Xeropsamments Field observation confirm mapped type? Yes ® No El Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance, Texture, Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell, Moist) (Munsell, Moist) Size&Contrast Concretions, profile Structure,etc. (match description.) 0-10" 10YR 2/2 Fine sandy wet soil loam profile 10- 16+" 10YR 4/2 Fine sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histol ❑ Matrix chroma<_2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretion ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1)matrix ❑ Other(explain in remarks) Hydric soils present? Yes CINo Z Rationale for decision/Remarks: Matrix chroma of 2 no mottles Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the sampling point within a wetland Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? Yes ❑ No Rationale/Remarks: Notes: June 2006 J. S.Jones and Associates, Inc. Wetland name or number P-t • RATING SUMMARY - Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID#): Alone Date of site visit: Atl1,Zo 1 S Rated by —1-e-4 E-^; " e` Trained by Ecology?VYes_No Date of training rO I Y. HGM Class used for rating 5 Aye_ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y ✓N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map T'''�``P OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functions/or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I—Total score =23-27 Score each Category II-Total score = 20-22 functionrbased Category III—Total score = 16- 19 ratings e Category IV—Total score =9 -15 (order of ratings is not FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat important) Water Quality 9= H,H,H Circle the appropriate ratings 8= H,H,M Site Potential H M c) H M L H M L 7= H,H,L Landscape Potential H (M) L H L H M L 7= H,M,M Value H e L ) M L H (y) L TOTAL 6= H,M,L Score Based on 5 6=M,M,M 7 (O /1 5=H,L,L Ratings 5=M,M,L 4=MILL 3=L,L,L 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine 1 II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest 1 Old Growth Forest 1 Coastal Lagoon 1 II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update 1 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes D 1.3,H 1.1,H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4,H 1.2 Location of outlet(can be added to map of hydroperiods) 01.1,D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland(can be added to another figure) D 2.2,D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3,0 5.3 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) D 3.1,D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes H 1.1,H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland(can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants R 1.2,R 4.2 Width of unit vs.width of stream(can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2,R 2.3,R 5.2 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) R 3.2,R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1,H 1.1,H 1.4 Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland(can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat 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 Wetlands 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 S 4.1 (can be added to figure above) 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 H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat 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 2 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number 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 lfyour 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- :o to 3 YES-The wetland class is Flats your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water(without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; _At least 30%of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft(2 m). NO - o to 4 YES-The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? "The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), .... The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps.It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, 'The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO-go to 5 YES The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually<3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The unit is in a valley,or stream channel,where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update 3 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number NO -go to 6 YES-The wetland class is Riverine TE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. (1\10go to 7 YES-The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO go to 8 YES-The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example,seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain,or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit HGM class to being rated use in rating Slope+ Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream Depressional within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other Treat as class of freshwater wetland 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 SLOPE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1.Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1%slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal distance) Slope is 1%or less points=3 Slope is>1%-2% points=2 Slope is>2%-5% points=1 Slope is greater than 5% ;U • a ' : ,'' 'points=0 S 1.2.The soil 2 in below the surface(or duff laver) is true clay or true organic(use NRCS definitions): Yes=3 No=0 S 1.3.Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you have trouble seeing the soil surface(>75%cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 in. Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants>90%of the wetland area points=6 Dense,uncut, herbaceous plants>''/:of area points__.3 Dense,woody,plants>%of area points=2 Dense, uncut,herbaceous plants>1/ of area points=1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points=0 Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12=H 6-11=M =L Record the rating on the first page S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? S 2.1. Is>10%of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes= 1 'No= 0 S 2.2.Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1? Other sources Yes=1)No=0 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ` 1-2=M _0=L Record the rating on the first page S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? S 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 I�o=0 '> S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue?At least one aquatic resou the basin is on the 303(d)list. (Yes=1)No=0 S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quiTity?Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes=2: No - Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is:_2-4=H 1=M 0= L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11 Rating Form—Effective January 1,2015 • Wetland name or number SLOPE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms:Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland.Stems of plants should be thick enough(usually> `/s in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows. Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover>90%of the area of the wetland points= 1 All other conditions points=0 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1= M 0=L Record the rating on the first page S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? S 5.1. Is more than 25%of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess surface runoff? Yes= 1 No=0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1=M 0=L Record the rating on the first page S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems: The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources(e.g., houses or salmon redds) points=2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points= 1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points=0 S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes=2 No=O`• Total for 5 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is:_2-4=H 1=M 0=L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12 Rating Form - Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number �J 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 ore 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 ac or more than 10%of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac.Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more:points=4 Emergent 3 structures:points=2 'Scrub-shrub(areas where shrubs have>30%cover) 2 structures:points=1 -Forested(areas where trees have> 30%cover) 1 structure:points=0 if the unit has a Forested class,check if: '- The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata(canopy, sub-canopy,shrubs,herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20%within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes(hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10%of the wetland or%ac to count(see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present:points=3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present:points=2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present:points=1 _Saturated only 1 type present: points=0 _Permanently flowing stream or river in,or adjacent to,the wetland _Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to,the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points _Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil,reed canarygrass,purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 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. CD o 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 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) 3 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 / Z Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18=H ✓-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 Accessib�habitat(include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: %undisturbed[habitat/, +[(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_= C-) % If total accessible habitat is: —7 r 2-A > /3(33.3%)of 1 km Polygon Z ,�� o points=3 20-33%of 1 km Polygon points=2 10-19%of 1 km Polygon -'i S.5`": a%/~ points=1 <10%of 1 km Polygon ants;=(.....2) H Undisturbe abitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. � �' aTciliate: %undisturbed habitat�. +[(%moderate and IOU intensity land uses)/2]_= q 6 Undisturbed habitat>50%of Polygon 7T �� , ycy,g a� �� 59 points=3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50%and in 1-3 patches Pr 9',r v/ points= . Z. Undisturbed habitat 10-50%and>3 patches In/5 . ' " /`N `® points=1 Undisturbed habitat<10%of 1 km Polygon LaiS , vg rY�O-mil �'Low 7.4) 4,- fa is--g`7-Zv `r547 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) 0 .s 50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity ants Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Z.. Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6=H 1-'7-3=M <1=L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws,regulations,or policies?Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: 3 2-8 I = (no n,. points=2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m(see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species(any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources 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 L-c<- kt_c{u CVe-t-1.(--- I Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats(listed on next page)within 100 m points=1 Site does not meet any of the c above points=0''' Rating of Value If score is: 2=H critejja 1=M 0=l Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW(see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats,and the counties in which they can be found,in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2008. Priority Habitat and Species List.Olympia,Washington. 177 pp.http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http:/Jwdfw.wa.govJconservationJphs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft(100 m)of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1.ac(0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest-Stands of at least 2 tree species,forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac(20 trees/ha)> 32 in(81 cm)dbh or>200 years of age.Mature forests-Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in(53 cm)dbh:crown cover may be less than 100%;decay,decadence,numbers of snags,and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth;80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158-see web link above). — Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous,non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 -see web link above). — lnstream: 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 Wetland name or number L'- CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? —The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated,and —With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes—Go to SC 1.1 No=Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve,State Park or Educational, Environmental,or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC,332-30-151? Yes=Category I ',No=Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed(has no diking,ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing,and has less I than 10%cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina,see page 25) Cat. —At least%of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland has at least two of the following features:tidal channels,depressions with open water,or tat.II contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes=Category I No=Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes—Go to SC 2.2 No Go to SC 2.3 Cat.I SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes=Category I No=Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://wwwl.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf _. Yes—Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No =Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes=Category I No=Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit)meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs?Use the key below.If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on Its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons,either peats or mucks,that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes—Go to SC 3.3 No=Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks,that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock,or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash,or that are floating on.IOp of a lake or pond? Yes—Go to SC 3.3 No)Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70%cover of mosses at ground level,AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes=Is a Category I bog No— Go to SC 3.4 NOTE:If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory,you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present,the wetland is a bog. Cat.I SC 3.4.Is an area with peats or mucks forested(>30%cover)with Sitka spruce,subalpine fir,western red cedar, western hemlock,lodgepole pine,quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce,or western white pine,AND any of the species(or combination of species)listed in Table 4 provide more than 30%of the cover under the canopy? Yes=Is a Category I bog No=Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form—Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number V' . SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats?If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. —Old-growth forests(west of Cascade crest):Stands of at least two tree species,forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac(20 trees/ha)that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height(dbh)of 32 in (81 cm)or more. — Mature forests(west of the Cascade Crest):Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter(dbh)exceeding 21 in(53 cm). Yes= Category I ` 1'Jot a forested wetland for this section Cat.I SC 5.0.Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? —The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks,gravel banks,shingle,or,less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (>0.5 ppt) I during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs.t measured near the bottom) Cat. Yes-Go to SC 5.1 (No Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed(has no diking,ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing),and has less than 20%cover of aggressive,opportunistic plant species(see list of species on p. 100). Cat.II —At least'/of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac(4350 ft2) Yes=Category I No=Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line(also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat — Ocean Shores-Copalis:Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes-Go to SC 6.1 (___No not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1.Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form(rates H,H,H or H,H,M Cat.II for the three aspects of function)? Yes=Category I No—Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2.Is the wetland 1 ac or larger,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes=Category II No-Go to SC 6.3 Cat.III SC 6.3.Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes=Category III No=Category IV Cat.IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types,enter"Not Applicable"on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 ,g _ - ' £59009991t' 95900999Tb 659009• •Iti • - 4+ii. • • • - :� g4 r- F- M W j0 -..5�. � ,. 0r , se cIP II * i 111,. E -' --"x - t, milk r. co = ...... Cl) �a i ° � � < F _ , O O m m 73 a`� �t .l - •F ., Eq V1 1C., , x� ,.. °g qt. ` il- 8g:a mod' t� .tY•' .y :X yr ' i ,,,,.-� - `m$>g ` "X, _N _ I \ S. J -O N m illi" f'i ,r .92 'o.n coo �R 1 1 �` 8 a,a7, m c Z ��„ #fit ! t / 1 "" 5.7,g 2 'o -.ax . Z i Nb v 7� m r c$ 1UUL op 0 It � NpP� "E t Lr� m a ai Eogm� J y @mom iliW A - • ♦ C r+*v.•..o....... k...,.,e.p,,. s Water Quaf ty Assessment for Washmoton y o[v% j J -' MEI�i� v • 4-zrmit id- -- ,, ' -t-1, 4% ' .-r- \: ,...4P:' -. ec::-.-- t - c4 1/4'' ' - + __ "`.1*'m„,, 14r` 44`Y,! i ''if i{a .-.[• m. }I r", p .�,,'-: Im—. ,..:-' "^-�. .�d l-'' j } i4F+ _ 3 U la i[7+r01 a K +r' �{[ r yY`�"" 1 Rw t '►}".pt r a r7 S S �' -• • 4. "„ ,a»."' �- ir+..• , 7. , *-, -e • �-;" m g o rr� p1 CZ gki fir�ci I. _.,-/' • .s..'� 1 a it CZ ram ele Y W . �t"i rIS sy -, k ` �-t } Y,t�-�- m v y f .'P o ' o r 3Vt f f a �v � - • 1 tit 1 e4^'4. E E,t n m , x �. • �MomiRi • c y E y, cm�9 o � 3t �` y. �� X = v off rD O • nr6 ae d � Z m E c c t y H§ U m .st m@H�c'$ '1t' . ` t..• 'UI" ;. .E.. c 4 a,n • 1 iUt« tg m N - E o o �,k " - OL900999TV - • v U " M1 c ....... a ........... _.. .,, Y.1-,t6" .c.. ,• '., ..- F;s,O" i •, sir t,J., "'.`, .1.4+'j { .... J S r r y nam{ . e- - , .C,, „ d 41„ _ . . c. $4 /� x E F- R9eY. ` li:' . „y; r t . , f o r . . • .1 �' r .,r� #� +� "� +"' ` , c U a-,2 p ue Hill �$3R" I • • M7 .am . 0 ---,---.. --- ---- .u. 8,ya90 9 iima. E m3gg`o E�a i .k°m ;T Ili °h20, U°C m w 2 c m y g« 4 t._v o / - 21 c C v' ZN ,�,2 ari''- tc .t. —fit—gam m c Tc a oz'c r s^ s o N $ •e ...,r` r t; , w •ter E o y'b yy « �a O l6 r�. O� ^: .. r�_ _..J1113,:1.`Jt?-ST,JUL/W3-1J!J ,01::, - CA W e- ob G +a E—, et W r Q 4t- , ,,41 ,c, -. u C.)N4i? Pt • - •,-.,,, l • VI �`' a v ey • • � � . ----1 . 4% ,i !'r..,,,lt.,_. , ...:: : i ' r. . i ; - * z R : , i ' *, - • >1 .. , -74 L ,,p ' dda 'rt E 2 e p _ Fd n.,":.4 r� . ' y:r' _ _ . - \ ' _ _ r o�c >o - i FF 0 - — `� U d w ?8 3. , 00 t,,8 E ;..a. - a - E m - N8 • iip b`,• DilL - A 1-• �y� d� o s+t �, O Em� o€� Gti c Is 1.m3 11 p .5:: . .._ ' ma aU� _ z.;15 ,cr., Y c t 2 N _ N v 2 Q . m-e m o_ • 75 2 .---- \ -----\/ ut '1.S. ---Ciri -' 1111111111141P --t Ell 2 \., m CD C.0 0- RI 2 C 0 ...., .._ ..,4 ..0 ----- --", 0- (ti 0 -- -- 1 L. ki 0 3 4.- 4-) c, C e".. a) E 2 cr) CD . t < -----..._ 2/ >, a 4, ' — — ea = •:'-•- 1-. 'a 0,-) ---•-, • , 3 4-1 113 . t (-: r) a g C .. „ 1 X a 0 rl i) •: 50 ._.. 7 t-T ...-i — 0 .T> (.6•:4! ¢ < 3-1•.>:!: --. 3 •-, a ;5-: iT.• .157, -3 .•'-'--- v -2 ,c1 - 8 (r) 4 , . `0!r, 1,1 ., na 6- ..... , 0/ -r- 14*4•4, ) , -?- 'ae.' 0 1 ' '•• _ 1....-1 --.....E , .. 0,,' F21 1 1 r t 1 1•_-_-.4_t ,---t 1 41 1 I ii 1 '.,,', __0). i'' ) ,''')' Y .t 0' ° I 1 .' .. t` .-,.. i I i ,' , ,' ,, ..\771 IIIIIIL g .1-; (5 -.7. (.7, t --.--..-- r. .. 3 z z iii a v DOZZbZS OOTZbZS OOOZOZS 006TbZS 008TtZS OOLTbZS 009TbZS OOSTbZS OOhKbZS el M,.T4.TZ oZZT O O M„TV,TZ oZZT - Cs/ a) m m apg 2dA :. C.:01- .. at'fl - �` . j:' ..y ot - • 4 ; w j1....._ ` Ms .........*.".. ..-mr-v---ff, ' - u. / . Q ' $ f 0 VI s ..: a 4. L \- , 7 0 9 `0 () in 1 cc _ co- i�C O aw o 0 Pr a• 3 Ti § coU �QS w U a t" i$S W m ca 7 i E Z ca 3 -t N '0" 3 • rn ( Pt ( N a e Y fl /� C Q ° g " la g A4 — — g n i" a al o �S,a6 X: ,. 5 oN oO 8 3 ina ke M " V Z y- �- o,go re CC O O L a)T O to\4r zQ 2U M„91,,ZZ oZZT M,9b.ZZ oZZT cill 00Z5 OOTZbZS 000ZbZS 006TbZS 008TbZS OOLTbZS 009TbZS OOSTbZS 00ttbZS ` � ZZb z z 5 IF C) Z O N 7 C N 0 D) N N O O N > Ccn zo H It " $ . ± 0o * 0 C <-, X � € IT,. " _ 0 v V N 0) w Cn Cl) (n 71:1 -0 K K K C- r 0 () C) C) co co 2. Cl) Cl) U) > Zg a O_ 7 2 j N O N y' 7' N G T a a O D) O, O .3+ O, Q. O. fD a v) o o m '< CD 0O 3 m EiT o . T �' < m a v) 3 g CD a 0 ° D - m o DC f f c C c 0 - o o 0 CD �_ a -00 E. m m 0 - -' -' m CD CD ''" 3 H o-0 r 1 v n * . 3 D p (I;cn R. O N N O T> ... J V to r m mi fC 0 , rn Z a m ) m = m i ° 0 < o g cn m m v cn N N O p 3 n D) C N • -' 0=-0 X A c m 3 d D Z o m o mm C o 0 m D = o cu o O Co rn �' CO T -o D DC DC O C)< S N 7 d N n CD 0 CD O CT w C7 CD O C N = 7 C' Cn G co c D n,m m o, < v C)) C DC C CD "C 7. Co O 7 03 D -f CD Q o CD 3 3D3oocco cO DC 0C3D) Q 0 m q_v d I -I3 2 3 a) a a!, D = 2 = < CD iDDO0 0c DDC ' CocDC -Co (D'D O v (Q 3 fD Cn fD C y 7 NQCnoC (D7O Oo o D < c no o3 Oono7 - 7 n ,D "OCD C D (2D Oa7 C D) :-2 D) :._ O 3 0 13:CD N 3 NQ ao 0 N > n 0 n 3- Cn D�) DC 0 11 c 0 3' 2.O N C1 O N C D) CDNO (D `G -p 7 n p_ O .o<o. n 7. o CD v ° n a DC v CD D CD 3 a NdoN' ON N -CD N o CJ .. C Z Q < O" D) tU7 O CJ 7 O D CD r D) N" 3 ` (D a S N 0 N N o 7-0 N (n I- O- N N 0 o f7 N 7•-O Si * CD N 7 CD N co o CD 2 C N CD n N CS '< 0 3 C Q o n co 0- 0_ 0 -03. 2 — < v o CD 0 CD 7 3 �_ D) C/) O N CD CD CJ -w CD CD CC) CD DC- - D) 7 7 n`< 0 .< CD 0- N N O. O0 CD O D o o V) C Q ZJ CD N0 7 6 3 Q o CD 7 c O S o o g- 2 K-a 'up, 0 7• 0 v. D. Q w' Z o D).z 3 0 - 0 7 F 3 m •_.. 7 3 ,* CD .. 7 * = 0 s < �<CD 0 T o D) 0 D) `< D) 7 S N C) * C O 7 O CD co O 0 N a o o CD (n D o CD o 5' m m Q 0 0 d 3 N n O N CD N C N 0 N (D CD 0 N 7 -OO _ "6 Cl) CD 7 CS _ 0 N D) 7-10 N Co D " D) c- 0 w D 0 O o O N m N C s 3 i o -0. ( O 3o27 n y a � D `-' 6CQa ACM - 23coo J D c 3 S o oN N Z CDC 2 C 0 0 m m CD CD DC m 3 C = " 7 L ? _ [7 CCD-O CD to 7 GJ •7 N N N Co Q.� N O O 0 Cr N Co17 O C) CD n (D C7 (D p • D) 0 7. CD O N N 7 v " * ..-C 7 O n N C (O I 'C3 (G - O O ^f 3 N n CD N Cn 3 N O" N N Q 5' O CD .D (D O. 0 g N CT D) "O N O`< 7 DC 0 = N I N O. (D 7 (Q n' I cp 7 0 N O O -, N N n CD C 0, O N N (D < O 0 N N N Co CD D N O N C) C) .N.. O. CD A CD x - O N p) N O . to7 - O N N (fl _ O O N N O O_O_ (() Cr £10£a6ed AaAJns nos an!leJadooa leuo!leN °owes uol;enJasuo3 910Z/1./6 AaAJns!!os qa/N saoinose IeJn;eN voSn %0'006 £'991 ;solelul;o easy io;sle;ol %E'16 9'19I, easy AaAJns Ilos Jo;slelolgns sadols luaoJad g l %£'9£ L'99 0l y'pues au!;Aweol e!oue!pul au! %9'I. 9'l sayoeaq lelseoa qa sadols wowed g %0•0 1.'0 0;9'le1Ja;ew poowuaply`sluaiy awy deals Alen %L'0£ l'1.9 'sips des;! { Pue pooNuapIV JAV sadols wowed 0£01 91. %4'0 9'0 'weal Apues AIlaneJ6 poonvapIV a6y sadols luaoJed g l of %6'l l 9'6l 'weal Apues/Cone&6 pooMieply 06V sadols luaoled 9 01 0 %£'L l 99l 'weo!Apues AllaneJ6 pooNu0Ply 86`d IOVlo;ue3Jed IOy ul saJoy aweN;Iua dew IogwAs;lua dew (££9vM)uo;6ulyseM'eaJV A;unoa Bull pue6e l!un dew uo16u!yseM'eeJv Alunoa but —delnl I10S • .Map Unit Description:Indianola loamy fine sand,4 to 15 percent slopes---King County Area, Washington King County Area, Washington InC—Indianola loamy fine sand, 4 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1 hmt7 Mean annual precipitation: 30 to 55 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 degrees F Frost-free period: 190 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Indianola and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Indianola Setting Landform: Terraces Parent material: Glacial drift Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: loamy fine sand H2- 6 to 30 inches: loamy fine sand H3-30 to 60 inches: sand Properties and qualities Slope: 4 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High(1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Low(about 5.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Other vegetative classification: Droughty Soils (G002XN402WA) Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 10, Sep 30, 2014 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/1/2015 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 1 • 2.2 n Cl. ICI t d o fn C] N c 4 a N N G L 6 I.. .� Ol B 0. W N 2 2 o o !n LJ IL C s G Er N N d Us , IS 6 .. to c c 3 _ ' c co c a7 u C d - d m .c tC u. �. w w u. .., ci 0 4-0 J's.y ,, .i 4 ) v+c v • ♦ a 9 . 7 _ •4t' v". • 1, '`'-' m i- . . r - • . .. aaa L •. a + r mraa C c , I soy Q) ., Cr. . r • Y • "35 J^ - t4 • ''-- - CO t! , . iff • . k- ' ' ; • Ul n Z r ., it , t Ti, • I ft '• r :'gyp 4 • Federal Way Municipal Code 19.145.420 Wetland rating and buffers.© SHARE (1)Rating.Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington Department of Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington—2014 Update(Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029,or as revised and approved by Ecology),which contains the definitions and methods for determining whether the criteria below are met: (a)Category I wetlands represent a unique or rare wetland type;are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands;are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime;or provide a high level of function.The following types of wetlands are Category I: (i)Wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/Department of Natural Resources; (ii)Bogs; (iii)Wetlands with mature and old growth forests larger than one acre;and (iv)Wetlands that perform functions at high levels(wetlands that score 23 points or more based on functions). (b)Category II wetlands are difficult,though not impossible,to replace,and provide high levels of some functions. Category II wetlands are those wetlands that score between 20 and 22 points based on functions. (c)Category III wetlands are wetlands with a moderate level of functions that score between 16 and 19 points based on functions. (d)Category IV wetlands are wetlands with the lowest level of functions(scoring less than 16 points based on functions)and are often heavily disturbed. (2)Wetland buffers shall be measured perpendicular from the wetland boundary as delineated and marked in the field. Buffer widths are established as follows: Minimum Buffer Buffer Width Buffer Width Buffer Width Width (wetland (wetland (wetland scores (wetland scores scores 3—4 habitat scores 5 6—7 habitat 8—9 habitat Wetland Category points) habitat points) points) points) Category I: 190 feet 190 feet 190 feet 225 feet Bogs and wetlands of high conservation value Category I: 75 feet 105 feet 165 feet 225 feet Forested and based on function score Category II 75 feet 105 feet 165 feet 225 feet Category III 60 feet 105 feet 165 feet 225 feet Category IV 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet (3) No wetland buffer is required for those isolated wetlands 1,000 square feet or less in total area. (4)All compensatory mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this section. Buffers shall be based on the expected or target category of the proposed wetland mitigation site. (5)Lighting shall be directed away from wetland buffers unless otherwise determined by the director. (6)All lots approved in a recorded subdivision or binding site plan that contain wetlands and their associated buffer in a native growth protection easement or tract may be improved pursuant to easement or tract boundaries established in the plat regardless of subsequent regulatory buffer increases or natural migration. (7)All wetland and wetland buffer boundaries shown on an approved use process decision and/or building permit shall be honored regardless of subsequent regulatory buffer increases or natural migration. (Ord. No. 15-797,§22,6-16-15.) ........ .... CASED MON CASED MON COPPER PLUG COPPER PLUG t5l IN CONCRETE a�J�, �� #..{� ,�u � 3 -Eo IN CONCRETE NE -1 -NW'I,//,— SECO, 12114 •9, N 40-52'42" E (1998) - (. .1 71 (2003) /;,N ) 0 1 N 79'21 1'41 2- 89'59'26" E 177 4- ES' 4, 10' CALCULATED 1116TH CORNER SI TE BENCHMARK DL ER BA RNA RD L,�- I isA 0' ASSOC, INC,, SURVEYING PLANNING PLATTING CONDOMINIUMIZATION i ---- 112714 VALLEY AVE. E. I SUITE 8 1 SUMNER, WA 98390 '(253) 826-8135 RL-S'. 1905 EDGE Ot' ASPHALF ltil-t�K-�[�rN k) SF k f rIV, x 440 LOT 4, 5 & 6, BLOCK 6, LAKOTA ADDITION, ACCORDING 10 THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 21 OF PLATS, PAGE 33, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, Project Name DRAWN EB CHECKED DO iF DATE 5-31-06 APPROVED DO .. . ... . .... ........ 1 SCALE 1"=30' JOB NAME STEPCHLICK Project Location cliql-1 !iJOB No. 06106 DWG NAME 06106WL N E 1/4, N W 114, TA TYANA STEPCWLICK ........ ........ ... ......... SEC. 12, T. 21 N., 1959 -SW 352NQ. -5` R. 3 E., W, M. FEDERAL WAY, wA9802,3 SHEET OF