The URL can be used to link to this page

19-104497 (2)CITY OF Federal Way WETLAND AND STREAM CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: December 3, 2019 City: City of Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: Jessica Redman ESA, Associates 5309 Shilshole Ave. NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206-789-9658 jredman&sassoc.com Project: Midway Samoan Assembly of God— Wetland Delineation 29276 Military Road South Parcels 042104-9063 & 042104-9032 File No.: 19-104497-00-AD Applicant: Pastor Matthew Taumua/Lomitusi Asaua 29276 Military Road South Federal Way, WA 98003 253-213-0034 admin@midwaysamoanaog.com Project Planner: Becky Chapin, Senior Planner 253-835-2641 becky.chNin(,c'citvoffederalway.com Project Background: The applicant is interested in redevelopment of an approximately 2.48-acre site, which contains a wetland and stream. Prior to submitting permit applications, review of the critical areas report is requested. Documents • Wetland Delineation, prepared by ARJ Environmental Consulting Services Provided: (Report Date: November 22, 2019) • Wetland, Stream, and Buffers Sketch Map, prepared by ARJ Environmental Consulting Services (Drawing Date: November 17, 2019) • City Critical Areas Map, see page 3. Task Scope: 1. Review the critical areas report for consistency with the requirements of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145, "Environmentally Critical Areas," especially Article III "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas" and Article IV "Wetlands." 2. Conduct site visit(s) as necessary. 3. Provide written response to findings, recommendations, and request additional information from applicant if needed. 4. Possible meeting with applicant's wetland biologist. 5. Review of resubmitted/corrected documents as needed. Note: A separate Task Request/Cost Estimation will be prepared for project management if additional land use review is required when the formal application is received by the City. Task Cost: Not to exceed $ without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. Acceptance: Consultant Applicant Please note: any of the funds not used will be returned to the Project Proponent at completion of the review. Date Date City of Federal Way Date City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map Becky Chapin From: Becky Chapin Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 11:14 AM To: Jessica Redman (JRedman@esassoc.com) Subject: Request for Peer Review, Midway Samoan Wetland Delineation Attachments: Midway Samoan Task Authorization.pdf; Sketch Map.pdf; Wetland Delineation.pdf Hi Jessica, The'City of Federal Way would like to utilize ESA to conduct third party peer review of the attached wetland report. The applicant has submitted the Wetland Delineation, prepared by ARJ Environmental Consulting Services, for review. The parcels involved are 042104-9063 and 042104-9032. If you are available to assist with peer review, please review the attached scope of work on the task authorization form, enter a cost estimate, sign, and return to the City. Following the deposit of funds by the applicant, I will provide with you an authorization to proceed with the scope of work. Let me know if you would like a hard copy of the task authorization and/or documents mailed to you. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this task. Thanks, Becky Chapin Senior Planner T IQ Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone: 253-835-2641 1 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalwaV.com Becky Chapin From: Becky Chapin Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 8:19 AM To: 'Lomitusi Asaua' Subject: RE: Wetland Delineation Report Lomitusi, It's a code requirement that the wetland report meet the 2014 wetland ratings system, Your wetland biologist should have known that if they reviewed the City's code. I'm not familiar with the rating forms, that is why we have a consultant to do peer review of wetland reports. If the habitat function score changes at all, the buffer width may change as well. It's also worth noting that there is a provision in the code that takes into account permanently altered buffers. It may be worth it to have your wetland biologist look into Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.45,440, to see if he can evaluate the buffers and determine it they are in a permanently altered state. FWRC 19.145.440(4), Permanently altered buffer: (4) Permanently altered buffer. The director may provide written approval for a buffer reduction when existing conditions are such that portions of the required buffer exist in a permanently altered state (e.g., roadways, paved parking lots, and permanent structures) and do not provide any buffer function. The buffer may be reduced up to the area where the altered conditions exist. FWRC 19.145,420, Wetland ratings and buffers: (1) Rating. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington Department of Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — 2014 Update (Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for determining whether the criteria below are met: (a) Category I wetlands represent a unique or rare wetland type; are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or provide a high level of function. The following types of wetlands are Category I: (i) Wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/Department of Natural Resources; (ii) Bogs; (iii) Wetlands with mature and old growth forests larger than one acre; and (iv) Wetlands that perform functions at high levels (wetlands that score 23 points or more based on functions). (b) Category li wetiands 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 in Table 1: Wetland Category Buffer Width Buffer Width Buffer Width {wetland scores 3-5 (wetland scores 6-7 (wetland scores 8-9 habitat points) habitat points) habitat points) Category I: Bogs and wetlands of high 250 feet 250 feet 300 feet conservation value Category I: Forested and based on 100 feet 150 feet 300 feet function score Category II 100 feet 150 feet 300 feet Category 111 80 feet 150 feet 300 feet Category IV 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Best, Becky Chapin Senior Planner Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone: 253-835-2641 1 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com From: Lomitusi Asaua Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 3:33 AM To: Becky Chapin Subject: RE: Wetland Delineation Report Hi Becky, Just wanted to know from your expertise and experience whether it is worth it for our church to have our wetland consultant to re -do another wetland delineation report per the the 2014 wetland rating system. The reason why I am asking is because we have to pay our consultant again for the new report and I feel that we wasted money on the first report that was completed last year in November. My question is whether the new Wetland Rating system is in our favor in regards to the buffer size? Have the buffer zone decreased for our new church construction? Whether it is worth the money to conduct a new report. I look forward to your reply. Thank you again for all your assistance. Regards, Lomitusi Asaua Becky Chapin From: Becky Chapin Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 3:10 PM To: 'Lomitusi Asaua' Cc: Matt Taumua Subject: RE: Storm -water Overflow Attachments: Wetland Rating System.pdf; 044 Preapplication Conference.pdf; 129 Resubmittal Information.pdf Hi Lomitusi, I've had a chance to briefly look at the wetland delineation report provided. Before I send it off for third -party peer review and provide a cost estimate there are a few things that need to be updated in the Wetland Delineation report prepared by ARJ Environmental Consulting Services, Dated November 12, 2018. • The City recently updated the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Environmentally Critical Areas (effective 913119). Please have Mr. Josue review FWRC 19.145.420 as buffer widths have changed and update the report accordingly. ■ Per FWRC 19.145.420, 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). Mr. Josue used the outdated Ecology wetland rating system (2004), as such the wetland and buffer need to be reevaluated with the 2014 wetland rating system (attached for reference). To your question below, the submitted report does not go into detail about the proposed project and all the potential impacts to the wetland/wetland buffer. At this time, the peer review would be a verification of the wetland delineation and wetland buffer boundaries. No impacts to the stream are being evaluated as there isn't a project proposed. At a later date, you will need to prepare an updated wetland report and potentially buffer enhancement/mitigation depending on what impacts are proposed to the wetland, stream, and associated buffers. However, I strongly recommend submitting for a preapplication conference for the proposed church upgrades before proceeding with any application submittals, including peer review. This way you are aware of all review processes required going forward with the project, including critical area impacts. During the preapplication conference staff can talk about specifics of the project and what codes and regulations would apply. At the preapplication, we can discuss the wetland report and peer review requirement as well. If you would like me to proceed with a peer review and provide a cost estimate, please have Mr. Josue update the report with the corrections above and email it to me or resubmit 2 copies to the Permit Center with the attached resubmittal form at your earliest convenience. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the project with me here at City Hall we can set up a meeting. Thanks, Becky Chapin Senior Planner [LTY DE Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone: 253-835-2641 1 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.cit offederalwa .com From: Lomitusi Asaua Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 12:20 AM To: Becky Chapin Cc: Matt Taumua Subject: RE: Storm -water Overflow HI Becky, Last Friday, I had the opportunity to read some old files that pertains to projects proposal for our church, Midway Samoan AG Church, and I came across a document that stated the wetland hearing but it also included the storm -water overflow improvement by adding a trench from its' current location up to the creek. Hence, I am requesting if we could include this storm -water overflow proposal in our wetland administrative decision form that we submitted last Wednesday, 9/18/19 . As you already know this is another issue our church would like to address with the city of Federal Way. Please advise if we need to submit any letter of request or this would be a separate issue from the wetland administrative decision form. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Lomitusi Asaua Building Director (253) 999-8947 RECEIVED REQUEST FLADMPUSTRATWE DECISION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT F8`� Avenue South Federal Way SEP 18 2019 ederal Way, WA 98003 253-835-2607;Fax 253-835-2609 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY www-c�offederalway.com COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FILE NUMBER / - / 0 ___L � Date / F Applicant NAME PRIMARY PHONE Pastor Matthew Taumua (253) 213-0034 BUSINESS/ORGANIZATION ALTERNATE PHONE Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church (253) 202-5640 MAILING ADDRESS E-MAM 29276 Military Road South mtaumua@midwaysamoanaog.com CITY STATE ZIP FAX Federal Way' WA 98003 N/A Property Address/I,oc.ation 29276 Military Road South & 29414 Military Road South, Federal Way WA 98003 Description of Request Our request is to finalize the wetland boundaries and to discuss ways that our church could improve the wetland area on our church property. List/Describe Attachments Attached are two copies of the Delineation Report conducted by Angelo Josue on October 2018. For Staff Use ❑ Code Interpretation/Clarification 'X Critical Areas Letter/Analysis/Peer Review ❑ Request for Extension (Land Use/Plat Approval) ❑ Revisions to Approved Permit ❑ Tree Removal ❑ Zoning Compliance Letter 9 Bulletin #079 — December 11, 2018 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Request for Administrative Decision ARJ Environmental Consulting Services WETLAND DELINEATION RESUBMi`n-EIS DEC o 2 2019 of the a� PECOMUDEyMNT MIDWAY SAM OAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH PROPERTY 29276 Military Rd. S. Federal Way, WA 980003 Tax Parcel Number: 042104-9063 and 0421104-9032 Northeast Quarter of Section 04, Township 21, Range 04E Prepared for: Lomitusa Asaua 29276 Military Rd. S. Federal Way, WA 9800p3 Dated: November 22, 2019 Prepared by: Angelo Josue, PhD Wetland Scientist 12909 66th Ave S Seattle WA 98178 Ph 206-768-0056 email: arjosue@aol.com www.arjwetiandservice.com Table of Contents ProjectSummary .............................................................................................1 1.0 Project Description...........................................................................................2 2.0 Site Address, Identification and Directions. .................................................... . - 2- 3.0 Methodology.................................................................................................... 2 4.0 General Site Description..................................................................................2 5.0 Vegetation........................................................................................................3 5.1 Vegetation Methodology................................................................................ 3 5.2 Vegetation Results.........................................................................................4 6.0 Soils................................................................................................................. 4 6.1 Soils Methodology..........................................................................................4 6.2 Soil Series.....................................................................................5 6.3 Soils Results..................................................................................................5 7.0 Hydrology.........................................................................................................0 7.1 Hydrology Methodology................................................................................. 6 7.2 Hydrology Results..........................................................................................7 8.0 Wetland Determination, Rating, and Buffers .................................................... 1 9.0 Impacts............................................................................................................8 10.0 Authority.........................................................................................................8 11.0 Limitations......................................................................................................9 12.0 References....................................................................................................10 Figures 1.0 Vicinity Map..................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Soil Map of Project Site........................................................................... 6 Tables 1.0 Plant Indicator Status....................................................................................... 4 Attachments Routine Field Data Forms Western Washington Wetland Rating Forms Wetland Rating Figures Wetland Sketch Map PROJECT SUMMARY This study was conducted by authority of the Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church to determine the presence of wetlands on their property with parcel numbers 042104- 9063 and 042104-9032. The wetland assessment and delineation was done using the methodology described in the following references: US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987), Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Region Version 2.0 (2010), and the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (1987). The assessment also referenced the King County GIS data, iMap, the Washington State DENR Forest Practices Application Review (FPARS), the USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey for King County, Washington State, and the NRCS Web Soil Survey website. The results of the wetland showed the presence of wetland on the subject property. Wetland indicators identified in the sample locations include the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology. These are described in detail in the report. Using the 2014 Version of the Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, the wetland is rated as a Category III with a total function score of 19 points and a habitat score of 4 points. According to the Federal Way Revised Code Chapter 19.145.420.2, a Category III wetland with a habitat score of 3-5 points shall have a buffer width of 80 feet, measured from the edge of the wetland. An off -site stream is mapped to the east of the subject parcels. The stream is classified in the FPARS map as a Type F stream. Type F streams are stream that contains fish habitat (Federal Way Revised Code 19.145.260.2.b). According to the Federal Way Revised Code Chapter 19.145.270.1.a - Stream Buffers Type F stream shall have a buffer width of 100 ft measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) 1 I Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church Property Wetland Study November 2019 1.0 Project Description This study was conducted to determine the type of wetlands and streams on and near the site. The applicant is proposing to submit a building permit application for site development. 2.0 Site Address, Identification, and Directions The property is located at 29276 Military Rd. S., Federal Way, WA 98003 in King County, Washington (Figure 1). The site is located within the legal geographic description of northeast Section 04; Township 21; Range 04 East within the watershed of Duwamish-Green River and WRIA 9 (Duwamish-Green River). Directions to the site from DPER in Snoqualmie are as follows: 1. Head northwest toward S 333rd St.; 2. Turn left onto S 333rd St.; 3. Turn right onto 1 st Way S.; 4. Turn right onto S 312th St.; 5. Turn left onto Pacific Hwy S.; 6. Turn right onto S 304th St.; 7. Turn left onto Military Rd S.; Destination will be on the right 29276 Military Rd S. 3.0 Methodology The wetland assessment and delineation were performed using the Routine Methodology as described in Part IV, Section D of the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE, 1987), Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (U.S.ACE, 2010), and the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE, 1997). The wetland determination was based on the presence of the three criteria for jurisdictional wetlands; hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. All three criteria must be present in order to classify an area as a wetland. The assessment includes a review of the King County GIS Data, the Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices Application Review System (FPARS) and the USDA Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey of the King County Area, Washington (Snyder, et. al., 1973) and the NRCS web soil survey. The field investigation was conducted on October 26 and 27, 2018. Wetland boundaries were delineated by putting wooden stakes with orange wetland flags tied to it. 4.0 General Site Description There are two parcels on the project site. The parcel 042104-9063 is approximately 86,684 sq. ft. parcel 042104-9032 is approximately 21,344 sq. ft. Both parcels have building structures at the southwest corners of the property. The parcels are bound by Military Road S. to the west and single-family homes to the east, south, and north. The northeast of the larger parcel is populated with trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plant species. An off -site stream to the east of the property is mapped in the King County iMap. The mapped stream is actually dry and stream channel including the berm is mowed regularly. 2 Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church Property Wetland Study November 2019 The parcel has a vegetated area to the northeast corner populated with old mature tree of Pacific willows, reed canary grass, creeping buttercup, and traces of Himalayan blackberry. Coinelo[ Square Mobile ome Park QS^n Yh Fg N 'r 3 r i�r G7`c 7 0 {ansc� /\�f Svuin2?61n51rpr! 'I Figure 1. Vicinity Map of Project Site (cyan parcel line) (Courtesy of King County iMap, 2017). 5.0 Vegetation 5.1 Determination of Hydrophtic Vegetation 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). 3 Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church Property Wetland Study November 2019 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 d < 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). Vegetation data was recorded at three sample locations. Hydrophytic vegetation at each sample locations were determined using the hydrophytic vegetation indicators established by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Version 2.0 (2010) and the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE, 1997). 5.2 Vegetation Results At sample location 1 (SL-1), the plant community is dominated by reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea, FACW). The plant community is hydrophytic applying the Rapid Test and Dominance Test for hydrophytic vegetation. (see Data Form #1). At SL-2, the plant community is dominated by Pacific willow (Salic lucida var. lasiandra, (FACW+), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, (FACW) and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW). The plant community is hydrophytic using the Rapid Test and Dominance Test for hydrophytic vegetation. (see Data Form # 2). At SL-3, the plant community is dominated by mixed grass species, Graminae sp.(FAC). Grasses in western Washington are typically tolerant of wet conditions, therefore the unidentified grasses are assumed to be FAC. The plant community is hydrophytic using the Rapid Test and Dominance Test for hydrophytic vegetation. (see Data Form 3) 6.0 Soils 6.1 Determination of Hydric Soils The presence or absence of hydric soils were determined using the Field Indicators Guide to Hydric Soils in the United States Version 8 (2016) and the hydric soils indicators guide described in the US Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Version 2.0 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 4 1 Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church Property Wetland Study November 2019 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 at each sample were assessed for organic content and hydric characteristics in a 20-inch deep 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, 2000). Soils that had a one-chroma matrix or a two-chroma matrix with mottles were determined to be hydric. 6.2 Soil Survey Series The USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) mapped this area of King County as Orcas peat (Or) (Figure 2). The Orcas series is made up of very poorly drained organic soils that formed in sphagnum moss and small amounts of Labrador tea and cranberry plants. In a representative profile, the surface layer is dark reddish -brown sphagnum peat about 6 inches thick. The next layer is yellowish -red sphagnum peat that extends to a depth of about 60 inches Representative profile of Orcas peat, under wild cranberries, 600 feet north and 650 feet west of the east quarter corner of sec. 8, T. 24 N., R. 6 E.: Oil0to 6 inches, dark reddish -brown (5YR 3/2) sphagnum peat, very pale brown (10YR 7/3) dry; soft, spongy; many roots; extremely acid; clear, smooth boundary. 6 to 8 inches thick. Oi2--6 to 60 inches, yellowish -red (5YR 5/6, 4/6, 4/8) sphagnum peat, very pale brown (10YR 7/4) dry; soft, spongy; few roots; extremely acid. Some areas mapped are up to 20 percent included Seattle and Tukwila mucks, and some are up to 5 percent the wet Bellingham soils. Permeability is very rapid. There is a water table at or close to the surface for several months each year. In areas where the water table is controlled, the effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. In undrained areas, rooting depth is restricted. The available water capacity is high. Runoff is ponded, and there is no erosion hazard. 6.3 Soils Results The soil at sample location 1 (SL-1) is a hydric loamy muck. From 0 to 10 inches, the soil is a black (10YR 2/1) loamy muck. From 10 to 20 inches, the soil is a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) clay loam. The soil is hydric because it has a one-chroma matrix immediately below the "A" horizon or at ten inches, whichever is shallower (Department of Ecology, 1997). The soil at SL-2 is a clayey muck. From 0 to 10 inches, the soil is a black (10YR2/1) loamy muck. From10 to 20 inches, the soil is a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) clay loam. The soil is hydric because it has a one-chroma matrix below the "A" horizon or at ten inches, whichever is shallower (Department of Ecology, 1997). 5 1 Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church Property Wetland Study November 2019 Figure 2. Soil Map of Project Site (Websoil Survey, 2019, NOTE: Not Drawn to Scale). The soil at SL-3 is a gravelly sandy loam which is previously filled material. From 0 to 12 inches, the soil is a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) gravelly sandy loam. From 12 to 20 inches, the soil is a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) gravelly sandy loam. The soil is non-hydric because it has a two-chroma matrix, without mottles, below the "A" horizon or at ten inches, whichever is shallower (Department of Ecology, 1997). 7.0 Hydrology 7.1 Determination of Wetland Hydrology The Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE, 1987) and the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE, 1997) require inundation, flooding, or saturation to the surface for at least 5% of the growing season to satisfy the hydrology requirements for jurisdictional wetlands. 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 280F), or the period during which the soil temperature, at a depth of 19.7 inches, is above biological zero (41 OF). Some factors that influence the amount of moisture or wetness in the site may include normal rainfall, climate, soil texture, drainage, plant cover, landscape/geomorphic settings, and stratigraphy. 5 1 Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church Property Wetland Study November 2019 The presence of wetland hydrology at each sample location was determined using primary and/or secondary wetland hydrology indicators established by US Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Version 2.0 and the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE, 1997). 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. 7.2 Hydrology Results Sample Location #1 has wetland hydrology. The sample location has wetland hydrology indicators showing water table at 23 inches from the surface and saturation is present at approximately 20 inches from the surface (see Data Form 1).. Sample Location #2 has wetland hydrology. The sample location has wetland hydrology indicator showing the water table present at a depth of approximately 17 inches from the surface and saturation at a depth of 12 inches from the surface (see Data Form 2). Sample Location #3 has no wetland hydrology. There are no wetland hydrology indicators observed at this sample location. There is no water table observed at 24 inches from the surface. The soil profile is dry. (see Data Form 3). The sources of wetland hydrology are precipitation, storm water, and surface runoff. 8.0 Wetland and Stream Determination, Ratings, and Buffers Wetland and stream category, ratings, and buffers were determined by referencing the Federal Way Municipal Code Chapter 19.145 - Environmentally Critical Areas and the Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, 2014 Version, . There is a wetland on the subject property. The wetland has a palustrine scrub -shrub (PSS), palustrine forested (PFO), and palustrine emergent (PEM) classes of vegetation (Cowardin, 1979). The hydrophytic plant community is dominated by Pacific willow, reed canary grass, creeping buttercup, Himalayan blackberry. The hydrogeomorphic classification is a Depressional wetland. Its sources of hydrology are seepage, precipitation, storm water discharge, and surface runoff. The soils are a hydric clayey muck with one-chroma matrix with water table at 17 to 23 inches from the surface. An off -site stream is mapped just to the east of the subject property and is separated from the subject parcel by a levee. The stream has seasonal water flowing particularly during the rainy months of the year. The stream and levee has been mowed regularly. 7 1 Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church Property Wetland Study November 2019 There is no flowing water in the mapped stream but only some accumulation of run-off water from streets and residential areas from the east side of the stream. The remainder of the subject property is upland. The soil is a non-hydric, two-chroma matrix gravelly sandy loam, with no redox features in the soil profile. The water table is not present at 24 inches from the surface. A portion of the upland area is covered by lawn grasses previously planted. Based on the 2014 Version of the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, and the Federal Way Municipal Code Chapter 19.145.420.C, the wetland is rated with a total function score of 19 points and is rated a Category III wetland (see Wetland Rating attached). The wetland has a Habitat Function Score of 4 points. According to the Federal Way Revised Code Chapter 19.145.420 (2), a Category III wetland with a Habitat function Score of 3 - 5 points, shall have a standard buffer width of 80 feet, measured from the wetland edge. (see attached wetland and stream sketch map). The off -site stream is classified in the DENR FPARS and King County GIS maps as a Type `F" waters Federal Way Revised Code 19.145.260.2.b, Type F stream are streams that contains fish habitat. According to the Federal Way Municipal Code Chapter 19.145.270.1.a - Stream Buffers Type F stream shall have a buffer width of 100 ft measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) (see wetland and stream buffer sketch map). 9.0 Impacts The study show that the remainder of the property including its existing building structures is within wetland buffer areas. The final impact assessment will be done when the approved critical areas designation and site development plans are prepared. Impacts to critical areas must be avoided in accordance to the provisions of the Federal Way Revised Code Chapter 19.145.440 — Development within the Wetland Buffer. 10.0 Authority This wetland/stream 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, 40 CFR 230.3 and CE, 33 CFR 328.3)". 8 1 Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church Property Wetland Study November 2019 11.0 Limitations Wetland and stream determinations are not final until approved by regulatory agencies and/or local jurisdictions. ARJ Environmental Consulting Services does not guarantee acceptance or approval by regulatory agencies, or that any intended use will be achieved. Prepared by: Angel6JJosueI PhD 9 1 Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church Property Wetland Study November 2019 12.0 References Cowardin, Lewis M. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jamestown, North Dakota. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksberg, MS. Hruby, T. (2014). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. King County, King County Code. Current through December 11, 2006. http://www.metrokc.gov/mkcc/Code/index.htm Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. MacBeth. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts -Revised Washable Edition. 617 Little Britain Road, New Windsor, NY 12553. 10p + 9 charts. USFWS. 1996. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. St. Petersburg, FL. Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R. F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 102p. US Army Corps of Engineers. May 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Version 2.0. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication # 96-94. 10 1 Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church Property Wetland Study November 2019 ATTACHMENTS Routine Field Data Forms Western Washington Wetland Rating Forms Wetland Rating Figures and Photos Wetland Sketch Map 111 Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church Property Wetland Study November 2019 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/site:.Midway Samoan Church Property City/County: Federal Way/fling Sampling Date: 10/26/2018 Applicant/Owner: Lumltosi, Asaua State: WA Sampling Point #1 Investigator(s): Angelo Josue Section, Township, Range: NE 04-21-04E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat 47.33859 Long:-122.9900 Datum: Sal Map unit Name: Orcas Peat (Or) ��----77-; r— NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No _l_ _ .. (If no, explain in Remarks.) r Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes .1..-y._-1^_ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally. problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _Irr_--.�'ii��.'. No L�—, Hydric Soil Present? Yes L.C__1_ No _t _ __ 's the sampled Area f Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No _ - 1 within a Wetland? Yes I. ��_... No.F Romarics: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Elominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20' dia. Cover SoRd s? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: I (A) 2 Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. = Total Cover S;3plinolShrub S"WM (Plot size: 20' dia. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' dia• acV(I 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover wopgy Vine Stratum (Plot size:1 1. 2_ = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: -�� r ,... } ,�� , <<- ✓ 5 4r', 1/ ¢ d if !, , l- r { (A c iii 5 VNa' V1 Percent of Dominant Species 1 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACu species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: �-'1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophyt€c Vegetation V'2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must ` be present, unless disturbed or problematic. I Hydrophytic Vegetation t/ I - Present? Yes . _ _. ' No V'' US Arrnv Coros of Enoineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: #1 Profile description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth t ' x Features n he Color moist Color (moist) % Tvoe - ,Texture Remarks _ 00 - Too° � t� a q0 i.�samp t�,c C y 10" - 24" W c rz:l 'T e: C=Concentration. D=De lefion RM=Reduced Matrix, CS --Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Locatfon. PL=Pare Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (86) V/ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (FS) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yea No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators [minimum of one required: check all that aooly) Surface Water Al) Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) v Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (811) _ Water Marks (131) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI) Drift Deposits (133) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (1)1) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Secondary Indicators (2 or mere %W1red� Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Saturation Visible an Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (133) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Surface Water Present? Yes f.... No I .,/. Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes F- -� No �I---- Depth (inches): 2 Saturation Present? Present? Yes i V . No I _.._. Depth (inches): Z U' Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I .. NO _F7 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region project/Site: Midway Samoan Church Propeqy CitylCounty Federal Way/King Sampling Date: 10/26/2018 Applicant/owner. Lumitosi Asaua State: WA Sampling Point: #2 Investigator(s): Angelo Josue Section, Township, Range: NE 04-21-04E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat 47.33859 Long:-122.9900 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Orcas Peat (Or) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _1 5C,?_ No J-_.__}, (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes i Y .- _ No _{TM Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes I..aG�:_ No lf.� Hydric Soil Present? Yes ,i1_�Y__w�i_ No I.-. Is the Sampled Area �7 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes t.-Y.- No within a Wetland? Yes I,- �_ No Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Deminence Test worksheets Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20' die• � % CoverSpecies? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: (A) 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover SaolinolShrub S1ratum (Plot size: dia. 1 . 57 ;1, J i 7t kk20' 3 LtC AtA yor k �e,I a tn�{,rCt --- I 1� -Ul4- 2. 3. 4. 5. '0 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' dia. 1. G t:`.rh(.L\II1� Y•PL.F ,C tiaV_ �:O�G4t' lv- 2._ i ✓�r_iCiv; C z r WnL�l-AdC-9L _ 00 � ,A-,,' •1 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10, �y= Total Cover Woody Vie gioturn (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) r Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC: c (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheatr Total % Cover of: M 1tl l b . OBL species x f = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B} Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✓1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' _ 4 - Morphological AdaptaVarls' (Provide supporting data In Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation i Present? Yes! Remarks'_I !E- \ L7 Ir G • �° ...ii � i US Armv Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: #2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matri inches Color moist / Redox Features Color (moist) °% Ty> L Texture Remaft 0 - 1 o" � � D a? ► y �.. 'T e: C= Con centration, D=De pletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand GralnS. location: PL=Pore Lini M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (Al) ___ Sandy Redox (85) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) Hisfic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Hisfic (A3) _✓ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ^ Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (FS) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present). Type: Present? Yes [:�_ NoF Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: POrnary Indicators minimum of o ne re aired: check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ✓Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Water Marks (131) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) Sediment Deposits (132) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) T Drift Deposits (133) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) j Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS) Field Observations: Segondary Indicators 2 pr mare aired Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (132) Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ FAG -Neutral Test (135) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Surface Water Present? Yes I� No ��%^ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes! ►l _ NO F 3) Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes! f . No Ir...: Depth (inches): / Z `� Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes['! Nor ncludes ca ilia frin e Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring w0, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available I IR Arrnv r..nmc of FnninP.Paq Western Mountains, Vallevs, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region project/site: Midway Samoan Church Property City/County: Federal Way/Kin Sampling Date: 10/26/2018 Applicant/owner: Lumitosi Asaua State: WA Sampling Point: #3 Investigator(s): Angelo Josue Section, Township, Range: NE 04-21-04E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (9k): Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 47.33859 Long: -122.9900 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: OrCaS Peat Or) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes .F-Y7. j.. No _I.... !_ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes .i d. No _I._ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes hf�'_ No _I -. _ _ Is the sampled Area �No Hydric Soil Present? Yes __ � �_ within a Wetland? Yes -- No.._v.. . Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No -FT - VEGETATION Absolute Dominant Indicator ❑ominanca 'test worksheets Tree Stra um (Plot size: 20' dia. °% over 5�? Number of Dominant Species 1 That Are 0BL, FACW, or FAG: 7- (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant Z 3 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species_ (A/B) = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Ssn1*ha1ShruUStratum (Plot size: 20' dla. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Stratum (Plot size. 5' dia. frb � 1. -f - - 2. r 4':,�CA V)LA Y 7 f 5 j'J.,�j � C_'• ;rJC Y7 _ . _ �� .... ` � - - J_-:!fL. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. -�- 11. = Total Cover Woody &netra um (Plot size: 1. -� 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % of multiply b , OBL species �_ x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophyde Vegetation Indicators: ✓1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation ,� Present? Yesl,_-_';�.- No W.etam AArnintnine \/allPvc snri r nFi.-t- VP.rsion 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: #3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Metrix Redox Features (inches] Color (moist) % Color (moist) - % 7vpe L�cy Texture Remarks ?-�, xr., 92" - *' 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains, 21-ocatton: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) T Thick Dank Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes NoF—,/ Remarks: I HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one required: check all that apply) _ Surface Water (Al) Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drift Deposits (83) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) T Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Secondary Indicators (2 or more reouired) Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (133) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost -Heave Hummocks (07) Surface Water Present? Yes F _- No FV— Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes r. _ [ No ��_ Depth (inches): r J Saturation Present? Yes i No F . Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 1 . No 1 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 Wetland name or number RATING SUMMARY �� rs -,! � yVashington ` A.- '�l Name of wetland (or ID#):C tYi tt7 Date of site visit: Rated by RADA la S672V2. Trained by Ecology?!/Yes No Date of training HGM Class used for rating e r 'Ml0 Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y iP N NOTE: Form is not complete wittTout the figur s requested i{'res can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map i� '4 OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY 711 (based on functions ✓ or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Category 11—Total score = 20 - 22 Category III —Total score =16 -19 Category IV —Total score = 9 -15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality L I _ Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H' M L W M L H M Landscape Potential H)M L H M L H M Value H M U I H LM,) L H (. L TOTAL 'core Based on `[' 4 19 ,atings 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 1 vJd'' Wetland name or number Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington De ressional Wetlands Riverine Wetlands Lake Frin a Wetlands Map of: Cowardin plant classes Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigi 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecoiogy websii Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Slope Wetlands Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 201S To answer questions: L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 L 1.2 L 2.2 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 3.1, L 3.2 L 3.3 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 far 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. r^� N go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats fyour 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; —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 verygradual), 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 Rating Form - Effective January 1, Z015 Wetland name or number 1go 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 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO - go to 7 YES The wetland class is Depressional ression and no overbank obvious de 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very, area with no p 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. f 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 DEPRESS 10NAL AND_ FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows fro rp the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet ;� points 3 ✓(Netland 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 r1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface or duff laver) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = if;� D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin cla. s `ens),: Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area p°1n ts- Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > h of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants >'/10 of area points =1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: T is is the area that is ponded forat feast 2 months. See description in manual. r4 4 ea seasonally ponded is > K total area of wetland points Area seasonally ponded is > %total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < / total area of wetland points = 0 in boxes -- Total for D 1 Add the points the above Rating of Site Potential If score is:�12-1 = H �6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0' Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 y D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? = 1 0 = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 N = 0 (� D 2.4. Are there othe sources of pollutants c .min into th rH t a d that a nvt listed in questions D 2. D�2.3? I� Source �� a'l�� rUv1 �� g —AAA S Y s 1 =0 1 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above S Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 'f 3 or = i� 2_1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the.:= 303(d) list? �Ye�s=l es = 1 No 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? o- 0 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer. F if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 N 0� Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H ^1= M Record the rating on the first page � = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ❑EPRESSIONAL 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 outletpoin = 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 :�-T, v Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet poin 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. of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin ,Contribution 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._.. points ` 3 ✓ The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit 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 f-, , Add the points in the boxes above e Rating of Site Potential If score is: -12-16 H/r 6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site?_ D 5.1.Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes Ao=O 1 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Ye = 1 No = 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses/fp�sidential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Ye = 1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:44 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D-6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has floodinx'problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 9 Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. point `Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. point:= 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why.. points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood contro. j Yes = 2 Nk = 0 I Total for D 6 - Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H /1 M�_0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Add the points in the boxes above Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. EHABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of Mac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 oc. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structuMs., or more: points = 4 ✓Emergent 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 Y. ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or moritypes present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 _Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 a/ 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 some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not hove to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoll, reed canarygross, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 ,/ 5 - 19 species points�� < 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 0 C2:) Q None = 0 points Low =1 point Moderat�= 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 Rating of Value If score is: _2 = H V �= M/ _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 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) At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structtir&s 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 Straka) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above ILJ Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H _7-14 = M 0-6 Record the rating on the first page H 2.0.. Does the landscape have the potential to support the _apt functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts�cif-Vhit). ! Calculate: %undistt�bJt 7at__+ [(% moderate d low intay�sity 14ndd uses)/2]_. �% If total accessible habitat is: Jr / I > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points - 2 io-n%/ of 1 km Polygon J< 10% of 1 km Polygon H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km P�° and the wetlan- CBI' Calculate: % undistu�Cie at— + [(% moderafe Id low intensity land uses)/2]_ = 1 f L`7.OiPk points =1 points = 0 Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches p°�n Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km H 2.3../Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If s.-i 7®9� ,> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use <_ 50% of 1 km Polygon is hi. Total for H 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:_____4-6 - H ___1-3 = M H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? I ko p points = 0 points = [-2 points = 0 Add the points in the boxes above ] — Z 1= L Y Record the rating on the first page 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: porno _ 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 orfederal 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 crit i ve points = 0 Record the rating on the first page 14 Wetland name or number WDFW Priority Habitats p h W (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. w . o i w f-w-MbID& or access the list from here: i tp_f wdfwwa.gpv/conservation/phsllistL) 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 (firll descriptions in WDFW PHS report). . — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: - gmLth wes sc es - 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 f r - 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). Z Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings May be associated with cliffs. — Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type IGategaliy Chec . off any criteria that appty 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 - 1.1 / NO)Not an estuarine wetland - With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes -Go to SC 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 C 332-30-151? No )Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I Yes = CategoryI 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 Cat. than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) — 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. II —The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Categoryl 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 lands 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 fwwwl.dnr-wa. ov nh refdesk datasearch wnh wetlands. df 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 M. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. if you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes = Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. 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 unr the canopy? Yes = 1s 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 SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least I 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/at (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 = iategory l (�N-' Not 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) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needsso, IW measured near the bottom) in a coastal lagoon Cat. I Yes - Go to SC 5.1 No 7 Not a wetland 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 Cat. II than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p.100). — At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ftZ) Yes = Category] No =Category 11 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 5R 103 Cat I — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 r Yes - Go to SC 6.1 ' Nc L 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. 11 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? Cat. III Yes = Category II No - Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. Iv Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics "Not If you answered No for all types, enter Applicable" on Summary Form�� Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 291st St- 9Ynd St private .01 ;..-- � �► i�-sue ' � Ig f Flo g *rea I r 'S '3W ` • ' • ' • Op fir R it it �� y Lr .L �, �i •� it7 �.f" • 1 .' Figure 2. Approximate Location of Wetland Hydroperiods (Not drawn to scale) Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church Property Wetland Study November 2019 , Tor ��+•�`! $A :t it i t 1 _'1L �_ - •� ' OP, Figure 3. Approximate Location and Condition of Boundary Area 150 ft from Wetland (King County iMap 2017, Note: Sketch not drawn to scale). Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church Property Wetland Study November 2019 To WO Alt l r No IV, qM4 Figure 4. Approximate Location of Contributing Basin of Wetland (King County iMap, 2017. Note: Sketch not drawn to scale). Figure 5. 1 Km Polygon of Project Site and Vicinity (King County Map, 2017). (Note: Approximate Areas - 1Km Polygon = 776.3 Acres; Land Use = 709.6 Acres; Relatively Undisturbed Habitat = 66.7 Acres) Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church Property Wetland Study November 2019 Change map data transparency 10% Figure. 6. Screen Capture of Type F Stream Adjacent to the Wetland (NOTE: The Stream is a Category 4C, not on the 303(d) listed waters). Midway Samoan Assembly of God Church Property Wetland Study November 2019 1 W 5/2019 . Print Approved Listing Listind ID: 8654 Main Listing Information Listing ID: 8654 2014 Category: 1 Waterbody Name: GREEN RIVER 2012 Category: 4A Medium: Water 2008 Category: 4A Parameter: Ammonia-N 2004 Category: 4A WQI Project: Duwamish Waterway Ammonia- On 1998 303(d) List?: N N TMDL Designated Use: None Assigned On 1996 303(d) List?: N Assessment Unit Assessment Unit ID: 17110013000014 Location Identification Counties: King WRIA: 9 - Duwamish-Green Waterbody ID (WBID): None Assigned Waterbody Class: RA Town/Range/Section (Legacy): 23N-4E-24 Basis Location ID(s) [09A080] - In 2009, 0 out of 9 sample events exceeded the criterion. Location ID(s) [09A080] - In 2008, 0 out of 12 sample events exceeded the criterion. Location ID(s) [09A080] - In 2007, 0 out of 12 sample events exceeded the criterion. Location ID(s) [09A080], [09-GRE-180], [09-GRE-212], [09-GRE-FOR] - In 2006, 0 out of 14 sample events exceeded the criterion. Location ID(s) [09A080] - In 2005, 0 out of 12 sample events exceeded the criterion. Location ID(s) [09A080] - In 2004, 0 out of 12 sample events exceeded the criterion. Location ID(s) [09A080] - In 2003, 0 out of 11 sample events exceeded the criterion. Location ID(s) [09A080] - In 2002, 0 out of 12 sample events exceeded the criterion. Location ID(s) [09A080] - In 2001, 0 out of 12 sample events exceeded the criterion. King County unpublished data for station 3106 show 0 excursions beyond the chronic criterion out of:65 samples collected since 1998. King County unpublished data for station B319 show 0 excursions beyond the chronic criterion out of,26 samples collected since 1998. King County unpublished data for station 305 show 21 excursions beyond the chronic criterion out of 52 samples collected since 1998. King County unpublished data for station 311 show 0 excursions beyond the chronic criterion out of,48 samples collected since 1998. Hallock (2001) Dept. of Ecology Ambient Monitoring Station 09AO90 (Green R @ 212th St nr Kent) shows 0 excursions beyond the criterion out of 11 samples collected between 1993 - 2001 https://appstest.ecology.wa.gov/approvedwqa/ApprovedPrintListi ng.aspx? LISTI NG_I D=8654 l 12 11415/2019 Print Approved Listing Hallock (2001) Dept. of Ecology Ambient Monitoring Station 09AO80 (GREEN RIVER AT TUKWILA) shows 0 excursions beyond the criterion out of 70 samples collected between 1993 - 2001 Bernhardt and Yake, 1981. Maximum concentration measured at RM 19.3 in 9/79 survey. Remarks Remark Modified By Modified On Visibility Combined Listing: Listing IDs 13797, 10815 were rolled into this Chad Brown 9/24/2015 Public listing Data collected since the TMDL indicate this reach is meeting Ken Koch 4/1/2014 Public ammonia standards This listing changed from Category 4A to Category 1 due to the inclusion of data from Listing IDs 10815 and 13797 during the Ken Koch 5/18/2012 Public conversion to NHD. TMDL based on relocation of the Renton wastewater discharge Imported 6/11/2007 Public submitted on 3/9/92. EPA approved the TMDL on 1/14/93. ----- — - - EIM User Study ID: User Location ID: AMS001 E 09A080 MROB003 09-GRE-FOR MROB003 09-GRE-212 MROB003 09-GRE-180 https:flappstest.ecology.wa.gov/approvedwqa/ApprovedPrintListing.aspx?LISTING_ID=8654 2/2