15-103923cily OF
F�dolol Vft
R-EVISED (AUGUST 18,2016)
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
F.-V.6rat-Ylay, VIA 90#3-S325
(253) 835-7000
wwwcityoffederalway.com
Nml�►:
Lyle Kenny Email: lyXiLtkenn yL4J) malcorn
,g_
922 South 356h Street
Federal Way, WA 98023-7203
RE: FILE #15-103923-00-AD; WETLAND DETERMINATION
Kenny Properties, 922 SW 356'h St., Federal Way (APNs: 302104-9076,-9079 & -9007)
FIT.-Mam
On Au st 2015, the City of Federal Way received your requesi for a peer review of "Critical Area
rth
(dated June 30, 2015) regarding wetlands on the above -referenced properties.
1`ursuant to Pederal
exist on or within 225 feet of the subject properties, the applicant shall submit a wetland report prepared
by a qualified professional. The City's wetland inventory designated a Category 11 wetland on tax parcel
302104-9007, using the former Federal Way Rating System.
PEER REVIEWED WETLAND REPORT
The City forwarded your request to our wetland consultant, Environmental Science Associates (ESA), fJ
their review pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145 'Environmentally Critical Areas'.
&iIiijad -.d Christina Hersum of ESA completed a site visit on April 29, 201
_W
Uug Su'Tuldl �.011 ywi_ �11 11
upland plant composition and reviewed relevant documents.
ESA prepared a technical memorandum dated May 5, 2016, stating the report prepared by Wetlands
Northwest LLC (June 30, 2015) characterized the wetland and associated buffer inaccurately. The
applicant's biologist described two Category III wetlands (Wetland A and B) on parcel 302104-9080
(adjacent to properties in question) and 302104-9007; ESA determined a single Category 11 wetland
('Wetland AB', see revised Figure 4) exists on the two abovementioned tax parcels. ESA noted the
submitted data sheets were either incomplete and/or inaccurate, and required revisions to the soil
descriptions, findings on Cowardin plant classes (high versus low); and the presence of priority habitats
Ao —concluded that the Categ ry 11 contains a
habitat score of 5 points and a standard wetland buffer of 105 feet.
The City received a report resubmittal from the applicant on July 21, 2016, which also determined
Wetland AB contains a small topographic depression, scoring 21 points based on functions overall. The
city's third party reviewed and concurred with these revisions (a single wetland unit, Category 11 and 10
foot buffer) on July 22, 2016. 1
Mr. Kenny
August 17, 2016 [Revised August 18, 2016)
Page 2 of 3
Off -site WetlandslWetland Buffers
A ,� Categor 11 wetland exists on yarcel 302104-9080, A LWm&w5�1 koffir fir-ym&-
302104-9070, 302104-9081, and 302104-9080; and therefore are subject to FWRC 19.145.410(2)
'Wetland identification and delineation — Evaluation'and submission under FWRC 19.145.080(l)
'Critical area report. ', where impacts or alteration of critical areas or associated buffers and/or setbacks
occlir.
FaQUIRED LAND USE APPLICATIONS — REASONABLE USE (FWRC 19.145.090)
11'ased on the fin iiii o6i iii. ii 0,111ii
I $11191 Lowgi I I Evi I 111m,"i I I oil $Eu gs","q t-'s m Eval I K--J Oro 117go Eli -41 tWA10114
Development within wetland buffers— As indicated in the wetland report, all Meya44 b�q� portions of
the property are impacted by the wetland and wetland buffer. The construction of a family home would
intrude into the buffer. Ordinarily, your next step would be to request a reduction of the wetland buffer with
enhancement in accordance with Federal Way Revised Code (FAIRC) 10. 145AM4 19.175.04 0(5).
However, the maximum reduction permitted under that section is2�%bh a� dase-bL6se basis 5"1 andit
a) The application of the provisions of this division eliminates all reasonable use of the subject
property;
b)
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.
Ll
development/building pen -nit plans are required at the time of application.
EWA=
15-103923-AD Doc. I.D. 74246
Mr. Kenny
August 17,2016 [Revised August 18, 2016]
Page 3 of 3
.1 111 e9l)"I
011-1i - of
61 �fti
4.
19.145MO(4). The 04 M" �m�e any limitations, condifiJ ctions as appropriate to reduce
I
or eliminate any uftdj&s4tkk a*ts or adverse impacts ofg)#"g a reasonable use request.
Critical Area Notice on Title
Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.150(4), site plans submitted as part of a development proposal using a Use
NallWii Im irftp go-immwhall include and delineate all critical areas with their associated buffers
and building setbacks (5 feet from wetland buffers, FWRC 9.145.160). Per FVTRC 19.145.170, the
applicant shall record a notice on title using the approved critical area site plan.
CLOSING
Please refer to the enclosed revised wetland report and ESA's memorandum when planning any
development projects. The delineation map provided in the report can be added to site plans to scale oncs
surveyed. The Wetlands Northwest LLC report revised June 13, 2016, states on page 1 that, "All data
points and wetland boundaries depicted in Figure 4 are an approximation. " Approximated wetland
for Use Process III orbuildin pennita?rication
_g ,I
materials/site plans. Accordingly, a Wetland Map Survey prepared by a Professional Land Surveyor
(PLS) shall be created for any development within a wetland per FWRC 19.145.430(6)(c)(i) or for work
outside of a wetland or a GPS survey will be sufficiently accurate for critical areas designated on site
plans and work within buffers approved by the city per FWRC 19.145.150(4). The survey will be
reviewed by the city to determine the appropriate placement of future structures, utilities and site
rwRm&9 W,__n%t_-of the
subject and required critical area mitigation/remediation.
0.1 M111IM
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
enc: City Approved Wetland Determination, prepared by Wetlands Northwest LLC (dated June 13, 2016)
ESA Wetland Report Technical Memorandum (dated May 5, 2016)
Critical Areas Notice on Title (FWRC 19.145)
Process III Submittal Requirements
Master Land Use Application
c: Robert King, Wetlands Northwest LLC (Email: i-obcqL&w!Ltl—a—n—ds—n—An—,--c—o—m)
Doug Williams (Agent) (Email: goug(a otearpred.corn)
],g_
1 Once under review the city will use a Yd party consultant reviewer for comments or feedback on the project, at the applicant's
expense.
15-103923-AD Doc. I.D. 74246
\6-X 5 )
Leila illou h'h - ekesI 1 0 1
'JAW
From: Ilon Logan <ILogan@esassoc.com>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 3:12 PM
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Subject: RE: Kenny Properties Peer Review, Federal Way (15-103923-AD)
Hi Leila,
0
s
Ll
l-looked over the revised report and it appears all of ESA's comments have been addressed. I agree with the wetland
ra ing, anc a ng e a =tat score, an t e Stan ar d er '511105 eet. I t in it is okay that Figure 1 of the rating form
has not been revised because the others have been. If the applicant seeks a state permit.(which would require a review
by Ecology) then they will need to revise the figure, but I am fine with the current submittal..
Let me know if you need anything else from me. No additional fees are required (hopefully obvious),
Thanks much,
lion
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes fmailto Leila Willughb Oakes ci offederalvay.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 1:06 PM
To: Ilon Logan
Cc: Cynthia Pham
Subject: Kenny Properties Peer Review, Federal Way (15-103923-AD)
Good afternoon lion,
Please find a scan of Critical Area Report of the Kenny Properties 922 SW 356th St. (revised June 13, 2016).
After reviewing the report, Wetlands Northwest LLC did revise the document to address ESA's review memorandum
dated May 5, 2016. On page 2 of 5 of your memo it stated ESA's biologists found Wetland A and B resulted in one
wetland unit rather than two separate wetland units:
"Based on our observations during the site visit, we generally agree with the wetland boundaries as flagged by
Wetlands Northwest LLC. However, ESA's investigation found evidence for connecting the southwest boundary
of Wetland A and the northwest boundary of Wetland B near the west side of the parcel, resulting in one
wetland unit rather than two separate wetlands (Photos 2 to 4)."
Figure 1-'Cowardin Plant Classes 2012 USGS Aerial' has not been revised to show the proper wetland boundary. Also do
state in your findings if you concur with the applicant'shabitat score assessment of 21 ooints for a Cate o Il and uffeI
of 1.05 ft. If you require additional fees for reviews please advise and we will inform the applicant and receive payment
be pre proceeding. A formal letter and hard -copy of the study will follow in the mail. If you have any questions do not
hesitate to call me.
As always thanks for your help,
Leila
L. Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
U
n
From: '•r- D• Planni-
Subject: Re; Critical Area Update — Category 11 Wetland Delineated, Kenny Properties
302104 9007, 302104 •1 • & 302104 •i •'
NorthwestThe purpose of this memo is to follow-up on a requested update to the GIS wetland base ma7l,
(atlas page #95), sent on July 26, 2016. Revised Critical Area Report prepared by Wetlands
- i • depicts this • - Category II wetland • : on
abovementioned properties with a 105 foot buffer on Parcels #302104 9007, 302104 9076 &
302104 9079.
WetlandsThe city's wetland consultant, ESA Associates, reviewed the revised report and concurs with
• -st LLC's findings dated June 13, 2016.The Department of •
li - •r concursment •• • • • 1' •• • • -
• deems the wetland on one contiguous
Robert 'Doc' Hansen, Planning Manager
Wetlands Nortkwest LLC
Kenny Properties
922 S!`:.. Street
Federal98023
i,. 0 i #' •
Milton,Lyle Kenny
WA 98354
June
Revised June 2015
2016
Prepared by:
Robert King, Professional Wetland Scientist
5218 Ivanhoe
Seattle, YVA 701
- -
5474
el .co
i
Lyle Kenny
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SITE DESCRIPTION .................m.................................................................................................1
2.0 PROPOSED USE..............................................................................................................................................................1
3.0 METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................................................1
.0 ON -SITE INVENTORIES ...................................................................................................................................................3
5.0 RESULTS...........................................................................................................................................................................3
5.1 WETLANDS.......................................................................................................................................................................................3
6.0 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................................................3
7.0 LIMITATIONS AND USE OF THIS REPORT ...................................................................................................................3
.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................................7
1.0 VicinityMap ............................................................................................................................... e
.0 NRCS SoilsMap ...........................................................................................................................
3.0 WetlandStreams Inventories...............................................................................................
4.0 Wetland(2012 Aerial).........................................................................................................
WetlandAttachments
Data Forms
WetlandRatingForms
June 2016 N` wetlands Northwest LLC
r
o
ROL,=
111 111 111 �� I qiiii�111 11 111 11111 �111 11 1 1
2.0 Proposed Use
This critical area report will be used to determine the encumbrances of the on -site critical areas for a future
building permit. Wetlands Northwest LLC visited the property on June 17, 2015 for data collection.
Wetlands Northwest LLC re -visited the property on June 8, 2016, to revise the wetland boundaries per
theIIIIQit• May 10, 2016.
According to the tederal methodology aescrioea N00,1". prTTIATTRIT
approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and presence or indications of
hydrology. Using the subject manuals, the site characteristics for making a wetland determination include
the following:
1.) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present/percerft clover);
2.) Examination for the presence of hydric soils in areas where hydrophytic ve�etafibn is present; and
3.) Examination to determine if adequate hydrology exists for sufficient durations during the early part ol
the growing season in the same locations as the previous two steps.
Except where noted in the manuals, the approach requires positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, and wetland hydrology for a determination that an area is a wetland.
1174 I iii I
, c " ritid6 are 3 is inn e pr s of
_Of7'130W
Vbting the 2014 methodology within the year.
Wetlands Northwest LLC also reviewed the King County Welthd Inventory GIS data, The City of
Federal Way Critical Areas Map, the Washington State Deprtment of Natural Resources (DNR)
GIS data, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) GIS data, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) soils data and aerial data obtained by the United States Geological Survey
(USGS).
Data points for soil profiles were labeled as DP-1 through DP-5, Wetland Points A-1 through A-26
and B-1 through B-21 are depicted on Figure 4. All data - points and wetland boundaries depicted in
Figure 4 are an, proximation.
June 2016 1 Wetlands Northwest LLC
Lyle Kenny
Figure 1 - Vicinty Map
1 inch equals 0.25 miles
- 1 1:1:1: 1IililjMUIM Miles
0 0125 0.25 0.5
June 2016 2 Wetlands Northwest LLC
rim=
4.0 On -site Inventories
According to the NRCS King County soils survey, the property is mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy
loam 0 to 5% slopes (AgB), (see Figure 2 NRCS Soils Map, page 4). During site investigation the
Alderwood profiles were confirmed as accurate (see DP-2, DP-3 and DP-5) along with several auger
borings sampled throughout the property. The Alderwood soil profile is described as follows:
The Alderwood series is made up of moderately well drained soils that have a weakly
consolidated to strongly consolidated substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches, These
soils are on uplands. They formed under conifers, in glacial deposits. In a representative
profile, the surface layer and subsoil are very dark brown (10YR 2/2), dark -brown (10YR
and grayish brown (10YR 5/2) gravelly sandy loam about 27 inches thick. The
substratum is grayish -brown (10YR 5/2), weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated
glacial till that extends to a depth of 60 inches and more.
According to the King County, NWI and DNR inventories, there are no wetlands or streams withir
the 225-foot study area. The City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map has a wetland inventoried or
parcel 302104-9007 (see Figure 3 Wetlands and Streams Inventory Map, page 5).
5.0 Results
5.1 Wetlands
One wetland (Wetland AB) was delineated on tax parcel
is a s ssion that drains north into
flagging. Wetland AB is rated as Cate�gory 11 scoriq
obints (see attached wetlgTd'76fing)� fl wetlarnl
6.0 Conclusion
There is a Category 11 wetland on tax parcel 302104-9007 t�h it has a It6-foot buffer. ffer impacts
will likely arise from a proposed building permit. A future applicant may utilize Section 19.145.090 •f
the Code to customize buildable lots on the two vacant parcels through the Reasonable Use process.
7.0 Limitations and Use of this Report
This report is supplied to Lyle Kenny as a means of determining the critical area encum r c s for
future development. Wetlands Northwest LLC upheld professional industry standards when completing
this review. The information included in this report constitutes a professional opinion and does not
guarantee approval by any federal, state, and/or local permitting agencies.
The laws applicable to Critical Areas are subject to varying interpretations. The work for this report has
conformed to the standard of care employed by professional ecologists in the Puget Sound region. No
other representation or warranty, expressed or implied, is made concerning the work or this report.
This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily
ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. If
hidden or concealed conditions arise, the information contained in this report may change based upon
those conditions.
Wetlands Northwest LLC
Lyle Kenny
Figure 2 - NRCS Soils Map
1 inch equals 200 feet
I I 1 11 Feet
0 100 200 400
June 2016 4 Wetlands Northwest LLC
r Lyle Kenny
Figurc,--; 3 - Wetlands and Stream Inventory Map
1 inch equals 200 feet
A 11 Feet
0 100 200 400
June 2016 5 Wetlands Northwest LLC
Lyle Kenny
June 2016
Figure - Wetland Sketch and Buffer
2012 USGS Aerial
1 inch equals 100 feet
Feet
0 s0 100200
A a:
Lyle Kenny
8.0 References
Cowardin, et al, 1979. Cit sifiicatiqn qf Wetlands,,and DeepMiter Habitats of the Qqithd Stales�
U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. December 1979.
Environmental Laboratory. (1987). "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical
Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Hruby, T. (2014). �8�hingjqn State Weiland Rating S s�fem fdr,,Wbstern �Najbhgjgn: 2014 Update.
(Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department o co ogy
National Wetiand Plant Lis U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Snyder et al. 1979 Kin County Soils � �Surve. United States Department of Agriculture, National
Resource Conservation Service.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2010). "Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0)," ERDC/EL TR-10-3,
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
June 2016 7 Wetlands Northwest LLC
3
t
mi
June 2016 Wet/ands Northwest LLC
Wetland name or numberA
RATING SUMMARY Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID Date of site visit:
Rated by 1dQ �
Trained by Ecology?ZYes No Date of training 12NOW-1
11 \ —
�k_
HGM Class used for Wetland has multiple HGM classes?—Y LXN
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map _(Z�
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGOgi�*_ (based on functions or special characteristics
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I — Tot a I score = 23 - 27
Category 11 -Total score = 20 - 22
Category I I I —Total score, 16 - 19
—Category IV — Total score = 9 - 15
1�1
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
W
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
gs
?r of ratings
t
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
Wetland name or number
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
De �e sonal �wetla�nds
�s
Riverine Wetlands
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wet] and- name or number
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
l O .,, o to 2 - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1
�N
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below .5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
f1�Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) `YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe
oar etldn can be c°lassrfr" d as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forn7s for i eri e wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored, This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
( NO go to 3 Y - The wetland class is Flats
_�_If aour wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
—The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at anytime of the year) at least 20 ac (0 ha) i size;
At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 in).
NOS go to 4 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 verygraual),
The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as-sheetow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
The water leaves the wetland without beingimpounded.
go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: 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).
S. 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.
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland. name or number i
NO go to YES - The wetland class is Riverine
Sf6E: The Iliverine 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.
O-goto7 i�
S>Te wetland class is a rsi l
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 E YES - The wetland class is Depressional
S. 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 Depressiona] 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.
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.
Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have
ore than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressionalfor the
rating.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
_M 0111.1-11
�letland is a depressitan or fiat depression {C1UESTl�iV 7 on keys nrith tta surface water leaving it
{na a��t .
paints ��
etiand has an intermittently fBovring stream ar ditch, s`]R highly constricted perrr�anently fl+win
col
)o s, = 2
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightfy constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing
fjti�i"
wetiand is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. h
II-
_ac_e,.or duff la e is true clay or true orp
D 1.2, T1 2 in below the surf a�iicfuseNRCSdefinitions).Yes=4 No=O
D 1.1 L—haracteristies ado —of PELE—SiggrIt p ,jjLn(Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes):
-OL�-trikkIt'21"
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > YS of area
PcI
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > '/j, of area
points = I
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area
points = 0
D 1.4, �haraCtE�(_M_ics 0, IeasQnALROMir� r ra��AiLOD:
This is the area that is pondedfor at least 2 months. See description in manual.
Area seasonally poncled is > Y2 total area of wetland
points 4
Area seasonally ponded is > Y, total area of wetland
points 2
Area seasonally ponded is < Y. total area of wetland
points 0
D Add the points in the boxes above
Total for I
Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges?
D 2. is > 10% of the area within 150 kof the wetland in land uses that generate p
re there septic systems within 250'ft of the wetland?
D 2-4. Are there e, sources of p Putants com ld�IU OWL Wt:� Il
Yes 1 No 0
Source'
ota I for D 2.11 Add the points in the boxes above
IR
Does the wetland discharge directly (ie., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on I e
303(d) li5t? Y es=1 60=01
I
D 3.3Has'the site been identifled rn a waferrsea or jocat plan as 1111FUTC-777037 PT ficunra-rg-W
Y N0=0
i there is o TMDL for the biasin in which the unit is fo!!'��
Add th v pul ii
Total for D 3 -
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wedarid name or number
b.1_ arattnstics of surfag warty otattlu+rs from t wetlands
tdVetland is a depression or flat repression ith no surface vaster leaving it {no outlet] ptir =v
`
etiand has an lnierll'rittently flowing stream or ditch, EiR highlt+ cohstricted perina'nentiy flowing oat.
tR✓etiand is a flat depression {gUESiEt�i� 7 on kdyJ, whose outlet is a perra�anently flowing ditch point "~
Letiand has an unconstricted or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = fl
D 4.2, tI of stcaraa dtarira w t r fads- I-stirra�tr, lire trei ht of ponding above the bottom f the outlet. For wetlands
with no nj,+tlet," meosure�`'r=,err, thest of a o t rrrrrrraent wfiter € , if dry, the d0epee1 part,
Marlys of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 5
bottom
Blair porrdJC@ between ft t f rifiii itr8"lace or of outlet
Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2ft from surface or bottom of outlet; points = 3
The wetland is a "headwaters' wetland
points = 1
wetiand is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water
points = 0
marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in)
0 43. t arr rTJ uti n tf»e wa t.{and to stoma ire th atershddN 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
rntm
The area of the basin is`10 to 10o times the area of the unit
points = 0
The area of the basin is more than 100 tildes the area of the unit
Entire wetland is 'in the Flats class punts 5
Add the points in the boxes above
Total for D 4
Rating of Site terrtiai if score is.., w_12-1 -_ _ 0 S = L Retard the rating art the first page
Y f tltf t t r l l tt J 06'JrC J� dr ,��r ►t fliat�t i
.....
D 5.1. Does the Wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = L No = 0
7^ :E� No - 0
n land uses that " ff:� "`Yes
5.2. is >10,/� of the area within 150 ft of the wetland igenerate excess riano
D 5.3 Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land us residential at
a1 residdnce/'ICI urban, commercial, agriculture, etc. '`'Yes = No = 0
Add the points in the boxes above
Total for D 5
Rating of L scope Potential If score is: = H 1 or 2 = _0 = L Record the rating an the first page
dr J f Cirtl fi it It alole tb§dqity"'?,
0 6.1. i�r trsaifi is in a l tad5cape that has aloot?lp fof$lela?s, Choose the description that best marches conditions around
the wett€irid urrrt ben°r?p roteci too rtor tidd poirirs r ore the hia ost scars j:Qlore tharOnP conditirarr r"s nosey.
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 recids)
• Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit, points '= 2
• Surface flooding problems are in a slab -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, Exploin why . points = 0
0
There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland, points =
D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control i
Yes - No Q
Add the points in the boxes above
d
Total for 0 6
Rating of Value If score is:-2-4 = H _1 = M ,; 'tl = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western Wk 2014 Update 6
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number k
e,pqtentiail to provi6e, habita t?
and strata within the Forested class, Check the
H 1,1, Structure of plant community: Indic6tors are Cowardin classes
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of,a oc or more than 109s' of the un;t if it is smaller than 2,5 ac, Add the number of structures checked.
Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points 4
s ructurcoomt;'_ 2N,
t,-"SoCftib-shrub (areas whereshrubs have, > 30% cover) (4sfMctures: points =
*,/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. liydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (-hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
m�Xrthan low,,, of the wetland of Y. ac to count (see text for descriptions pfhydroperiods).
*Y9 ermanenfly flooded ar inundated 4 or more types present: points =
seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types p, 0111ts =
ccasionally flooded or inundated 2 tyE�,'s resent :ints =
aturaled only No pr,,
-Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
-Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
-Lake Fringe wetland , 2 points
-Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft',
Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not Include Evrasian miffinif, read canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points 2
5 - 19 species points
< S species
H 1.4. intersOorsion of habitats
Decide frorn the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1A), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudfiats) is high, moderate, low, or none. Ifyou
have four ormore plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low= I point Moderate = 2 points 3
All three diagrams
M
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2'0 1S
Wetland name or number 4A
H 1-5.Special habitat features;
Ched< the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
111-e"'Large, downed, woody debri's within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
7—Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1111)
Undercut banks are present
over a stream for ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 11))
degree
steep banks of fine matedal that might be used by beaver or muskrat for canning (> 30
—Stable
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cutshrubs at- trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed) branches are present in areas that are
least X ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody
—At
/ permanently or seasonally inundated (struct tires for egg laying by amphibions)
�Llnvasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1,1 for list Of
scrota) Add the points in the boxes above
rTotal far H I
Rating of Site Potential if score is:-15-18 = H err 7-Y4 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2,0, Daes the landscape have tNe potential to support the habitat functions of th-esfte?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
0 habitK�7_ + moderate and low intensity land uses)/72]�.�=
Calculate: , % undisturbed
If total accessible habitat is:
points = 3
> '/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon
points = 2
20-33% of I krn Polygon
Zr
jo-19,0% of I krn Polygon -vird's
11 point 0
< 10% of I kril Polygon
habitat in'1 km Polygon around the wetland"
H 2.2. Undisturbed
% undisturbed habitat 2 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/21
Calculate., -I"'
It points= 3
undisto rbed habitat> 50"K Of Polygon
points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1,-3 patches
oi n6 = -I
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km POIV9011
H 23, Land use intensity in I km Polygon- If
points 2'
> 50of I km Polygon is high intensity land use
0
9#* is high 'intensity
50% of I km PON9011
Add the points in the boxes aova
Total for H 2
Rating of Landscape Plotential If score is. rating on the first page
H 3.0-. l9the habitat provide -el by the site vakiabie to society?
H 11, Does 11 t I he 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 ,;rate 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 rn points
t CL jj�'
?' _Poin s
Site dogs �not rnn the first pog e
I M O=L
Rating of Value if score is:_2 = H
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland.narne or number
WDFW Priority Habitats
lit 'Y'bLa_I ed_bYAILF_W (sm ee coplete 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. ` miEa =dt`u :ui= aZQYIMWULAL D—rLsIMMU i a�?'stdAy(jo JAL,41df a r access the list from here:
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 rn) 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 I an (0.4 ha),
— Biodivercity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFWPHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and fortis on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests- fALdIZnQwI_th �,vgjj f ascaA� L_�J - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a raulti-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 ir (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. MLit_"r tqL?_4Lg - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover maybe less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large doiAmed 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 reportp. 158 - see web hok 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).
Instrearn; The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instrearn fish and wildlife resources.
Nearsifore: 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 MIDF14/report -
see web link on previous page).
Coves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages tinder 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 rn) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size M - 6.5 ft (OAIS - 2,0 rn), composed of basalt, andesite,
0
'd/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and urine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
S'nags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decoy 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 diai-neter at the largest end, and > 20 It
(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 is
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland,name or nurnbei-L�
WDFW Priority Habitats
J±:JL)Jjl" as pit s I Qd r y and the counties in which they can
--j&L -by M , (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats,
be found, 1w'Washington Deparouciit of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washingtom
17 7 p P, L, tsad, #WdLwj"� -gbk-
16p I F or access the list from here.
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: Diis question is
independentof the land use beLvveen the wetland unit and the priority habitat
.®- Aspen Stands. Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than I 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 (n 147DFWPHS report).
Old-growth/Natulreforests, -QLd,:g_i vtj weg gf as Stands of at least 2 tree species, fornitaga, multi
layered canopy with occasir,)nA small openiiigs; with at least 8 creez/azc (20 trees/ha) > 32i-n (81 cm) dbhor> 200
y ars of Ige, MgSEqrg ule sts - Stands �,vith average diameters exceedh ig 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
e -�
than '100%; decay, decadence, 11-un'bers ref ),qnags, and quantity of large dovgied 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
col-nponent is important (full descriptions in WDFWPHS report p. 153 - 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 (fidl descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above),
Instream, The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instrearn fish and wildlife resources.
Nearslfore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound plearshore, (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFWreport -
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 in) 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 in), composed of basalt, andesite,
/'tad/or sedimentary rock, including r1prap slides and mine tailings. May be associiited with Cliffs.
Sna-sandLogs: Trees ireconsidered snags �f they are dead or dying and el sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 20 in (5 1 cm) in Western
Washington and are> 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 121 in (30 cm) in diameter atthe largest end, and> 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition -a priority habitat but are not indUded in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update is
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wedand name or numberk_'
j
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 0.5ppl Yes-GotoSC1.1 '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 uncle C 332 30-151?
Yes = Category I M=
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, 1i Ili ng, cultivation, grazing, and has less Cat. I
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non�native species are Spartino, see page 25)
—At least 1/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or Un-
mowed grassland. 1 Cat. 11
—The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes Category I No Category 11
F.7 n iM. 0 F.1
their website? Yes= Categoryl
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Weiland,name or number
SC 4.0. Forested wetlands
Does the wetland have at least contieuous 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 ill still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
— old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
— Mature forests (west of the -Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes = Category I (No Not a forested wetland for this section
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 (needs ta,be measured near the bottom)
Cat. I
Yes -GotoSC5.1 /"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. 11
—At least Y. 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 '/,o ac (4350 ft)
Yes = Category I 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 SR 103
Cat I
— Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
— ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SIR 109 1 Yes not an interclunal wetland for rating
Go to SC 6
- .1
SC 6.1. Is the wetland I 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 I ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is I ac or larger?
Yes = Category 11 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 I ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Cat.
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
f A
I L_Lf you answered No for all types, enter "N
L
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
` M
Cowardin Plant Classes
20 G Aerial
. .
1 inch equals 100 feet
ju ` 01
Feet
CITy OF FEDERAL WAY 0 50 100 200
CDS
�a L�, z�,Db
Figui 1 "'Cc
201
Figure 2 Hydroperiods and Outlet Location
N 2012 USGS Aerial
1 inch equals 100 feet
A m MM
Feet
0 50 100 200
Figure - Contributing Basin
2012 USGS Aerial
1 inch equals 300 feet
Feet
0 150 300 600
BEE=
Kill PAN
IL --Am
0 500 1,000 2,000
Water Quality Assessment Map Viewer
-ment r- \Nashi� iqton
vvatei t-2uality Asslass. L 0', L
Water Quality Assessment for Washington Data Disclaimer Privacy Notice Contact Us
Copyright ,D 2012 Washington State Department of Ecology. All Rlghts Reserved.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wqamapi,iewer/default.aspx?rcs=l 680xI 050
"mdtei taaCaty IM'r1rayernedi > aL%a er t aaafatw t rarovdr rrt Prlt tts
b '"otaaa > Pierce County
tierce County projects
7e following table lists overview information for water quality improvement
projects (including total
iaximum daily loads, or TMDLs) for this county. Please use links (where available) for more information
on
project.
To get additional information about the waterbodies In Pierce County please use the 2L3Jgr QMAb_
A .e5�,�m.r`fC_�itit:ry I"G+o&,
WRIAs in Pierce County
ARIA 10 - Puyallup -White
® WRIA 11 - Nisqually
WRIA 12 - Chambers -Clover
® V RIA 15 - Kitsap
WRIA 26 - Cowlitz
Waterbod Name Pollutants y
I Status
TDL Lead
Clarks Creek Oisso:vaa _&Y_gen
Approved by EPA
Arett Ratan
Meeker Creek Sediment
360-690-4660
Has an
implementation plan
Fecal Coliform
Approved by EPA
Has implementation
plan
Clover Creek Dissolved Oxygen
TMDL project under
2g'Li4yafa Gray'
Fecal Coliform
development
360-407-6407
Temperature
Coatamea-0n10t -bay. Dioxin
Approved by EPA
Donovan G,ra+r
360 407-6407
p+Il5guaGly Watershed Fecal Coliform
Approved by EPA
OtMne van t raw
Tributaries: Dissolved Oxygen
Has implementation
360-407-6407
plan
• McAllister Creek
• Chop Creek
• Red Salmon Creek
• Lynch Creek
• Wash Creek
• Unnamed Tributary to
West Red Salmon
Creek
• Little McAllister Creek
p Medicine Creek mouth
Ei2U LD2fprera;, Approved by EPA ngvan Oray
360-407-6407
Multi-oardairngter Approved by EPA
Ammonia-PIROD (5-day)
White River Watershed
Upper White: Approved by EPA
Sediment
Temperature
Lower White
® pH
South Prairie Creek
Fecal Coliform
Tributary:
Temperature
Wilkeson/Gale
Creek
http:/hvw rv.ccy.tva.govtprograiiis/"q/tu5diri'MI)LsbyCountg(pierce,litinl
Under Development
Approved by EPA ftQnoyaA (Ira,
Has implementation 360-407-6407
plan
of Ecology
'WETLAND DETERMli,.ATION oATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Kenn City/County: Eqq9aL!6bJLKjSampling Date: LB- rf .20 15
Applicant/Owner: Lyle Kann State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1
Investigator(s): R. Kin Section, Township, Range: N��21 Rq,4.lj
g
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc le rrAce Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <5
Subregion (LRR): A Let: 472841 Long: _-12Za4704 Datum: WGS 1984
Soil Map Unit Name: Norma NWI classification: E_S$
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 0 No El (if no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Ell, Soil [I, or Hydrology Ell, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes JZ No El
Are Vegetation 0, Soil 0, or Hydrology EI, 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 E No [I
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Z No ❑El Is the Sampled Area Yes ED No El
within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of
Tree Stratum (Plot slze:
2, Eraxnuslatafolta
3,
4,
50% = 20%
SapI /S rub Stratunj (Plot size:
1. Safix lucida
2, agittj22f&8sfi
3.
4-
5-
50% = 20%
Herb, Stratum (Plot size:
1, -
2.
3,
4.
5.
6,
7,
B.
10,
11,
50% 20%
)1+sr2dy Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2
50% 20%
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
of Cover
_S29C-402
Status
20
Yes—
fAC
Number of Dominant Species
75
Ygs—
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
20
yes
FACW
Prevalence Index worksheets
i0_0
FACW
Total V, Cover of
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Total Cover
FACU species
UPIL species
4 (A)
4 (B)
100 (A/B)
RO&ILAlL
X1 =
x2 =
x3 =
x4 =
x5 =
Column Totals: - ----------- I (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = BIA
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
E] 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3,0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
EI 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
[I Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic,
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes 0 No El
Total Cover Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0
Project Site: Kenny
SOIL
Samoling P60 DP-1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth
needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc'
Texture Remarks
0-18+ 1 OYR 211 >60
§&qqy fgarn inundatedaissuLned pigfi
'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains, 2
Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
El Histosol (Al)
El Sandy Redox (S5)
El 2 cm Muck (At 0)
El Histic Epipedon (A2)
El Stripped Matrix (S6)
El Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Black Histic (A3)
El Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (except MLRA 1)
El Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
[:1 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
El Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
El Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl)
El Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
El Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
El Peace Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed or roblematio
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes El Nc
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
F07
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (Al)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
El
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
High Water Table (A2)
(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
(MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3)
El
Salt Crust (1311)
E]
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Water Marks (Bl)
E]
Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
E]
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
0
Sediment Deposits (132)
El
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CII)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
El
Drift Deposits (133)
El
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Geomorphic Position (132)
0
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
El
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
EJ
Iron Deposits (135)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
*
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑
Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)
El
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
*
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
El
Other (Explain in Remarks)
El
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
El Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ED No El Depth (inches): 12*
Water Table Present? Yes S No El Depth (inches): 0*
Saturation Present? Yes 0 No El Depth (inches}: 0* Wetland Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Yes g No El
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2,0
WETLAND DETERMtam ATION oATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Kenn y CityiCounty: ftgg[ALV6Tat�sKiag Sampling Date: 26-17-2015
AppliGant/Owner: lyle Kenny State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2
lnvestigator(s): R. King Section, Township, Range: NW30-21N R —04E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): h Llia" s Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): :<5
L
Subregion (LRR): A Let: !t728418 Long: -A2234_70A Datum: CGS 1_984
Soil Map Unit Name: &Ld—emyood NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ED No El (if no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation El, Soil El, or Hydrology El, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes ED No El
Are Vegetation El, Soil El, or Hydrology El, 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 El
No 0
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes [I
No [0 Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑
within a Wetland?
No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes El
No ED__
Remarks:
VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants
Treqjt�a� (Plot size:
Absolute
, Cover
Domino Indicator
es? pqs Status
Se
k ,&t
Dominance Test Worksheets
1. Alnus rubra
10-0
Yes— PAC
Number of Dominant Species 2
(A)
2,
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3,
Total Number of Dominant 1
(B)
4-
Species Across All Strata:
50% 20%
Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species 60
(AID)
§Ap��i-!jhruq riiijurtl (Plot size:
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
1 gaulthena shallon
100
s UPL
Prevalence Index worksheets
2,
Total 1L. Cover of Myltip[y b
3.
OBL species x1
4
FACW species x2
5,
FAC species x3
50% = 20%
Total Cover
FACU species x4
Herb Straigm (Plot size:
UPL species u x5
1
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
2.
Prevalence Index = B/A
3,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.,,,,,
E] I — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.
El 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6,
El 3 - Prevalence Index is <3 0'
7
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
8
El data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
91
El 5 - Welland Non -Vascular Plants'
10, —
0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11.
50% 20%
Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic,
j6&p;!y _ _yJJne Straturn (Plot size:_)
1.
Hydrophytic
2
Vegetation Yes El No
50% 20%
Total Cover
Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2-0
WETLAND DETERMI,-,ATION DATA FORM — Western Mountaim, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Kenn
----y
City/County� f Wa 11<0 Sampling Date: 25-17-2015
4&MLtq
Applicant/Owner: !yLe Kenny
State: WA Sampling Point: DP-4
Investigater(s): R. King
Section, Township, Range: ; 921N_RJ4_�
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): fgLracq
Local relief (concave, convex, none). qprLc@ye Slope (%): �<5
Subregion (LRR): A
Lot: 4?.2 Long: -122,,�704 Datum: VVQSJ984
Soil Map Unit Name: Norma
NWI classification: PSS
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes [El No El (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Ell, Soil Ell, or Hydrology
Ell, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No El
Are Vegetation Ell, Soil Ell, or Hydrology
0, 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 0 No 0 1
Hydric Soil Present?
Is the Sampled Area Yes 0 No El
Yes IZ No El within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes El No El
VEGETATION - Use scien ficc names of plants
T l (Plot size:
1:Leg,5
Absoiute_Dorrinant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheets
!/o v r Status
1, 8p ,2 ytusba(4�a_rnffera
2-0 Yes- FAC Number of Dominant Species 2 (A)
�Iia
2. Erqxm(LS1atJt
Yes. That Are OBL, FACK or FAC: -
75 FACW
3
Total Number of Dominant 2 (B)
4,
Species Across All Strata:
50% 20%
Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 100 (A/B)
§gp i "nL$ h r u Altrp ukti (Plot size:
L
That Are OBL, FACK or FAC:
1
Prevalence Index worksheets
Z
Iota] 1/. Cover or; M942ly—by-
1
OBL species X1 -
4,
FACW species x2 =
5,
FAC species x3 =
50% 20%
Total Cover FACU species — x4 =
tLg& �atum (Plot size:
UPIL species x5 =
I
Column Totals: — (A) (13)
2,
Prevalence Index = B/A
3
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.
E] 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5,
[] 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6,
El 3 - Prevalence Index is <3,0'
7,
4 - Morpldollogical Adaptations' (Provide supporting
&
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9,
El 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
10
El Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11.
50% 20%
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic,
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1,
Hydrophytic
2-
Vegetation Yes 21 No El
50% 20%
Total Cover Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
Project Site: lKenny
1 4
SOIL
Semolina Poi-'- DP-4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth
needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist}_ % Type' Lee?
Texture Remarks
P & 10YR 212 > 60
— —
_sandy I qarn
18 + jOYR 412 >60
10 YR518 >5
say-10am
'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grads- 2
Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
El Histosol (At)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
El 2 cm Muck (Al 0)
El Histic Epipeclon (A2)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
D Red Parent Material (TF2)
El Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) (except MLRA 1)
0 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
El Hydrogen Sulfide (4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
El Other (Explain in Remarks)
EI Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
El Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (SI)
E] Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
'Inclicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Cloyed Matrix (S4)
❑El Redox Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed ar roblematio,
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
— — ----------- - - -----
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No ❑
Remarks:
sii
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
El
Surface Water (Al)
El
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
El
High Water Table (A2)
(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
(IVILRA 1, 2,4A, and 4B)
El
Saturation (A3)
❑
Salt Crust (B1 1)
E]
Drainage Patterns (B 10)
El
Water Marks (Bl)
El
Aquatic invertebrates (1313)
E]
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
El
Sediment Deposits (132)
El
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
E]
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
*
Drift Deposits (133)
El
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
*
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
El
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
*
Iron Deposits (135)
El
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
El
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
0
Stunted or Stresses Plants (DI) (LRIR A)
E]
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
JZ
Inundation Visible on Aerial lmaqg�K)
El
Other (Explain in Remarks)
E]
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
El Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
d Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes El No El Depth (inches): 6:
Water Table Present? Yes El No El Depth (inches): Q*
Saturation Present? Yes 0 No El Depth (inches): A! Wetland Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: *Earlier in the growing season
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
WETLAND DIETERMImATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Kenny City/County: EgqjMLLAaV,in Sampling Date: Q6-1L.-_201 5
Applicant/Owner: Lyle Kenny State: WA Sampling Point: DP-5
lnvestigator(s): R. Kin Section, Township, Range: NW3021141104F
----g L_
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc,): LiiLlsjM Local relief (concave, convex, none): Done Slope (%): f�5
Subregion (LRR): Ai Let: 4:7 2a418 Long: I _ZZ34704 Datum: VV(1S 1984
Soil Map Unit Name: 6wqrwowd NWI classification: WA
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 0 No El (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation El, Soil El, or Hydrology 0, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes El No El
Are Vegetation El, Soil El, or Hydrology 0, 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 [J No Z
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes El No E within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes El No ED
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of
Try _atratrm (Plot size:
1, Alnus rubra
2.
3
4.
50% = 20%
_qLb lt_lr ruis SJrAltlrn (Plot size:
1: aquffhertga shallon
2,
3,
4,
5
50% 20%
liqrl tralurn (Plot size:
1. —
2
3,
4.
5,
6.
8.
10
11-
50% 20%
Dp_ody raaL _jgM (Plot size:
1 Rubus ursinus
2.
50% = — 20%
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks
Absc-Iu—te' Dominant Indicat
% Cover 5211—MS7 iStatus
so yes LAQ
Total Cover
20
YLS- FACU
=Total Cover
Total Cover
yes- FACU
Total Cover
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, PACK or FAC,
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total _% Cover of:
OBL species
FACW species
PAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Yes El No
3 (A)
1 (B)
33 (A/13)
Multi ,%
X1 =
x2 =
x3 =
x4 =
x5 =
Column Totals: — (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = BIA
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
E] 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
El 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
El 3 - Prevalence Index is <3,0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
El data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
El 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
El Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes ❑ No
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2-0
�
+
°
�
�a� ��SOIL
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
' Color (m«isu m _
_%_ Type' _Loc_
_Texture Remarks
_Vnc»esi.'
y-1 2 jOozR 2/2
12-18+� 1 CYl4/4
'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ' Location:
rL=poreLining, M=mamx
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless
o therwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'�
O *|otoo^/(Al)
O
Sandy mmu"x(ae)
O uomMuck (Al o)
O x|st|uspioeu"nIWu)
O
ex'/nned Mamx(ae)
O Red Parent Material (Tpo)
D Black x/pon(Aa)
O
Loamy Mucky Mineral (rl)(except MLmx1)
O Very Shallow Dark Surface (rp1u)
O Hydrogen Sulfide (w)
O
Loamy Gloved Matrix (F2)
B Other (Explain mRemarks)
O Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
O
Depleted Matrix (F3)
O Thick Dark Surface (A,2)
O
mauovDark Surface (m)
• Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl)
E]
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
`Indicators of hydrophytic vegetationu
wetland hydrology must be present,
• Sandy Cloyed Matrix (S4)
El
Redox Depressions (F8)
unless
Restrictive Layer (if present),
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes El No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
El Surface Water (Al) El Water -Stained Leaves (139)
O High Water Table (A2) (except mLRA1.u.wA,and 4g
O Saturation (A3) U Salt Crust (sl 1)
O Water Marks (ml) O Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
O Sediment Deposits (ou) O Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (nl)
O Drift Deposits (o3) O Oxidized xhuospmammalong uvmu Ruots(o3)
O Algal Mat orCrust (o4) O Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
O Iron oopomuo(ao) O Recent Iron neovmnn in Tilled avns(u6)
O Surface Soil Cracks (B6) O Stunted orStresses Plants (oI)(LRmA)
O Inundation Visible o^Aerial Imagery (or) O Other (Explain mRemarks)
OSparsely Vegetated Concave Surface
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes El No ED Depth (inches): M/A
Water Table Present? Yes El No ED Depth (inches): >18
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >18 Wetland Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary fringe) I
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), ifavailable:
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
El Water -Stained Leaves (Bg)
(MLRA1.2,wA, andwB)
O Drainage Patterns (a10)
O Dry -Season Water Table (Cu)
O Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
O Geomorphic Position (ou)
O Shallow Anu/tard(oo)
O pxc-mavoa|Test (os)
O Raised Ant Mounds (ue)(LRnA)
O Frost -Heave Hummocks (o/)
FOUN
Yes O No �
US Army Corps of Engineers
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast—versionxu
Project Site: Kenny
SOIL Anrnnlinn Point,
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
mUlCaLOrS.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type, Lee?
Texture Remarks
_Q-1 2 jOYR 212
sand to irn
12-18+ LOYR 4�14 —
'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis':
El Histosol (All)
El Sandy Redox (S5)
El 2 cm Muck (At 0)
0 Histic Epipedon (A2)
El Stripped Matrix (S6)
El Red Parent Material (TF2)
El Black Histic (As)
El Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (except MLRA 1)
El Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
El Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
El Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
El Depleted Matrix (F3)
El Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
El Redox Dark Surface (F6)
El Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
31ndicaters of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Cloyed Matrix (S4)
El Redox Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed o emblematic,
§1
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Pre , sent? Yes El No
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
...... ............... ............. .....
0
Surface Water (Al)
E]
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
El
High Water Table (A2)
(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413)
El
Saturation (A3)
El
Salt Crust (B1 1)
El
Water Marks (131)
El
Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
0
Sediment Deposits (132)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
El
Drift Deposits (133)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
[:1
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
El
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
El
Iron Deposits (135)
El
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
El
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
El
Stunted or Stresses Plants (DI) (LRR A)
E]
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
El
Other (Explain in Remarks)
El
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes El No
Depth (inches): N/A
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Water Stained Leaves (139)
(MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 4B)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
E] Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
E] Geomorphic Position (D2)
E] Shallow Acurtard (D3)
E] FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
C] Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
E] Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Water Table Present? Yes 0 Na 0 Depth (inches): >16
Saturation Present? Yes 0 Na ED Depth (inches): >18 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 121
(includes capRiary fringe,1
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 DETERMi-ATION DATA FORM - Western Mountainz,, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project Site: Kenny City/County: Federal 4av,tfinrs Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: LjleKenny State: WA Sampling Point: DP-3
_--
Invesfigator(s): R. King Section, Township, Range: _NW302INR04F
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc,): hfltLsloqe Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): <5
Subregion (LRR): A Let: 4�7_28_418 Long: -�M.14704 Datum: VVGS 1984
Soil Map Unit Name: & —
_dp-ood NWI classification: NIA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No El (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation 0, Soil Ell, or Hydrology E], significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No El
Are Vegetation El, Soil El, or Hydrology [I, 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 D No
Is the Sampled Area Yes El No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes [I No ED within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes El No El
Remarks:
1 it
Tree Siraturn (Plot size:
Absolute
I/L� gy
Dominant
Spesigs?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test Worksheet:
1 , ALth
ves
EN
Number of Dominant Species 5J
(A)
2, fraxinks hetito a
L
20
Y92.
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3.
—
Total Number of Dominant 2
(B)
Species Across All Strata:
4,
50% 20%
Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species 40
(A B)
Sapltrig1 rub Stratum (Plot size:
That Are OBL, FACW, or PAC: —
1
100
ves
FACU
Prevalence Index worksheets
2,
Total % Cover of:
3.
OBL species X1 = _
4,
v
FACW species x2 = —
5
FAC species x3 =
50% 20%
Total Cover
FACU species x4 =
HeLtStral-grn,(Plot size:
UPL species u X5 =
1, B&Sfichinuin rarutrarurta
20
Yes—
EA_C Lt
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
2,
Prevalence Index = B/A
3.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4,
E] 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5,
El 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
&
E] 3 - Prevalence Index is <3 0'
7,
4 - MorphO14Cal Adaptations' (Provide supporting
El data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
E] 5 - Welland Non -Vascular Plants'
10,
0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
50% 20%
Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic,
Woody Mne,rqturn (Plot size:
1. Rubusursinus
40
Yes—
EACH
Hydrophytic
2 —
Vegetation Yes ❑ No
50% = — 20% =
= Total Cover
Present?
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0
Project Site: Kenny
SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist)_ % Type' Loc?
Texture Remarks
0-1_2 _LOYR IL 2 _
�.
sandy loam
12- 1_8 + 10YR 414
'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,
CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains, 2
Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless
otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sells':
El Histasol (Al)
El
Sandy Redox (S5)
El 2 cm Muck (Al 0)
El Histic Epipeclon (A2)
El
Stripped Matrix (S6)
0 Red Parent Material (TF2)
El Black Histic (A3)
El
Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (except MLRA 1)
E] Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
0
Loamy Cloyed Matrix (F2)
El Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1)
El
Depleted Matrix (F3)
El Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
El Sandy Mucky Mineral (SI)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
El Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
El
Redox Depressions (F8)
unitLs disfur
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soils
Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
V11AN"T , I 1 11 41 -1
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
El
Sur -face Water (Al)
E]
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
El
Water -Stained Leaves (Fig)
E]
High Water Table (A2)
(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413)
(MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 4B)
El
Saturation (A3)
El
Salt Crust (611)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑
Water Marks (B1)
E]
Aquatic Invertebrates (13 13)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑
Sediment Deposits (B2)
El
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
El
Drift Deposits (133)
El
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
El
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
E]
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
El
Iron Deposits (B5)
El
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
E]
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
E]
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
El
Stunted or Stresses Plants (DI) (LRR A)
E]
Raised Ant Mounds (DG) (LRR A)
M
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
El
Other (Explain in Remarks)
E]
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
[I Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes El No Depth (inches): N/A
Water Table Present? Yes El No 0 Depth (inches): ?�l 8
Saturation Present? Yes El No Depth (inches}:
>1 8 Wetland Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
M
Yes E] No ED
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2,0
Figure y r riods and Outlet Location
2012 USGS Aerial
1 inch equals 100 feet
Feet
0 50 100 200
CITY OF
Federal My
Z�M
R
HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
Doug Williams Email: dc ugfr�goteaniredxorn
Keller Williams Realty Puget Sound
33434 8"' Avenue South, Suite 103
Federal Way, WA 98003
Re: File #15-101380-00-AD; KENNY WETLAND DELINEATION PEER REVIEw FINDINGS
922 SW 356 T11 St., Federal Way (Parcel Nos. 3021049076,3021049076 & 3021049007)
1167117110GEMI
Please find the enclosed requested peer review for the 'Critical Area Report of the Kenny Properties,' for the
above-i-nentioned parcels, prepared by Robert King, Wetlands Northwest LLC, on June 30, 2015. The
Department's on -call consultant, ESA Associates, has determined the wetland delineation must be revised in
order to comply with the City's critical area codes and approved federal wetland delineation manual and
11]][11s; Phe�� 11 - bet
a1-4won&�steric i� weeathe_s�._i:i
141111
PEER REVIEw/TECHNICAL REvIEW COMMENTS
Based upon a field investigation and a review of the documentation provided, ESA recommends the following.
Re -delineate the boundary of Wetlands A and B on the west side of Parcel 302104-9607.
Revise the wetland data sheets for completeness and accuracy.
Revise the wetland rating, forms for consistency with comments in this memorandum, or provide
rationale to Support an alternative response.
The City accepts ESA's recommendations and they shall be addressed by a professional wetland scientist prior
to report acceptance and any future site development.
CLOSING
Please submit three copies of the revised/new wetland delineation. Clearly indicating in writing how you have
addressed the peer review recommendations and findings to the Permit Center at 33325 8"' Avenue South,
Federal Way.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or Your project., please contact me at 253-835-2644, or
lei la.willoughby-oakes@cltyoffederalway.com.
Sincerell'?,
eila Willoughby-Oakag Associate Planner
C. Lyle Kenny- 922 S 356"' Street. Federal Way- WA 98023 Email: LytJ1 1ed1 -es)
(Owner. incl. Enclosures)
enc: ESA Peer Review Report. May 5- 2016 (Wetland Determination Review: Kenny Property, Federal Way)
Doc I D 73,398
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 3:07 PM
To: 'Robert King'
Subject: RE: Email Address
Greetings Robert,
I spoke with Mr. Williams representing the Kenny property. I believe he did not understand the processes available
through the city in regards to buffer reductions and reasonable use of a subject property available under FWRC
19.145.440 and submittal requirements (Use Process III https., wa
federalwa .chic lus.com idcumentCentr Jew 6309); which would require further environmental justification studies
including for instance a buffer reduction enhancement plan incorporated into the critical area report. Unfortunately, the
applicants do not have a development proposal which is an issue as future buyers will be subjected to those limitations
of the footprint and buffer that is approved; which is a risk and those future buyers should be aware of this. It is the
applicant's responsibility of convincing the director that, under the provisions of this chapter, the applicant is entitled to
the requested decision and that the proposal meets the decisional criteria of FWRC 19.65.100 which is some technical
leg work. Formerly, these reductions and encroachments went to the Hearing Examiner for approval.
If they wish to deviate from the proposed buffer reduction accepted by the city they would need to revise the
environmental approvals. I have suggested he submit a pre -application to understand the process. The Process III
application will require a full site survey and the wetland boundaries and buffer flagged and surveyed by a PLS. If a
buffer reduction or averaging is approved, a notice on title would be required to be filed with the King County
Recorder's Office.
I would highly suggest he retain a professional land use consultant to navigate the land use process to expedite the
project. Or will you be assisting on this application? Use Process III's are not typically prepared by the landowners
themselves.
With thanks,
L. Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal A 98003-6325
[`bone: 253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-260*,
Land Use Forins: htt ://ivi,,Nv.cit-yoffederaiNvay.com/index.asp�x?nid h
For general planning inquiries please call. 253-835-2655. The on -call planner will assist you.
From: Robert King [_mailto:robert wetlandsnw. om]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 9:19 AM
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Subject: Email Address
EM
I lii IMIF I'M 111115 ROME !11111 11 111 1 11111111
•=• I•mogm
11=416 =f,
Robert &ing, PTTS
Principal
Wetlands Northwest LLC
5218 Ivanhoe PI NE
Seattle, WA 98105
bus: 206-456-5474
mob: 206-554-1628
�• .n <a-
0 C) Cl) C)
O N r CD
O O p
O CD C) N
C)
O CD CD
CD CD c
M O M co N r- O O CDr (0to O {O C7
C
cn cc
� co co)
5 _
RO O to '. C0 ® CO
O r N M Ci O
CJ
CY R N 'a .. O L, 0
.D O N �'•-
C) to R
r
tn (.0
C)o C) M N M o N (n � 00
N
..,
C h` CC)C) (`} AI CO LO M Cl O 4m? O p t
ca o' r o ", (v c0
Co COO �' N OD n i
CD CN
CD
ms
("3 N C7 ® Q _:N N p `.emu
M(N N 7.� co CJ O CO M
04 � a a10
o -o �N o co C3
® Mi M O co C3 O CD M C;>
o o N� N Co M
o co M N a N am,
ICO CD CD SI co co ' CD
r o: N � smJ � 0 44,01 00 -
N co Cc
M CO CCk oO
9 N O N CD
co
F o
Caco
CD J ' uo � ' i� Win. CC CD
co CD (p r- n - „ M `� e+ o
r. & Cc �` ' N CO �, a N 00 N
�.�' a-5 CO.
mz
(7 QD
^tia ."y CFQ? C4
CD N
O p
to
.m�
co
co CD
O 00
O CIACii ® O
O
N CD O 0) 4'
:- CD
,.•" C") N CJ Vo p
o o a co �r
' 1 LOo
CD
co
CD
co
to
co
l 4
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
NEWUNIM 111 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 ,
Subject: FW: Pending Wetland Report Revisions- Kenny Properties
From: Doug Williams [mailto:douqg-goteamred-com]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 4:41 PM
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Cc: robert@wetlqndsnw.com; flon Logan; Kathryn Kleber
Subject: Re: Pending Wetland Report Revisions- Kenny Properties
Hi Leila,
Thank you for asking. Robert has completed the revisions to his report. I hope to submit the revised report to
you tomorrow.
Regards,
Doug Williams
a R&IBM111=111100 0
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Leila Willoughby -Oakes <Leila.Willou hb - Sakes Aci offederalway.com>
wrote:
Good afternoon Mr. Williams and Mr. King,
The City is checking the status of this peer review permit.
Please find the attached review memorandum and review comments from the city's on -call third party
consultant (ESA). If you do not wish to proceed with these report revisions at this time, please notify the permit
centre at PermitCenter citovffederalway.com to close the file. A revised report would be required by the City
@� - _U
for any future site development.
1
Please note Wetland Studies remain valid for 5 years per FVMC 19.145.10(1), after such date the city shall
determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary.
am��I �
HNNH= ; •.�
33325 8h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone: 253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
�L,kk,av,cityqffedcra]Nk,a�,.c,oni
Land Use Forms: http:/tNvww.eltv_coffe4eralway.com/index,,acnv'? id=481
For general planning inquiries please call. 253-835-2655. The on -call planner will assist you.
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 9:54 AM
To: 'Robert King'
Cc: 'Doug Williams';'Ilon Logan'
Subject: RE: Email Address
Attachments: 001 Process III or IV Submittal Requirements-Fillable.pdf, Master Land Use-Fillable.pdf,
Resubmittallnformation.pdf
Greetings Robert,
Please find the attached applications and submittal checklist for a Use Process III and Master Land Use
Application, approvals are subject to a list of criteria that must be met below. I would note that only an average
sized home would be likely approvable if such criteria were met.
(3) The city may approve a modification or waiver of the requirements of this chapter on a case -by -case basis based on the
following criteria:
(a) The application of the provisions of this chapter eliminates all reasonable use of the subject property;
(b) No feasible and reasonable on -site alternatives to the proposal are possible, such as changes to site layout and/or
reduction of impervious improvements;
(c) It is solely the implementation of this chapter, and not other factors, that preclude all reasonable use of the subject
property;
(d) The applicant has in no way created or exacerbated the condition that forms the limitation on the use of the subject
property, nor in any way contributed to such limitation; and
(e) The waiver or modification will not lead to, create nor significantly increase the risk of injury or death to any person or
damage to improvements on or off the subject property.
A Use Process III is typically subject to a pre -application conference and this is advisable to ensure the
application is feasible and ensure a complete submittal. Further please find the following code section on
reasonable use HERE:
(FWRC 19.145). Proposals on lands covered by water are subject to SEPA.
Any environmental documentation would go through a peer review. Please attached a completed resubmittal
sheet to the revised wetland report, underlining your revisions addressing ESA's recommendations (this will
assist our peer reviewer).
With thanks,
Leila
From: Robert King rrnaiito: obert r etlandsnw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 9:19 A
: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Subject: Email Address
Leila,
Thank you for speaking with me today. You can send me the reasonable use information to my email address.
Robert King, PWS
Principal
Wetlands Northwest LL
5218 Ivanhoe PI NE
Seattle, WA 98105
bus: 206-456-474
mob: 20-5-162
2
•
FIT M-
Project:
Project Location:
City File No.:
Applicant Contact:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
WETLANDS CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM
August 24, 2015
Ilon Logan
Environmental Science Associates
5309 Shilshole Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98107
Kenny Wetland Review
922 SW 356th Street. APNs 302104-9076, -9079, and -9007
City Staff Contact:
Documents Provided:
Task Scope:
Task Cost:
Doc. I.D. 70580
Doug Williams
Keller Williams Realty Puget Sound
33434 8th Ave S. #103
Federal Way, WA 98003
253,252.4880
W I uLva4 A
Senior planner — 153.835.2638
Critical Area Report — Wetland Delineation and Rating
Wetland Review Basic Service
• Review of wetland delineation report
• Site visit
• Memorandum of findings
Not to exceed $1,690.00 without a prior written amendment to this Task
Authorization.
Date
ESA
attached
via messenger
to Leila Willoughby Oakes
City of Federal Way
Community Development
City Hall
33325 8 Ih Ave, South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
M�Mlll
items Kenny Property
comments Please find attached a signed contract authorization.
Thank you.
■
x via regular mail
via overnight mail
RVJR�Ms IMMUT1111 Mo
r
August 4, 2015
Attn: Isaac Conlon
Planning Manager, City of Federal Way
RE: Critical Area Report for Tax Parcels: 302104-9076, -9079, -9007
922 SW 356th St, Federal Way
Dear Sir,
I am submitting the critical area report for the subject tax parcels on behalf of Mr. Lyle Kenny, the
property owner. The report was prepared by Robert King, Wetlands Northwest LLC.
As we discussed over the phone yesterday, I should submit the report for your department's initial
review. After reviewing the document you will be able to determine if it can be approved as submitted
without any further review.
Two copies of the report are attached. If you desire, I can also submit an electronic document.
Sincerely,
c S
Doug it iams
Keller Williams Realty Puget Sound
33434 8th Ave. S. #103
Federal Way, WA 98003
206-371-9002
RECEIVED
CrrY F FEDERAL WAY
DS