19-101051CITY OF
Federal Way
Centered on Opportunity
March 8, 2019
Mr. Jason Walker, PWS
Perteet Inc.
2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900
Everett, WA 98201
jason.wgdker@per-teet.co
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
FILE
Re: File #19-101051-00-AD (18-139080-00-VO); REQUEST FOR THIRD PARTY REVIEW
Brambila/Guzman Wetland Violation, Parcel 292104-9044, Federal Way
Dear Mr. Walker:
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
Please -find the enclosed task authorization form and critical area report for a scoped third party review of the
Brambila-Guzman Wetland/Stream Report to resolve violation file number 18-103908-00-VO (August 23,
2018). City staff is requesting review pursuant to the agreed terms of the on -call contract. Please review the
scope of work on the task authorization form, enter the task cost on page two of the document, and return it
to the city. Following the deposit of funds by the applicant, staff will provide you with an authorization to
proceed with the scope of work, to include a field visit and letter of concurrence.
Please contact me at 253-835-2644, or leila.aiJloughby-Oakes(@,,cityoff'ederalway.com. if you have any
questions regarding this task.
Sincerel ,
r
L ' Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
enc: Task Authorization Form
Annotated Beaver Creek Report (8-30-2018)
19-101051-00-AD Doc. I.D. 78844
CITY OF
Federal Way
Centered on Opportunity
March 15, 2019
Mr. Abel Brambila-Guzman
36606 Pacific Highway South
Federal Way, WA 98003
abelbimnbilaguzman@v,ahoo.com
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www. cityoffederalway. cori
BILE
Re: File #19-101051-00-AD; WETLAND CONSULTANT REVIEW ESTIMATE
Brambila-Guzman Wetland/Stream Delineation, 36606 Pacific Hwy. S., Federal Way
Dear Mr. Brambila-Guzman:
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
Enclosed please find the consultant task authorization with a scope -of -work for review of the critical areas
report. The department's wetland consultant, Perteet, Inc., was asked to provide an estimate for their review
of the information prepared by Bear Creek Environmental Services, Inc., and a field visit to confirm site
conditions and evaluate if there are critical area intrusions without approvals.
The normal course of action is for the city to set up an account to be funded by the applicant and drawn
down by the work performed by Perteet, Inc. Please note that if any of the funds are not used, they will be
returned to the applicant. A check in the amount of $2,481.00 payable to the City of Federal Way, and
signature on the enclosed consultant authorization form, must be submitted before the review will begin.
Please note —this fee covers a specific scope -of -work. Additional reviews or meetings beyond that identified
in the scope -of -work will require a supplemental cost and authorization. Following receipt, I will authorize
Perteet to begin their formal review. The site violation on site will not be lifted until the City of Federal Way
approves your critical area delineation, existing conditions, and if necessary, a buffer restoration plan. The
applicant must resolve these issues prior to a building permit submittal.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or your project, please contact me at 253-835-2644, or
leila.,,viiloughbv-olkesQcitvoffederahyay.com.
Sincer , .
l
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
L �r
enc: Wetland Consultant Authorization Form
Invoice
Beaver Creek Environmental Services, Inc., mheckert(@O.com
Thomas Thompson Architect, 29619 15th Avenue NE, Stanwood, WA 98292,yjy rcd rm:uI,coM
Doc I.D. 78847
19-101031-00-AD -
CITY OF
Fes... Federal Way
Centered on Opportunity
June 27, 2019
Mr. Enrique Islas
2606 70h Avenue East, Suite 104
Fife, WA 98424
en riQue@elrinconsitoxom
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www. cityoffederalway.. com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
FILE
Rea File #19-101051-AD; WETLAND REVIEW / LAND USE APPROVALS REQUIRED
Brambila-Guzinan Wetland/Stream, 36606 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way
Dear Mr. Islas:
The City of Federal Way received a Wetlands and Drainage.- Corridors Evaluation & Delineation Report for the
Brambila Residence, prepared by Beaver Creek Environmental Services (August 2018). The current application
is associated with a property violation for unauthorized work within critical areas (file 18-139080-VO).
WETLAND REPORT
The city forwarded the report to our consultant, Perteet, for their review. Perteet completed a site visit April
11, 2019, reviewed relevant documents, and prepared an April 24, 2019, technical review memo. The city
concurs with Perteet's review and report revision recommendations addressing unauthorized critical area
intrusions, bridge replacement, and the placement of fill within critical area buffers (stream and wetlands).
LAND USE APPROVAL REQUIRED
Development within a wedand buffer, stream buffer, and/or a stream crossing requires a Process III land use
review. Process III is an administrative review conducted by city staff with a final decision issued by the
Director of Community Development. You may submit the above critical• area intrusions requests
concurrently under one land use application. Revisions to the existing stream crossing are necessary in order
to reduce environmental impacts.
All projects proposing development within a wetland require a Process IV "Hearing Examiner" decision.
This is quasi-judicial review, with a public hearing and city staff recommendation issued by the Community
Development Director prior to the hearing.
Critical area intrusions must be the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with some reasonable use of
the subject property. The city may impose any limitations, conditions, and restrictions as appropriate to
reduce or eliminate any undesirable effects or adverse impacts of granting these requests.
19-101051-00-AD Doc I.D. 79019
Mr. Enrique Islas
Page 2 of 4
June 27, 2019
CRITICAL AREA MITIGATION PLAN/REPORT REQUIREMENTS
In addition to revising the submitted critical areas report the applicant shall meet the following conditions:
1. Restore all critical areas and critical area buffers to their original state prior to the violation activities. This
shall include removing the imported gravel fill used to widen an existing road surface. All proposed
critical area intrusions shall be revkwed and approved by the Community Development Director. At
present, the property own& has reasonable use of the subject property because of the existing single-
family residence and pedestrian paths established prior to incorporation.
2. Submit an Environmental Review Checklist for work conducted on land covered by water (stream
crossing and pin -piles past the ordinary high water mark) pursuant to Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) 197-11-500(l)(b) with the enclosed application.
3. All work conducted in a wedand, if any, shall be subject to a final Hearing Examiner Decision and Master
Land Use Process IV recommendation by the Community Development Director pursuant to Federal
Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.70. The final land use application requirements will be determined on
receiving the revised critical area report. The city's consultant, Perteet, confirms that new fill. material
(gravel) was placed in the wetlands Gune 2019, page 2).
4. Submit a site plan in addition to the wetland figure provided in the Beaver Creek Environmental report
clearly depicting the wetland and stream buffers disturbances on site. Due to the scale of the violation
and property size, please submit a minimum plan sheet size of 24 x 36 inches. Your land use and
environmental review applications shall clearly indicate the wetland and stream typing, critical area buffer
widths, and five-foot building setback line measured from the edge of the buffer.
5. Address permanent protection of all critical areas on the site inclusive of wetland and stream buffers
pursuant to FWRC 19.145.150 and 19.145.170 to avoid future unauthorized intrusions.
6. Install fences pursuant to FWRC 19.145.180 "Critical Area Marks, Signs, Fences." Fence and sign
installation shall occur at the outer edge of the Type F and Category I wetland buffer areas on the property
fox critical areas demarcation and protection. Show the signs (see enclosed Public Works Standards) and
Fencing on the mitigation plan drawing and/or site plan drawings. A split rail four -foot high wooden fence
with open rails will be accepted. The applicant shall space critical area signs 100-feet apart.
7. Additional critical area city review comments may apply on the submission of land use applications.
S. No construction or building permits shall be submitted for work on the subject property until the current
code violation is resolved.
9. The applicant is responsible for obtaining permits from other government agencies having jurisdiction,
including but not limited to, the Washington State Department of Ecology, State Department of Fish and
`Ylildlife, the Army Core of Engineers, etc.
REVIEW PROCESS
Based on the findings of the wetland and stream delineation report, the following review processes are required
to legalize the bridge (stream crossing) replacement conducted without permits within the Hylebos. Construction
of the bridge included work within a stream and wetland buffer and will require restoration actions.
Doc I.D. 79019
19-101051-00-AD
Mr. Enrique Islas
Page 3 of 4
June 27, 2019
Stream Crossings — Stream crossings will be reviewed and decided upon using process III review. Responses to
decisional criteria and design requirements in this section shall be included in the critical areas report. The
disturbances to the stream buffer shall be adequately compensated by a stream buffer enhancement plan.
Development in a Wetland Buffer— As mentioned in the wetland report and peer review memo, the property is
impacted by wetlands and wetland buffers. However, the level of permitted intrusion is the nismimum
reduction allowed under that section of 25 percent; the exact amount of existing intrusion is unknown at this
time. Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.440, "Development in a Wetland Buffer," you may request a modification or
waiver of the buffer requirements to allow for work in wetland buffer on the following criteria:
(a) It will not adversely affect water quality;
(b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland or buffer wildlife habitat;
(c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities;
(d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards;
(e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property or the city as a whole; and
(f) All exposed areas are stabilized with native vegetation, as appropriate.
A buffer enhancement plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be incorporated into the critical area
report. The plan shall assess the habitat, water quality, stormwater retention, groundwater recharge, and
erosion protection functions of the existing buffer; assess the effects of the proposed modification on those
functions; and address the six approval criteria of this section.
Stream Buffer Intrusion — Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.330 "Intrusions into Stream Buffers," you may request a
modification or waiver of the buffer requirements to allow for work in a stream buffer with a stream buffer
enhancement plan on the following criteria. However, it is highly unlikely that intrusions into the stream
buffer aside from installing the stream crossing will be permitted, as no additional stream buffer intrusions are
necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. The site contains an existing single -fancily
home with associated site improvements, which provide reasonable use for the owner.
(a) It will not adversely affect water quality;
(b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or buffer area;
(c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities;
(d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards;
(e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the
city as a whole; and
(f) It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property.
NEXT STEPS
First, please review the peer review comments in the enclosed memorandum prepared by Perteet. A revised
wetland and stream delineation report must be submitted. On account of the property violation, a revised
report and rehabilitation plan must occur prior to any additional proposals for development. The revised
report and associated rehabilitation and monitoring plans will be peer reviewed at the applicant's expense in
accordance with FWRC 19.145.080(3).
Doc 4D. 79079
19-101051-00-AD
Mr. Enrique Islas
Page 4 of 4
June 27, 2019
Second, please prepare land use applications in accordance with the city's Development.RegAdi ment- checklist
(enclosed). It must be accompanied by the appropriate fees. As fees change annually, please contact
Development Specialist staff at the time of submittal for the current Process III or IV application and
Environmental Checklist Review fees for concurrent application review. Development Specialists can be
reached at'253-835-2607, or permitcente ci offederalway.c rn.
Should you have any questions about this letter, I can be reached at 253-835-2644, or leila.wil1puZhhY-
o-,tkes@cityoffederaLway.com.
Sincerely, iesL
LeilaWilloughby-oa
Associate Planner
enc: Master Land Use Application
Process III/IV Submittal Checklist
SEPA Checklist
June 2019 Technical Review Memo from Perteet
FWRC 19.145.140 "Mitigation Plan Requirements"
Critical Area Signage Standards
c: Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager
Bill Kidder, Lead Ecologist, Perteet, bill.kiddrr�unerceet,eom
Larry Fisher, WDFW Area Habitat Biologist, acrv.lashe cifw.wa-�9r
Mark Heckert, Beaver Creek Environmental Services, mheckert(d) .com
Abel Brambila-Guzman, 36606 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA 98003 (Owner)
19-101051-00-AD Doa I.D. 79019
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
From: Molstad, Neil (ECY) <NEM0461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 8:53 AM
To: abelbrambilaguzman@yahoo.com
Cc: McDermott, Kristin L CIV USARMY CENWS (USA); Fisher, Larry D (DFW);
mheckert@q.com; Leila Willoughby -Oakes; enrique@elrinconsito.com
Subject: Ecology Request for Additional Information - Unpermitted Clearing and Grading on
Parcel 292104-9044 Federal Way
Attachments: NM Brambila Guzman Info Request_20191210.pdf
Good morning,
Please find attached to this email a letter requesting additional information relating to the clearing and road
improvement activity that has occurred on your property. This letter will also be mailed to you.
Please feel free to call or email me with any questions relating to this letter.
Regards,
Neil Molstad
Neil Molstad, PWS
Wetland Specialist — NWRO
Washington State Department of Ecology
425.649.7007 1 nemo463 ECY.WA.GOV
DEPAF.Mr',T OF
ECOLOGY
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
M
STATE OF%V.Ati}IINi TOr ,
DEPARTNIENT OF ECOLOGY
Min/a► TV 12r'94M.71 Offer 0, • .319►1 'I(071h Avv [ E • flvib.•+^?i VI MO' - 4 i
77 1 :11r W7,31ingirM R01al' S:?rViCC J; th'." f ;r;f J e_: n ,_;1 Tii .
December 10, 2019
Abel Brambila Guzman
36606 Pacific Highway South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Re: Unpermitted Filling and Grading on Parcel 292104-9044
Local File #18-139080-VO and #19-101051-AD
Dear Abel Brambila Guzman:
It has come to the attention of the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) that
unpermitted impacts to wetlands, wetland buffers, and a state regulated waterway have taken
place on portions of your property. This property (Tax Parcel #2921049044) is located east of
Pacific Highway South and west of 8th Avenue South, roughly 1/3 mile north of South 373"!
Street, in the City of Federal Way, King County.
Based on information provided to Ecology by the City of Federal Way, it appears that the bulk of
this activity involved improving and reestablishing access drives along the southern and eastern
parcel boundaries, resulting in impacts to portions of a Category I wetland and its associated
buffer. Additionally, two new bridge decks were installed over a Type F waterway and wetland.
There is no record on file at Ecology of a permit application or federal or state authorization for
this activity. Impacting waters of the state, including wetlands, without prior authorization is a
violation of state and federal laws. Therefore, Ecology is requesting additional information from
you and/or your wetland consultant to obtain reasonable assurance that water quality standards
and other applicable requirements of state law are being met as required by Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1341) and 40 CFR Section 121.2; see also WAC 173.201A and
RCW 90.48.
Please provide the following information to Ecology:
• The most recent version of any critical areas report prepared for the property.
• An existing conditions map for the property that accurately depicts the wetlands, wetland
Y ;�, Ecology requests a response which includes the information asked for above within 60 days of
4 the date of this letter. A lack of response may trigger the formal state enforcement process,
' which can include a penalty of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each day of
noncompliance.
Any questions or correspondence regarding this letter should be directed to me at
�. neil.ii7oistad@Oecy.wa.gooy or (425) 649-7007.
1.
k?-- Sincerely,
Neil Molstad, PWS
Wetland Specialist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
., Sent by email and U.S. Mail: Abel Brambila Guzman, abelbrambilaguzman@yahoo.com
t7
Ecc: Kristin McDermott, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Larry Fisher, WDFW
. Mark Heckert, Beaver Creek Environmental Services, Inc.
Leila Willoughby -Oakes, City of Federal Way
Enrique Islas
3
;s
k
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2020 9:51 AM
To: 'Mark Heckert'; Angie Villalovos
Cc: 'Enrique'; 'Thomas Thompson'
Subject: RE: 36606 Pac Hwy South Abel Brambila-Guzman
Attachments: 129 Resubmittal Information.pdf
Mr. Heckert;
Please be advised, code enforcement will issue tickets is not in receipt of your mitigation plan/critical area resubmittal
by this Friday by 3 pm. Per your email on November 22, 2019 to Ms. Villalovos it was stated the documents would be
ready by December 15, 2019.
Please resubmit three copies of the requested documents to the permit center with the enclosed resubmittal form.
Sincerely,
Leila W-Oakes
L. Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
Federal Way
33325 P Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.cityoffederaIway cam
Census 2020 — Every Body Counts!
From: Mark Heckert [mailto:mheckert.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 1:13 PM
To: Angie Villalovos
Cc: Leila Willoughby -Oakes; 'Enrique'; 'Thomas Thompson'
Subject: RE: 36606 Pac Hwy South Abel Brambila-Guzman
Hi Ms. Villalovos,
Thanks for your attention.
Mark Heckert
Beaver Creek Environmental Services Inc.
253 732 6515
From: Angie Villalovos <Angie.Vilialovos cityoffederalwaycom>
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 12:49 PM
To: 'Mark Heckert' <mheckert .com>
Cc: Leila Willoughby -Oakes <Leila.Willou hb -Oakes cit offederalwa .cons>; 'Enrique' <enriique@elrinconsito.com>;
'Thomas Thompson' <ttsguared@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: 36606 Pac Hwy South Abel Brambila-Guzman
Hello Mr. Heckert,
I appreciate your communication. I believe that progressing forward is the goal here. Please be certain to
continue working with the City's Planning staff, and keep in communication with them.
I'll make note of your communication in Mr. Guzman's case with Code Compliance.
Thank you.
Angie Villalovos I Code Compliance Officer
Fe #eral Warr
33325 8th Ave South I Federal Way, WA 98003
253.835.2631 or 253.278.64411 L ; 253.835.2609
P JAngie.ViIlalovos@citkoffederaIway,.com
From: Mark Heckert <mheckert@Q.com>
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 12:36 PM
To: Angie Villalovos <Angie.Villalovos@cityoffederalwa_y.com>
Cc: Leila Willoughby -Oakes <Leila.Willough by -Oa kes@cityaffederalway.com>; 'Enrique' <enrique@elrinconsito.com>;
'Thomas Thompson' <ttsquared@gmail.com>
Subject: 36606 Pac Hwy South Abel Brambila-Guzman
Importance: High
Ms. Villalovos,
I have reed you correspondence to Mr. Guzman regarding the critical areas reporting required for the 36606 Pac. Hwy
South site.
The site is complicated, and has required extensive investigation, data collection, and analysis.
We have completed the field identification of regulated features and are performing the analysis required for the
identification of violations requiring mitigation.
With the understanding that we are progressing, we will be ready to submit Dec. 15th, 2019.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mark Heckert
Beaver Creek Environmental Services, Inc.
253 732 6515~
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
From: Mark Heckert ,rnheckei,t.L�R�3 .'o
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 1:13 PM
To: Angie Villalovos
Cc: Leila Willoughby -Oakes; 'Enrique'; 'Thomas Thompson'
Subject: RE: 36606 Pac Hwy South Abel Brambila-Guzman
Hi Ms. Villalovos,
Thanks for your attention.
Mark Heckert
Beaver Creek Environmental Services Inc.
253 732 6515
From: Angie Villalovos <An ie.Villalovos cit offederalwa .com>
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 12:49 PM
To: 'Mark Heckert' <mheckert@Q.com>
Cc: Leila Willoughby -Oakes <Leiia.WiiloughbV-Oakes@cityoffederalway.com>;'Enrique' <enrigue elrinconsito.com>;
'Thomas Thompson' <ttsci ua red@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: 36606 Pac Hwy South Abel Brambila-Guzman
Hello Mr. Heckert,
I appreciate your communication. I believe that progressing forward is the goal here. Please be certain to
continue working with the City's Planning staff, and keep in communication with them.
I'll make note of your communication in Mr. Guzman's case with Code Compliance.
Thank you.
Angie Villalovos j Code Compliance Officer
Federal Way
33325 8t" Ave South I Federal Way, WA 98003
`O 253,835.2631 or 253.278.6441 1 L 253.835.2609
F.<An ie.Villalovos cit offederalwa .com
From: Mark Heckert <mheckert@Q.com>
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 12:36 PM
To: Angie Villalovos <An ie.ViIIalovos ci offederalwa .com>
Cc: Leila Willoughby -Oakes <Leila.Willou hb -Oakes cit offederalwa .com>; 'Enrique' <enrique@elrinconsito.com>;
'Thomas Thompson' <tts uared mail.com>
Subject: 36606 Pac Hwy South Abel Brambila-Guzman
Importance: High
Ms. Villalovos,
have rec'd you correspondence to Mr. Guzman regarding the critical areas reporting required for the 36606 Pac. Hwy
South site.
The site is complicated, and has required extensive investigation, data collection, and analysis.
We have completed the field identification of regulated features and are performing the analysis required for the
identification of violations requiring mitigation.
With the understanding that we are progressing, we will be ready to submit Dec. 15th, 2019.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mark Heckert
Beaver Creek Environmental Services -Inc.
253 732 6515
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
From: Molstad, Neil (ECY) <NEM0461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2019 11:20 AM
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes; Gresham, Doug (ECY)
Subject: RE: Brambilla- Guzman VO
Hello Leila,
In order to better frame a potential response to your request, it would be helpful if you can provide Beaver Creek
EnvironmentaI's 2018 Delineation Report for the property to me, if possible.
I'm also assuming that the responsible party has still not responded to or provided any of the materials relating to
the information you requested in your June 27, 2019 letter.
Please feel free to tali or email me with any questions.
Regards,
Neil
Neil Molstad
Washington State Department of Ecology
425.649.7007 1 nemo4.61@ECY.WA.GOV
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes <Leila.Willoughby-Oakes@cityoffederalwa_y_com>
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 11:36 AM
To: Gresham, Doug (ECY) <DGRE461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Cc: Molstad, Neil (ECY) <NEM0461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Brambilla- Guzman VO
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not
to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the link
Greetings Doug,
Could you give us an update on the preparation of a memo to go out to the property owner (Brambilla Guzman). Akin to
the Randhawa Violation (attached).
The City kindly requests Ecology to send correspondence within the next week or so, before the holiday season starts.
Let me know if you need supplementary materials. Doug, I believe you letter was effective in encouraging compliance on
the other case.
Many thanks,
Leila
L. Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
.d. a
w;. Federal Way
33325 8`h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.citvoffederalway.com
Census 2020 -- Every Body Counts!
From: Gresham, Doug (ECY) [ma iIto, DG€tE461@ECY.WA.GOV]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 2:44 PM
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Cc: Molstad, Neil (ECY)
Subject: RE: Brambilla- Guzman VO
Leila,
Thanks for requesting our technical assistance with this enforcement case. I would like to hand this off to another
wetland specialist (Neil Molstad) who is assigned to the City of Federal Way. Please coordinate with Neil on whether
Ecology can assist you with this violation. Let me know if you have any questions.
Doug Gresham, Wetland Specialist
Washington State Department of Ecology
3190 - 160th Ave. SE
Bellevue, WA 98008
Phone: (425) 649-7199
Email: Dou&.Gresham@ecv.wa.gov
orr f ,:'mr%T c.r
ECOLOGY
--A Z I. _ , ... ..
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes <Leila.Willou hb -Oakes cit offederalwa .com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 11:43 AM
To: Gresham, Doug (ECY) <DGRE461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Cc: Angie Villalovos <An ie.Villalovos cit offederalwa .com>
Subject: Brambilla- Guzman VO
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not
to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the link
Hi Doug,
I have another wetland violation in which the applicant is non -responsive from June 2019. Please find documents
attached- in particular they indicated that erosion control would be put down in a meeting with the City in June 2019
and the city's consultant Perteet. Since that meeting and our peer review sent to to them we have not received a
response.
Our code enforcement division is sending them a reminder to be followed up by a ticket if there is no response. This
was a complaint submitted by a member of the public. A similar DOE next steps letter as Singh's would be much
appreciated- this wetland in particular is a more sensitive complex (Cat 1).
Thanks again,
Leila
L. Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
UTi p
Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www,cityoffedera lway.com
Planner on duty: 253-835-2655 1 planning@_citvoffederalwav,.com
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
From:
Angie Villalovos
Sent:
Wednesday, October 16, 2019 7:59 AM
To:
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Cc:
Scott Sproul
Subject:
RE: Brambilla Guzman VO
So, after the delineation report was received back unsatisfactory, was Guzman then sent a letter outlining what
was lacking on it?
Ao,a, "p V!,LL2, oV0.S
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 1:59 PM
To: Angie Villalovos <Angie.Villalovos@cityoffederalway.com>
Cc: Scott Sproul <Scott.Sproul@cityoffederalway.com>
Subject: RE: Brambilla Guzman VO
Hi Angie;
Here's an outline of what can garnish from my email:
The outline I'm trying to follow and understand in Amanda is
080/19 - Code compliant received from public
09/7/18 — violation letter to Guzman from Doc, Planning Manager:
09/17/18- violation forwarded to DFW
10/7/18 — letter to Guzman from Nick.
11/5/18 — Ticket from Nick.
22/2/19-Contact from property owner's agent (Thompson Architects) regarding next steps and wetland report
review
02/24/19-Received wetland and wetland restoration report from applicant to Permit Center (to confirm date)
03/11/19- Task Order quote received from city consultant (Jason Walker & Bill Kidder, Wetland Biologists)
03/12/19- Task order and quote sent violator
03/19/19- Violator paid peer review fee
4/19/19-City authorizes work and applicant authorizes city's biologist to visit site
Unknown- Peer review memo with review comments to applicant
06/28/2019 - Meeting with the applicant, applicant's biologist and city staff, city's biologist Perteet in this
meeting applicant's agents agree to resubmit revised restoration and wetland/stream delineation plans
7/1/2019- Clarification of wetland report requirements request from biologist Mark Heckert via email
7/2/19- October 2019- No follow-up nor contact from Brambilla/Guzman consultants as discussed in June
2019 meeting- foremost discussed in the meantime to place erosion control and straw wattles along buffers
prior to the wet season (Category I wetland- Hylebos). No response to technical review comments or
restoration plan.
I'll be back in tomorrow- sick today- but I can still type! All the code sections apply listed below. There is
development and gravel/fill placed within the wetland buffers that contain a stream buffer, none of which are
permitted as it is not necessary for some reasonable use of the property. We are dealing with the issue of the
dock on lands covered by water (a wetland) at a later date.
Thanks for the follow up on this very much appreciated!
Cheers,
Leila
L.Willoughby-Oakes
Associate Planner
City of Federal Way
Direct: 253-835-2644
From: Angie Villalovos
Sent: 15 October 2019 12:10
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Cc: Scott Sproul
Subject: FW: Brambilla Guzman VO
Hi Leila,
I'm trying to piece together this thing and understand it, especially if I have to draft an Officer's Report for my
Probable Cause Statement on my ticket.
The outline I'm trying to follow and understand in Amanda is:
09/7/18 — violation letter to Guzman from Doc.
10/7/18 — letter to Guzman from Nick.
11/5/18 —Ticket from Nick.
Leila has correspondence with a Wetlands Consultant Mark Hecker on 1/4/19, an architect Tom Thompson on
2/22/19, and to an engineer for the City Jason Walker sometime in March, 2019.
On 2/26/19 Leila receives Wetland Delineation Reports, but they are not satisfactory... is that correct?
In the violation letter Doc referred to FWRC 19.145.140 Mitigation Plan Requirements. So, Guzman has not
complied with that, right? So on my ticket, I'm using that violation? AS WELL as the original violation Nick used
in his ticket FWRC 19.145.440 Development within wetland buffers.
Nick also used 19.145.270 19.145.270 Stream buffers.
Thank you for any guidance!
Angie Villalovos j Code Compliance Officer
Federal Way
33325 8`" Ave South I Federal Way, WA 98003
253.835.2631 or 253.278.6441 1 L---! 253.835.2609
F7An9,ie.vi1 lalovosa citvoffed era Iway. com
From: Nick Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 7:16 AM
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes <Leila.Willou hb -Oakes cit offederalwa .com>
Cc: Angie Villalovos <Angie.Villalovos@citvoffederalway.com>
Subject: RE: Brambilla Guzma VO
Hi this is angies area, Thanks Nick
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2019 10:28 AM
To: Nick Ruiz
Cc: CodeCompliance
Subject: Brambilla Guzma VO
Hi Nick;
Could you do a follow-up on VO file no. 2018 103908 000 00 VO and issue a ticket? We are getting into erosion
season....
Valirie, our on -call biologist and I met with the property owner's biologist back in June 2019. We've had no critical areas
report with a mitigation plan or timeline submitted yet.
It's been over a year since the violation.
Kind regards,
Leila
L. Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
C eY p
Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.ci offederalwa .corn
Planner on duty: 253-835-2655 1 plarrnine@citYoffederalway.com
r.�
A'+rr7h�t=;r l�t,�,ir►lrF� r7iir+ ..';19+1 1&Qlit .Ire S r. • Finiit3 : e, ' ..} gf�rrr r 3 F.;_
1ti'.r41jo7gltif7 Relay tt•r V,Ce- • r,..;..,F, . . f
December 10, 2019
Abel Brambila Guzman
36606 Pacific Highway South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Re: Unpermitted Filling and Grading on Parcel 292104-9044
Local File #18-139080-VO and #19-101051-AD
Dear Abel Brambila Guzman:
It has come to the attention of the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) that
unpermitted impacts to wetlands, wetland buffers, and a state regulated waterway have taken
place on portions of your property. This property (Tax Parcel #2921049044) is located east of
Pacific Highway South and west of 8' Avenue South, roughly 1/3 mile north of South 373rd
Street, in the City of Federal Way, King County.
Based on information provided to Ecology by the City of Federal Way, it appears that the bulk of
this activity involved improving and reestablishing access drives along the southern and eastern
parcel boundaries, resulting in impacts to portions of a Category I wetland and its associated
buffer. Additionally, two new bridge decks were installed over a Type F waterway and wetland.
There is no record on file at Ecology of a permit application or federal or state authorization for
this activity. Impacting waters of the state, including wetlands, without prior authorization is a
violation of state and federal laws. Therefore, Ecology is requesting additional information from
you and/or your wetland consultant to obtain reasonable assurance that water quality standards
and other applicable requirements of state law are being met as required by Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1341) and 40 CFR Section 121.2; see also WAC 173.201A•and
RCW 90.48.
Please provide the following information to Ecology:
• The most recent version of any critical areas report prepared for the property.
• An existing conditions map for the property that accurately depicts the wetlands, wetland
buffers, and waterways, along with the extents of areas cleared, graded, and filled.
• Any recent restoration and mitigation plan prepared for the property.
Abel Brambila Guzman
December 10, 2019
Page 2
Ecology requests a response which includes the information asked for above within 60 days of
the date of this letter. A lack of response may trigger the formal state enforcement process,
which can include a penalty of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each day of
noncompliance.
Any questions or correspondence regarding this letter should be directed to me at
neil.inolstad@ecy.wa.gov or (425) 649-7007.
Sincerely,
1 *06�7�
'�L-�
Neil Molstad, PWS
Wetland Specialist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
Sent by email and U.S. Mail: Abel Brambila Guzman, abelbrambilaguzman@yahoo.com
Ecc: Kristin McDermott, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Larry Fisher, WDFW
Mark Heckert, Beaver Creek Environmental Services, Inc.
Leila Willoughby -Oakes, City of Federal Way
Enrique Islas
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Subject: FW: Brambilla- Guzman VO
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2019 11:37 AM
To: 'Molstad, Neil (ECY)'; Gresham, Doug (ECY)
Subject: RE: Brambilla- Guzman VO
Greetings Neil;
No they have not; but they have committed to submitting a mitigation plan by December 15`h (see correspondence
highlighted). If we do not receive the report on this date- code enforcement will proceed with tickets on account of the
time passed. However, I believe Ecology should still proceed with a letter as well. Please find the report and peer review
by out on call attached- thank you for your prompt response and technical assistance.
Note the enclosed report was prepared for a residential addition prior to the wetland violation.
Cheers,
Leila
L. Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
r.Federa Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.cit offederalwa .corn
Census 2020 —Every 8• ady Counts!
From: Mark Heckert <mheckert@Q.com>
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 12:36 PM
To: Angie Villalovos <An ie.Villalovos cit offederalwa .com>
Cc: Leila Willoughby -Oakes <Leiia.Wiliou hb -Oakes cit offederalwa .cotes>;'Enrique' <enriclue@el rinconsito.com>;
'Thomas Thompson' <ttsguared _ gmall.com>
Subject: 36606 Pac Hwy South Abel Brambila-Guzman
Importance: High
Ms. Villalovos,
have rec'd you correspondence to Mr. Guzman regarding the critical areas reporting required for the 36606 Pac. Hwy
South site.
The site is complicated, and has required extensive investigation, data collection, and analysis.
We have completed the field identification of regulated features and are performing the analysis required for the
identification of violations requiring mitigation.
With the understanding that we are progressing, we will be ready to submit Dec. 15`h, 2019.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mark Heckert
Beaver Creek Environmental Services Inc..
253 732 6515'
From: Molstad, Neil (ECY) [mailto:NEM0461@ECY.WA.GOV]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2019 11:20 AM
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes; Gresham, Doug (ECY)
Subject: RE: Brambilla- Guzman VO
Hello Leila,
In order to better frame a potential response to your request, it would be helpful if you can provide Beaver Creek
Environmental's 2018 Delineation Report for the property to me, if possible.
I'm also assuming that the responsible party has still not responded to or provided any of the materials relating to
the information you requested in your June 27, 2019 letter.
Please feel free to call or email me with any questions.
Regards,
Neil
Neil Molstad
Washington State Department of Ecology
425.649.7007 1 nemo461@ECY.WA.GOV
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes <Leila.Willough by -Oa kes@cityoffederalway.com>
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 11:36 AM
To: Gresham, Doug (ECY) <DGRE461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Cc: Molstad, Neil (ECY) <NEM0461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Brambilla- Guzman VO
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not
to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the link
Greetings Doug,
Could you give us an update on the preparation of a memo to go out to the property owner (Brambilla Guzman). Akin to
the Randhawa Violation (attached).
The City kindly requests Ecology to send correspondence within the next week or so, before the holiday season starts.
Let me know if you need supplementary materials. Doug, I believe you letter was effective in encouraging compliance on
the other case.
Many thanks,
Leila
L. Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
R } � c.
,. Federal Way
33325 8`" Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www,citVffederalwav com
Census 2020 — Every Body Counts!
From: Gresham, Doug (ECY) [mailto:DGRE461(dECY.WA.GOV]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 2:44 PM
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Cc: Molstad, Neil (ECY)
Subject: RE: Brambilla- Guzman VO
Leila,
Thanks for requesting our technical assistance with this enforcement case. I would like to hand this off to another
wetland specialist (Neil Molstad) who is assigned to the City of Federal Way. Please coordinate with Neil on whether
Ecology can assist you with this violation. Let me know if you have any questions.
Doug Gresham; Wetland Specialist
Washington State Department of Ecology
3190 - 160th Ave. SE
Bellevue, WA 98008
Phone: (425) 649-7199
Email: Doug.Gresham@ecy.wa.,goy
DErA 7M,EN'T 0r
ECOLOGY
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes <Leila.Willou hb -Oakes cit offederalwa .com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 11:43 AM
To: Gresham, Doug (ECY) <DGRE461 ECY.WA.GOV>
Cc: Angie Villalovos <Angie.Vilialovos@citvoffederalway.com>
Subject: Brambilla- Guzman VO
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not
to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the link
Hi Doug,
I have another wetland violation in which the applicant is non -responsive from June 2019. Please find documents
attached- in particular they indicated that erosion control would be put down in a meeting with the City in June 2019
and the city's consultant Perteet. Since that meeting and our peer review sent to to them we have not received a
response.
Our code enforcement division is sending them a reminder to be followed up by a ticket if there is no response. This
was a complaint submitted by a member of the public. A similar DOE next steps letter as Singh's would be much
appreciated- this wetland in particular is a more sensitive complex (Cat 1).
Thanks again,
Leila
L. Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
ederaI Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.citypffecferalway.com
Planner on duty: 253-835-2655 1 planning@cityoffederalway.com
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
From: Gresham, Doug (ECY) <DGRE461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 2:44 PM
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Cc: Molstad, Neil (ECY)
Subject: RE: Brambilla- Guzman VO
Leila,
Thanks for requesting our technical assistance with this enforcement case. I would like to hand this off to another
wetland specialist (Neil Molstad) who is assigned to the City of Federal Way. Please coordinate with Neil on whether
Ecology can assist you with this violation. Let me know if you have any questions.
Doug Gresham, Wetland Specialist
Washington State Department of Ecology
3190 - 160th Ave. SE
Bellevue, WA 98008
Phone: (425) 649-7199
Email: Doug.Gresham@ecy.wa.goy
:)E1'AI;TVr.14T OF
ECOLOGY
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes <Leila.WiIIou ht] -Oa kes@ cit offederalwa .com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 11:43 AM
To: Gresham, Doug (ECY) <DGRE461 ECY.WA.GOV>
Cc: Angie Villalovos <Angie.Villalovos@cityoffederalwa .com>
Subject: Brambilla- Guzman VO
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not
to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the link
Hi Doug,
I have another wetland violation in which the applicant is non -responsive from June 2019. Please find documents
attached- in particular they indicated that erosion control would be put down in a meeting with the City in June 2019
and the city's consultant Perteet. Since that meeting and our peer review sent to to them we have not received a
response.
Our code enforcement division is sending them a reminder to be followed up by a ticket if there is no response. This
was a complaint submitted by a member of the public. A similar DOE next steps letter as Singh's would be much
appreciated- this wetland in particular is a more sensitive complex (Cat 1).
Thanks again,
Leila
L. Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
Federal Way
33325 8ch Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.cltyoffe de ra Iway.com
Planner on duty: 253-835-2655 1 planriinp,@citVoffederalway.com
-P --'4- -6/-z IaL44 04H
7R-e-SK (3 caves
a:--� c'Laa V
,S-.
11N4o
I�a; Qs
e-9411L W29::;k
yn
0�z, �sS
2eceR�l`f �d
- �(D� -) I'tl
c, \ Na ('
�cj/
7
I
19
' Zi
�„ m
At
CITY OF IV '':4 -r�
Federal Way
WETLAND CONSULTANT
AUTHORIZATION FORM
Date: March 9, 2019
City: City of Federal Way
Community Development Department
33325 81h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Wetland Mark Heckert
Consultant: Beaver Creek Environmental Services Inc.
P.O. Box 731695
Puyallup, WA 98373
ml)eckert@Q.com
Project: Brambila-Guzmaii — Wetland/Streani Verification
File No.: 19-101051-AD (related file: 18-139080-VO)
Project Proponent: Abel Brambila Guzman
36606 Pacific Highway South
Federal Way, WA 98003
abet bra ntbi l%1,ggman;a�� ahoo.com
RECEIVED
MAR 19 2019
OFFY OF FEDERAL VvAY
GOMMUNi71' DEVELOPMENT
Project Planner: Associate Planner Leila Willoughby -Oakes
lei]a.wiilnu l�bv-eakesl<s;cityoffegleralway.cnm, 253-835-2644
Project The applicant has submitted a critical area report in response to a code violation (city
Background: file no. 18-139080-VO) issued in August 2018. The single-family residential site
contains a Type-F stream and Category I wetland mapped on the city's critical area
inventory of the Hylebos Wetlands (Figure 1). The purpose of a review by the city's
third party consultant will bet to identify recent developmentlland disturbance within
critical areas. If there are unauthorized intrusions, the city requires the property owner
remediate the disturbed areas and submit a restoration plan with mitigation prepared at
the owner's expense (Federal Way Revised Code [FWRC] 19.145.060).
The unauthorized work appears to include a bridge/stream crossing replacement and
drive way work (importing gravel/fill) without permits. Staff have not determined if the
existing internal roads were widened impacting the stream or wetland buffer. Please
note that any disturbance to a wetland or stream buffer would not entitle the property
owner to develop or encroach within the protected areas. The owner must restore all
critical areas prior to any proposed development or residential additions described in
the critical area report if applicable by the next planting season (i.e. Fall 2019).
Doe.1.D 78W
19-101M1-00-AD
Wetland Consultant Authorization Form
Page 2 of 3
Documents Werfands and Drainage Corridors Evaluation & Delineation Report — Ba anibila
Provided: Residence, Beaver Creek Environmental Services, Inc. (August 30, 2018), date
stamped received February 25, 2019
• Federal Way Critical Area Map
+r King County Parcel Viewer Map
Task Scope: 1. Review the wetland and stream delineations/ratings for consistency v%rith FWRC
Chapter 19.145. "Environmentally Critical Areas" requirements-.
a. Article III Chapter 19,145, "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas"
b. Article IV Chapter 19.145, "Wetlands"
2. Conduct a site visit.
3. Provide a brief review u3emo on whether you concur or do not concur with the
critical area delineation, and if the site experienced recent unauthorized critical area
intrusions. And if so where?
Task Cost: Not to exceed $ 22481.00 without a prior written amendment to this Task
Authorization.
Figure 1. Critical Area Mapping
Source: City of Federal Way —GIS Division (retrieved March 7, 2019)
DOc, IA 79945
19-101051.00-AD
Wetland Consultant Authorization Fonn
Page 3 of 3
A t nce:
ity of Federal Way Staff
Applicant
cw:mr�+arr, (s�i7o � xur,
xs {420 � ! 9163
ow
r— —_ .L 9130
{' r. 9111
HVIwos �— ---- x J0241
Wedands 0074
9023 .11y�t
? k-44
9013 87
Figure 3. Bramblla-Gunman Property
Source: King County Panel Viewer (retrieved March 7, 2019)
Date
�^ Date
19.IDIDSI.00-AD Me. I.D.7SS45
1 PERTEET
Consultant Fee Determination Summary
2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900, Everett, WA 982011 P 425.252.7700
Project- Federal Way On -Call Wetland/Stream
Consultant-Brombila_Guzman_CAR-Violation-Rev
Client: City of Federal Way
Project No.: 20130090.017
- - - -
Houriz Costs—
Clossificotion
Hours Rate
$195.00
Amount
$390
r. Associate
Sr.
Lead EcoVMgr
14 $140.00
$1,960
-i - - $90-00--------
- - - - -- $90
Accountant
17
$2,440.00
Total Hourly Costs
__ f
Reimbursables
_ _—_
Amount
Expynses
$
0
Total Expenses
i)n Hw$0 Co 5
Mileage - $.58
Total In -House Costs
Contract
Prepared By: William Kidder
QtY Rate bmQuni
70 $0.580 $41
$41.00 iqvL
-- $2.481.00
Date: March 14, 2019
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2019 1:11 PM
To: 'Mark Heckert'; 'Tom'
Subject: RE: Guzman (Brambila) Violation- Wetland Report Requirements
Mark,
We need to understand what Mr. Guzman did recently to his property- by consulting with the current property owner
you may obtain this information for inclusion of the activities done in the critical area report. The violation was triggered
by a public complaint with photos of this work.
With thanks,
L. Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
Federal Way
Uri.
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www,citvoffedera lway.co m
From: Mark Heckert [mailto:mheckert@Q.com]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2019 1:09 PM
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes; 'Tom'
Subject: RE: Guzman (Brambila) Violation- Wetland Report Requirements
Hi Leila,
We stipulate there is unpermitted work which was conducted in critical area buffers. You stated previously that you
could not discuss impacts or have a site meeting to review the site until we submitted a critical areas report. This site
has substantially altered wetlands and buffers. Although it appears to me that there has been a stream enhancement
project conducted on site I can find no record of this with the city. Is this an impact requiring mitigation? This is the
type of issue I am trying to corral.
Upon review of the delineation, I request a site meeting with responsible city personnel to examine the site and impacts.
Thanks
Mark Heckert
Beaver Creek Environmental Services Inc.
253 732 6515
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes <Leila.Willough by -Oa kes@cityoffederalway.com>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 12:35 PM
To:'Mark Heckert' <mheckert@Q.com>;'Tom' <ttsquared @gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Guzman (Brambila) Violation- Wetland Report Requirements
Mark,
As discussed we need information on what was done on the site and where it was done- and if this was done within
regulated critical areas. If so- yes mitigation is required- regardless of any other development desired on the property.
I will forward this to the city's on -call consultant for a quote for a third party review. You have not documented the
unpermitted work done on the property -if it triggers a critical area permit- which is the purpose of the report
submission to the city.
Thank you,
L. Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
A Federal Way
n Opp
33325 8'h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.cityoffederalway.com
From: Mark Heckert [ma[Ito:mheckert@Q.com]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2019 12:32 PM
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes; 'Tom'
Subject: RE: Guzman (Brambila) Violation- Wetland Report Requirements
Hi Leila,
Our focus is getting the wetlands on the site documented and agreed to by the City, then we can determine the impacts
and mitigation necessary. It is counter productive to discuss mitigation for features which may not be regulated
wetlands. We request review of the wetland delineation with the understanding of impact and mitigation report to
follow.
Thanks
Mark Heckert
Beaver Creek Environmental Services, Inc.
253 732 6515
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes <Leila.Willou hb -Oa kes@cilyoffederalwa .com>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 12:14 PM
To: 'Tom' «tscauared@gmail.com>
Cc:'Mark Heckert' <mheckert@Q.com>
Subject: RE: Guzman (Brambila) Violation- Wetland Report Requirements
Greetings Tom,
Thank you for your submittal of a critical areas report. Unfortunately, the report does not reflect several conversation I
have had with you and your client's biologist. I believe I spoke with Mr. Heckert in January 2019.
The purpose of requiring a critical area elineation and report is to document the work done on the site in relation to
city code violation file no. 2018 103908 000 00 VO to document the un-permitted bridge work and laying down of
gravel and extra fill within a Category I wetland buffers.
Please advise when you have revised the report to reflect these discussions of the existing site conditions and resulting
site conditions of the owner's activities without permits. Also note no residential permits may be accepted by the city
of reviewed until the violation action is resolved and if applicable- any disturbed critical area buffers are rehabilitated
and if applicable critical area permit obtained.
Thank you,
Leila
L. Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.cityofederalway.com
From: Tom [mailto:ttsquarec!Cc rmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 4:08 PM
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Subject: Re: Guzman (Brambila) Violation- Wetland Report Requirements
Leila, to inform, weather permitting we hope to submit the report on Monday Feb 25.
Tom
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:50 AM Leila Willoughby -Oakes <Leila.WiIlou rhb -Oakes cit offederalwa .comma
wrote:
Greetings Tom,
We accept all materials resubmittals in hardcopy and in person via the Permit Center. Please submit two copies of the
report to the permit center with the attached resubmittal form, referencing violation file no. 18-103908-00-VO.
The report and mitigation plan if applicable will be routed to staff. Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.080(3):
"Critical area reports may be reviewed by the city's third party consultant at the applicant's expense."
However, you may advise your client it is very common that submitted critical area report are sent to the city's on -call
biologist for review and sign -off. Please allow for 2-3 weeks for a staff response.
Kind regards,
Leila
L. Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
ur. a
Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.cilyoffederalway.com
From: Tom [mailto:ttsquared@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 10:44 AM
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Subject: Guzman (Brambila) Violation- Wetland Report Requirements
Leila, We spoke a few months back; since we've had the property owner commission
Beaver Creek Environmental to handle the technical issues and work with the City.
I understand that to move forward we need to submit the attached Wetlands Report dated Aug 30,
2018
and seek your advice on that step.
Must it be submitted in person or will this email suffice?
L �
r
If fees are involved we can nanuie via credit card or by delivered cneck.
We believe we are ready to engage to resolve this issue to the city's satisfaction.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Both Beaver Creek and myself will be involved for here on.
Thank you,
Tom
Thomas Thompson -Architect
29619 15th Ave NE
Stanwood, WA 98292
206-409-0755 cell
tt5 Uarcd & l ai1.co1-n
Thomas Thompson -Architect
29619 15th Ave NE
Stanwood, WA 98292
206-409-0755 cell
ttsguared(a.)�Lcorn
0 Virus -free. www.avast.com
PERTEET
Better communities, by design
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes, Associate Planner, City of Federal Way
PERTEET.COM
(010 aLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900
EVERETT, WA 98201
425.252.7700
From: Bill Kidder, PWS, Lead Ecologist
Jason Walker, PLA, PWS, Environmental Manager and Wetland Scientist
Date. June 17, 2019 1
Re: Brambila-Guzman Critical Areas Violation��
n"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION -e-VV;'1` I5�xJIJ3 ci 6 ,3__~ 00 —Vd
Perteet Inc. conducted a critical areas violation assessment at 36606 P cific Highway South, Federal Way,
Washington associated with City of Federal Way file number - - The assessment occurred on King
County Tax Assessor parcel 292104-9044 (subject property). The subject property is located east of Pacific
Highway South and west of 8" Ave South about 1/3 mile north of South 373" Street in Township 21 North, Range 4
East, Section 32 NW quarter.
The City retained Perteet to assess if a critical areas violation occurred, and if present, the type and extent of critical
areas and buffer clearing, fill, and development. The City also requested Perteet to briefly review the critical areas
delineation and specify if it concurs with Perteet's site observations. This assessment memo discusses Perteet's
findings and recommendations.
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
The following documents and resource information websites were reviewed by Perteet to aid in the assessment:
• Wetlands and Drainage Corridors Evaluation & Delineation Report, Brambila Residence, Parcel #
2921049044 at 36606 Pacific Hwy. South, City of Federal Way, Washington. Prepared for Thomas
Thompson Architect. Prepared by Beaver Creek Environmental Services, Inc. Dated August 30, 2018
(hereafter referred to as 2018 Delineation Report)
• King County Online Parcel,Viewer with historic aerial photography through 2017
(httu://www.kingcounty-gov/operations'GIS,'Maps/iMAP.aspx), accessed March 2018
• City of Federal Way Critical Areas map(https:i/www.cityoffQderclw.oy.com"moi2s), accessed March 2018
• Google Earth Pro with historic imagery from 1990 to 2018
• Nearmap.com with historic imagery from 2014 to present
Aerial imagery captured by Nearmap.com illustrates a distinct change in vegetation conditions and presence of
development in critical areas on the subject property between spring 2018 and winter 2019. Two sets of aerial
photos are attached to this memo that show changes in site conditions; one set for the southeast quarter of the
property and one set for the southwest quarter of the property.
SITE VISIT OBSERVATIONS
Perteet ecological staff completed a site reconnaissance on April 11, 2019. The landowner's wetland consultant,
Mark Heckert of Beaver Creek Environmental, was present for the landowner. The two individuals walked the
south half of the subject property to observe existing critical areas conditions and any unauthorized development
Brombila - Guzman CAO Violation —Site Meeting and Report Review Memo Page 1
UE,SUITE900
2707 COLEY AVENUE, SUITE 900
Better communities, by design EVERETT, WA 98201
425.252.7700
actions that may have occurred within critical areas without required permits.
Perteet received photographs dated August 2018 from the City that showed active construction of new bridge deck
over Hylebos Creek on the subject parcel. Perteet observed new a new gravel road surface ranging from 8 to 12 feet
wide is present in wetlands, over Hylebos Creek, and through critical areas buffers along the southeast and south
perimeter of the subject property. The development action cleared vegetation in wetlands, Hylebos Creek, and
critical areas buffers. The development action constructed two new bridge decks over prior -existing bridge
abutments. The action placed new gravel fill in portions of a wetland, wetland buffer, and stream buffer on the
subject property. Perteet's observations are consistent with 2015 to 2019 aerial photography and City and
community member observations.
This unauthorized development was constructed over top of a prior historic feature of the property that was
observed by Perteet to be present in 1990 aerial photos. Aerial photos dating back 15 years and on -site conditions
indicate that this historic feature remained unused and/or unmaintained, returning to a natural vegetated condition
in the past 10-15 years. This historic linear fill feature having a top surface approximately 7 feet wide and bottom of
fill width ranging in location from 14 to 20 feet wide was constructed using between 3 and 5 vertical feet of historic
fill in wetlands, stream, and buffers just inside the south parcel boundary. A combination of historic wetland /
stream fill and upland slope excavation (cut) is also present along the east parcel boundary but is less extensive
than the historic fill along the south parcel boundary. Concrete "ecology" block bridge abutments are present
within the Hylebos Creek ordinary high water mark (OHWM) that are presumed to be for two historically
constructed bridges. The historic fill and ecology block bridge abutments constrain the natural flow of Hylebos
Creek at higher flow levels or overbank flow events.
In the southwest corner of the parcel, new construction of a deck / swim dock was observed in the on -site pond. The
decking used for this deck / dock matches the decking material and new condition of the access road bridges. A
review of recent aerial photography from 2015 through 2019 indicates this deck / dock was constructed between
April 2018 and March 2019.
Recent vegetation management (removal) of prior existing shrub habitat was observed along the edge of the
mowed field in wetland buffers. It is an area about 100 feet by 30 feet and appears to be new clearing in early 2019.
During the site reconnaissance Perteet also observed a recent stream realignment and habitat restoration project
was constructed in the southwest corner of the subject parcel. WSDOT signs posted at the project perimeter on -site
indicate this area to be a WSDOT project and not pertinent to the violation or findings described in this memo
relating to the subject property.
FINDINGS
Listed below are Perteet's findings for the critical areas intrusion and review of the 2018 Delineation Report:
Critical areas intrusion
Perteet confirmed that unauthorized alterations to critical areas occurred on the subject property in 2018
that do not conform to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145 CriticalAreas. Vegetation was
cleared in wetlands, streams, and associated buffers. An undisclosed quantity of new fill material (gravels)
was placed in wetlands and wetland and stream buffers.. Built features (bridges and docks/decks) were
constructed in a stream (Hylebos Creek) and a pond. Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.060 Unauthorized
alterations, the new fill and new built features associated with the recent upslope buffer vegetation
management, access road construction, and pond dock/deck shall be removed and the site
restored to prior-to-2018 existing conditions.
Brombila -Guzman CAO Violation —Site Meeting and Report Review Memo Page 2
r-�
I
PERTEET.COM
PE RTE E T 2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900
Better communities, by design E V E R ETT, WA 98201
425.252.7700
2. Perteet confirmed that historic wetland and stream fill is present underlying most of the current gravel fill
areas. This includes the ecology block bridge abutments previously placed within wetlands and stream
OHWM. No evidence was presented by the landowner to indicate the historic fill was previously permitted
by the City. No evidence was presented by the landowner to indicate City permits were obtained to
construct the historic bridges over Hylebos Creek. The area of new gravel road development also exceeds
5,000 square feet of impervious surface. The implemented actions are not in conformance with
FWRC 19.30, subsections .050, .060(c), .120, and .190.
3. The landowner did not provide evidence of other regulatory agency permits for the unauthorized actions,
including a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit, Washington Department of Ecology
Section 401 Water Quality Certification, or Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project
Approval. If the landowner decides to pursue future development actions that directly or indirectly
impact wetlands or streams,_ Perteet recommends t e landowner apply for all relevant required
permits from all federal, state, an oca regu sting agencies.
4. e two bridges constructed over Hylebos Creek do not meet Federal Way building code or WDFW
stream crossing standards. A deck / swim dock was constructed in the on -site pond that does not meet
Federal Way building code. Pursuant to FWRC Title 13, constructed features must meet required
building and safety code.
2018 Delineation R ❑d
Perteet reviewed the 2018 Delineation Report and compared it against the observed site conditions.
The 2018 Delineation Report incorrectly applies the FWRC 15.10 critical areas code of Title 15 Shoreline
Management. Title 15 Shoreline Management code only applies for lands that occur within state -
designated Shoreline Management Zones pursuant to the State of Washington Shoreline Management
Act. The subject parcel does not occur within a designated Shoreline Management Zone. Corrections are
required throughout the 2018 Delineation Report to apply the FWRC 19.145 Critica/Areas code for
lands outside of designated Shoreline Management Zones
6. Wetlands are present in the southeast corner of the subject parcel along and adjacent to the mapped
Hylebos Creek that are notmapped and characterized in the 2018 Delineation Report. Wetland
delineation and characterization reference both current and superseded delineation manuals. The 2018
Delineation Report references the Washington Department of Ecology Wetland Delineation Manual
(Ecology manual) which the state has superseded with the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual and 2010 Regional Supplement. The 2018 Delineation Report applies an incorrect delineation
methodology based on the wetland sizes on -site. The on -site wetland area being delineated is less than 5
acres. Only one sample plot was completed. No upland sample plots were completed. One sample plot
does not reflect the diverse range of wetland / upland conditions on -site necessary to accurately
characterize and delineate the wetland boundaries. Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.080 and 19.145.410,
corrections are required to delineate, map, and fully characterize all wetlands using the currently
approved wetland delineation manuals and methodologies for areas less than 5 acres.
7. The 2018 Delineation Report stream characterizations reference major and minor streams. Stream types
and stream buffers are not characterized in the report and mapped on report figures pursuant to FWRC
19.145.260 and .270. Streams are mapped by stream centerline only, but the width and overbank flooding
capacity of streams are diverse enough to warrant mapping each stream's ordinary high water mark.
(OHWM). The pond OHWM was not mapped and characterized. The multiple branches of Hylebos
Creek passing through the subject parcel are also classified by the City as habitats of local importance
(19.145.260(6)). Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.080 and 19.145.260, corrections are required to
Brambila - Guzman CAO Violation — Site Meeting and Report Review Memo Page 3
P E RT E E T AVENUE,
2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900
Better communities, by design EVERETT, WA 95201
425.252.7700
delineate, map, water type, and fully characterize all stream OHWM and pond OHWM. Perteet
recommends applying the Washington Department of Ecology's Determining the Ordinary High
Water Mark for Shoreline ManagementAct Compliance in Washington State for determining the
stream and pond OWHM. Please apply stream buffers pursuant to FWRC 19.145.270 Stream
Buffers in the 2018 Delineation Report and figures.
8. The 2018 Delineation Report attached rating form does use the current 2014 Wetland Rating System for
Western Washington as required in FWRC 19.145.420 WetlandRatings and Buffers. Wetland rating form
figures necessary to apply the 2014 wetland rating system are not attached to the rating form and report.
Wetland rating discussion inconsistencies occur in the 2018 Delineation Report and between the Report
and the attached rating form. Incorrect wetland buffer widths are applied in the 2018 Delineation Report.
Multiple HGM classes may apply that require multiple rating forms pursuant to the 2014 rating system
manual if the on -site wetlands are considered one larger wetland complex. Corrections are required to
update the 2018 Delineation Report to include ratings and rating figures for all wetlands / wetland
hydrologic units as applied by the 2014 rating system manual and pursuant to FWRC 19.145.420.
Please revise the 2018 Delineation Report to describe wetland ratings consistently throughout the
report text, tables, and figures.
Site Restoration and Plan
10. The unauthorized critical areas fill and buffer alteration actions are subject to the provisions of FWRC
19.145.060 Unauthorized alterations and enforcement. Preparation of a Restoration Plan with
performance standards and monitoring requirements is required that meets 19.145.060(2) and (3)
and by reference 19.145.140 Mitigation Plan Requirements. Perteet recommends utilization of the
King County Critical Areas Mitigation Guidelines as recognized practice standards (and best
available science) for completing a wetland and buffer restoration plan. The guidelines provide
standardized information regarding developing goals/objectives, performance standards, monitoring
requirements, plan figures, planting plans, and maintenance/contingency options. A copy of the guidelines is
attached.
The unauthorized action did not implement construction stormwater TESC or BMP. Potential surface
water quality impairments may have occurred during land clearing, fill placement, and construction under
FWRC 16 45 General Water Quality and Enforcement and 16.50.020 Prohibited dlscharges(27) Silts,
sediments, and gravel. Site restoration required by this violation notice shall be required to implement
surface water pollution prevention due to the action's location in and immediately adjacent to surface
waters. As soil disturbance, fill removal, and grading is required, Perteet recommends that site
restoration work shall comply with FWRC 19.145.190 Physical Barriers and FWRC 16.55 Best
Management Practices.
12. At the City's discretion, the landowner maybe required to install critical areas signage and/or fencing
pursuant to FWRC 19.145.180.
Brombilo - Guzman CAO Violation — Site Meeting and Report Review Memo
page 4
PERTEET.COM
PERTEET
Better communities, by design
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY (BEFORE / AFTER)
2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900
EVERETT, WA 98201
425.252.7700
Brombila - Guzman CAO Violation —Site Meeting and Report Review Memo
Page 5
PERTEET
Better communities, by design
PERTEET.COM
2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900
EVERETT, WA 98201
425.252.7700
Changing site conditions where some of the newly constructed features are not present in early 2018 but
appear in early 2019 aerial photography.
112912019 Print- PhotoMaps by nearmap
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 Notes:
ft
V-- IR
-� i jr
, 1
?} „� Gravel path not
evident through
gap in tree canopy
Ilk
. V4
(
1129/2019 Print - PhotoMaps by nearmap
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 Notes:
Brombila - Guzman CAO Violation — Site Meeting and Report Review Memo Page 6
PERTEET
Better communities, by design
PERTEET.COM
2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900
EVERETT, WA 98201
425.252.7700
Changing site conditions where some of the newly constructed docUdeck is not present in early 2018 but
appears in early 2019 aerial photography.
4/29/2019
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 Notes:
4/29/2019
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019
Notes:
Print - PhotoMaps by nearmap
Print - PhotoMaps by nearmap
Brombila - Guzman CAO Violation — Site Meeting and Report Review Memo Page7
PERTEET.CO M
PERTEET
Better communities, by design
SITE RECONNAISSANCE PHOTOS
2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900
EVERETT, WA 98201
425.252.7700
Brambila -Guzman CAO Violation —Site Meeting and Report Review Memo Page 8
_ ��
•.¢�
�-•• -t. fed
- -\
mmw�;�,17_1T'l,PjF__:, - MMLIZIIIIOM�
10 pERTEET
Better communities, by design
PERTEET.COM
2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900
EVERETT, WA 95201
425.2S2.7700
Brambila - Guzman CAO Violation —Site Meeting and Report Review Memo Page 12
jOPERTEET
Better communities, by design
Brombila - Guzman CAO Violation— Site Meeting and Report Review Memo
PERTEET.COM
2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900
EVERETT, WA 98201
42S.252.7700
Pagel3
PERTEET
Better communities, by design
PERTEET.COM
2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900
EVERETT, WA 98201
425.252.7700
KING COUNTY CRITICAL AREAS MITIGATION GUIDELINES
Brambila - Guzman CAO Violation — Site Meeting and Report Review Memo Pagel4
LQ
King County
Department of Permitting
and Environmental Review
35030 SE Douglas Street, Suite 210
Snoqualmie, Washington 98065-9266
206-296-6600 TTY Relay: 711
www.kingcounty.gov
C23 Web date: 11/10/2012
Critical Areas
Mitigation Guidelines
For alternate formats, call 206-296-6600.
The following information is provided to help applicants prepare and submit mitigation plans that
expedite Department of Permitting and Environmental Review (Permitting) review. Every mitigation
must be based on an approved plan, just as all other construction must be based on an approved
plan. Requirements and guidelines for mitigation plans are authorized under King County Zoning
Code Title 21A, Chapter 24, and more specifically under Section 120 of that chapter.
Section One outlines plan requirements; maps, site plans, and other drawings.
Section Two outlines report requirements; project description, installation/construction details,
maintenance and monitoring plans. These are textual elements that should appear on plan sheets as
notes to the drawings and engineering details described in Section One.
Section Three contains Design Requirements (Part 1); specific and additional guidelines for
designing mitigations and their performance standards (Part 11), and creating planting specifications
(Part III).
Sections One and Two, and Part I of Section Three, contain required, minimum elements for
compensatory mitigation plans for wetlands, streams, or buffers within unincorporated King County.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS — Each mitigation project will have unique circumstances that require
special instructions beyond this outline's scope. The applicant must obtain from Permitting, in writing,
either instructions or waiver of this provision.
IMPORTANT
Most mitigation is secured by a financial guarantee. For more details, see "Performance
Guarantees", Paragraph 14, page 7.
Wherever this document uses restrictive language — "must", "require", etc., the required
actions must be performed or the bond will become liable for forfeiture.
Please review this document carefully, and retain a copy for your records until your bond is
released. Should you sell your property before your bond is released, you will still be obligated to
perform the work. The Department of Permitting therefore strongly recommends that you review
Paragraph 14, PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES before selling your property, which explains
transfer of this obligation to the purchaser. We want to help you avoid being obligated to perform
work on property you do not own!
This document refers to "minor" projects. Minor projects are defined as follows: typically, they are in
only one single-family residential lot; and are buffer enhancements <1,000 ft2 or buffer restorations
<500 ft2.
CAM itigationG uideli nes FORM.doc Is-not-samit.pdf C23 11/10/2012 Page 1 of 19
C23 Web date: 11/10/2012
SECTION ONE: PLAN REQUIREMENTS
There are nine paragraphs in this Section describing graphic components of the mitigation plan. The
information specific to each paragraph must appear on a plan sheet. As many plan sheets should be
used as will make the resulting plan set legible to all reviewers, consultants, landscapers, inspectors,
and other users. Plan graphics and Report text (Section Two) will probably be most legible if they
appear on the same plan sheets.
VICINITY MAP
1.1 North arrow.
1.2 Driving directions from the nearest highway.
1.3 Street names/numbers.
1.4 In rural areas, distance to nearest landmarks or nearest abutting address.
2 MITIGATION SITE PLAN
Scale described in Paragraph 2.1 applies to ALL plans in Section One, unless otherwise noted.
2.1 Scale must be shown at:
2.1.1 1 inch : 20 feet if site is less than two acres; or
2.1.2 1 inch : 40 feet if site is more than two acres; and
2.1.3 1 inch : 5 feet for cross sections and typical sections.
2.2 North arrow.
2.3 Property lines, dimensions, legal proof of ownership (Permitting form "Certification of
Applicant Status"), and owner's address and phone.
2.4 Date map prepared, address and phone of preparer.
2.5 Plan approval block for Permitting approval signature. (For plats, a mylar of the plan must
be made available to Permitting for signature approval of the plan by the responsible
reviewer.)
3 GRADING PLAN
3.1 USGS topographic map 1:24,000 scale AND one of the following performed by a State of
Washington licensed land surveyor:
3.1.1 1' contours (most projects, and all projects where grading is involved);
3.1.2 2' contours (some minor residential projects);
3.2 Four cross -sections per'/ acre showing existing and proposed grades in 1' contours
throughout the entire mitigation area including buffer, and 15' beyond buffer edge (BSBL).
Where no grading is proposed, existing contours are sufficient.
3.3 The surveyed line (minor projects may submit tape -and -compass surveys) of the:
3.3.1 Wetland edge;
3.3.2 Top of bank and center line of class 1, 2 or 3 streams;
3.3.3 The buffer edge line and building setback line.
3.4 Existing trees more than 18" in diameter at breast height with identification symbol.
3.5 To expedite plan review, the following surveyed lines are strongly recommended:
3.5.1 Existing/proposed streets or other right-of-ways on or abutting the site and proper labels;
3.5.2 Existing/proposed easements on or abutting the site and proper labels;
3.5.3 Existing structures and proper labels/symbols;
3.5.4 Existing site improvements (e.g., driveways, culverts, etc.) and proper labels/symbols.
CAM itigationGuidelinesFORM.doc Is-not-samit.pdf C23 11/10/2012 Page 2 of 19
C23 Web date: 11/10/2012
4 HYDROLOGIC REGIME (See Appendix A for more information)
Show both in aerial view and in cross-section, indicating seasonal water levels expected.
4.1 For existing hydrology: inflows, outflows, basin, volume, velocity, hydroperiod, and:
4.1.1 Wetlands and their buffers: Hydrogeomorphic type (depressional, riverine, etc.)
4.1.2 Streams and their buffers: Stream type, special features.
4.2 For proposed hydrology: inflows, outflows, volume, velocity, hydroperiod, and:
4.2.1 Wetlands and their buffers: Hydrogeomorphic type and any associated structures.
4.2.2 Streams and their buffers: Stream type, special features.
4.3 Water control structures and special features to be shown in both plan and cross-section.
These typically include level spreaders, weirs, leaky berms, etc.
5 HABITAT FEATURES
5.1 Large woody debris
5.2 Snags
5.2 Bird or bat nestboxes, etc.
6 EROSION CONTROL
6.1 Temporary erosion control structures; silt fences, sediment ponds, etc.
6.2 Permanent erosion control structures; bioswales, terraces, check dams, etc.
6.3 Schedule and sequencing for removal of temporary erosion control structures.
7 PLANTING PLANS
7.1 Keyed to and same scale as Mitigation Site Plan.
7.2 Legible, readily understandable plant key.
7.3 Planting details for trees, shrubs, herbaceous plants, and any overseeding.
7.4 Clearly show area and border of each Cowardin community and mitigation type within
mitigation area, e.g., "created emergent wetland, 3800 sq. ft.; restored scrub -shrub, 4000
sq. ft.; enhanced riparian buffer, 5000 sq. ft.", etc.
7.5 Plant selection and replacement per appropriate portion of Section Three of this document.
8 MONITORING SITE PLAN
8.1 Permanent photo -points, at least four per project or'/ acre, whichever is greater.
8.2 Permanent vegetation transects, at least one per plant community.
8.3 Permanent wells, staff gages, or other monitoring structures.
8.4 Outline of a monitoring plan and reference to location of entire monitoring plan, per
MONITORING, in Section Two, Paragraph 11 of this document.
8.5 Contact address and phone of person or organization under signed contract to carry out
construction supervision and subsequent implementation of the monitoring plan over the
monitoring period.
8.6 The following paragraph must be included verbatim in every plan under "Monitoring": "Up
to 20% of any stratum can be composed of desirable native volunteers when measuring
cover. No more than 10% cover of non-native or other invasives, e.g., Himalayan
blackberry, Japanese knotweed, evergreen blackberry, reed canary grass, Scots broom,
English ivy, morning glory, etc. is permissible in any monitoring year. Bond holders are
encouraged to maintain mitigation sites within these standards throughout the monitoring
period, to avoid corrective measures."
9 MAINTENANCE SITE PLAN
9.1 Clearly marked access points for ongoing maintenance activities.
9.2 Source and layout of temporary irrigation system.
9.3 Outline of a maintenance plan per MAINTENANCE, in Section Two, Paragraph 12 of this
document.
9.4 Contact address and phone of person or organization under signed contract to carry out the
maintenance plan over the monitoring period.
CAMitigationGuidelinesFORM.doc Is-not-samit.pdf C23 -11/10/2012 Page 3 of 19
C23 Web date: 11/10/2012
SECTION TWO: REPORT REQUIREMENTS
Report shall be included on one or more plan sheets, adjacent to plan graphics as necessary to
increase legibility and comprehensibility. The following elements are required:
1 EXECUTIVE SUMARY
1.1 Demonstrate that mitigation sequencing was followed, i.e., how impacts have been avoided,
reduced, or minimized. This step is necessary to comply with state and federal laws and
regulations.
1.2 Describe unavoidable impacts that will be offset by the mitigation.
1.3 Compare square footage of impacted critical area to square footage of mitigation area.
1.4 Describe functions of impacted area and compare to mitigation area.
1.5 Describe how mitigation area will be an improvement upon impacted area.
2 GOALS
A goal is a broad statement of what you intend to accomplish through the mitigation project. This
should be an overview of the intended results and should include a list of the major wetland or stream
functions to be achieved. Describe the goal(s) of the mitigation, e.g., "to create 0.5 acre of emergent
wetland". Typical goals are detailed in Section Three, Part II. Each goal has corresponding
Objective(s) Performance Standard(s), and Monitoring Method(s).
3 OBJECTIVES
Objectives are specifics of the goal. Describe the objective(s) of each goal, e.g., "to add five plant
species in comparison to adjacent emergent wetland"; "to increase sediment retention within 0.5 acre
of emergent wetland". Typical objectives are detailed in Section Three, Part II.
4 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Performance standards are measurable, quantifiable indicators of mitigation performance relative to
objectives and goals. Performance Standards should be keyed to Reference Standards in
"Reference Standards of Depressional Flow -Through Wetlands in the Puget Lowlands of Western
Washington" (Azous et al. 1998) or other thorough reviews of existing area streams or wetlands in
good condition. Describe the performance standard(s) of each objective, e.g., "five additional plant
species will each comprise >15% cover within the created emergent wetland at year three". Typical
vegetation, soil, and hydrology performance standards are set forth in Section Three, Part II.
5 MONITORING METHODS
Monitoring methods assess the performance standards. Describe the method of monitoring individual
performance standards, e.g., "visual observation along permanent transects at 1 m radii". Include
reference to field methods and analysis used, e.g., "Braun-Blanquet releves". Recommended field
data forms are: "Washington Wetland Delineation Manual" routine or intermediate method
determination sheets for vegetation, soils, and hydrology. The "Results" page (see Appendix B) must
be included in every monitoring report.
6 CONTINGENCIES
Include the following language verbatim: "If there is a significant problem with the mitigation
achieving its performance standards, the Bond -holder shall work with King County to develop a
Contingency Plan. Contingency plans can include, but are not limited to: regrading, additional plant
installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions of type, size, quantity,
and location. Such Contingency Plan shall be submitted to County by December 31 of any year
when deficiencies are discovered."
CAMitigationGuidelinesFORM.doc Is-not-samit.pdf C23 11/10/2012 Page 4 of 19
C23 Web date: 11/10/2012
7 HYDROLOGY
Refer to Appendix A for methods of matching pre -developed contributing basin flow quantities and
durations, post -development. Applicants must demonstrate that detailed hydrologic calculations and
analysis have been performed by a qualified civil engineer with experience in wetland mitigation
design. Mitigation design must be driven by the results of these detailed hydrologic calculations and
analysis.
8 DESIGN
Mitigation design is key to mitigation success. See the appropriate portion of Section Three of this
document when designing your mitigation plan.
9 INSTALLATION
For most projects, installation occurs in three phases, each followed by Permitting inspection.
Installation cannot proceed from one phase to the next without successful Permitting inspection.
Permitting must receive notice that Construction phase of Installation has begun by the date noted on
your Restoration Bond, generally within 60 days of bonding.
9.1 Pre -Construction
9.1.1 Defines limits of work and limits of grading.
9.1.2 Locates TESC structures and any other structures in the approved plan.
9.1.3 Any other work required by Permitting.
9.1.4 Inspection verifies limits, structure location, etc.
9.2 Construction
9.2.1 Every site must be deconsolidated and soil amended. Receipts for labor and materials
must be provided to inspector.
9.2.2 Site must be staked at 20' intervals along required contours (see Section One, Paragraph 3
for required contours).
9.2.3 Where grading is called for, performed as designed and within limits of grading.
9.2.4 Where structures are called for, must be installed as located and designed.
9.2.5 Where engineered structures are to be installed, installation must be supervised by a
qualified engineer, whose qualifications must be supplied to the inspector.
9.2.6 Inspection verifies soils deconsolidated and amended, elevations, structure placement, etc.
9.2.7 Once approved, Permitting must be notified within 30 days that installation has been
completed.
9.3 Installation
9.3.1 Mitigation must be installed according to the approved mitigation plan.
9.3.2 Installation must be supervised by a qualified biologist, whose qualifications must be
supplied to the inspector.
9.3.3 Inspection to verify that all plants are installed according to design, and in good health.
Nursery invoices must be provided to inspector. Once approved, monitoring period begins.
10 AS -BUILT PLANS
Field conditions can differ from design expectations. Where field conditions require minor changes to
approved plan, those changes must be documented and submitted to Permitting for approval. As-
Builts must be as comprehensive as the original plan. Monitoring period begins when the As -Built
plan has been approved, which then becomes the approved mitigation plan for future inspection
purposes.
CAMitigationGuidelinesFORM.doc Is-not-samit.pdf C23 11/10/2012 Page 5 of 19
C23 Web date: 11/10/2012
11 MONITORING
11.1 Monitoring period is typically five years from successful installation inspection.
11.2 Monitoring period may be extended at Permitting's discretion if final inspection shows
mitigation has not achieved performance standards, until performance standards are met.
11.3 Every project must be monitored yearly throughout the monitoring period.
11.4 Monitoring reports must be submitted to Permitting by October 31 of every year throughout
the monitoring period, starting in the year of successful Installation Inspection.
11.5 All monitoring reports must contain Methods, Results, Analysis, and Recommendations.
11.6 Minimum required elements of monitoring reports are:
11.6.1 Report on plant survival, vigor, aerial coverage, etc. from every plant community. Each
transect shall detail herb, shrub, and tree aerial cover at radii of 1 m, 5m, and 10m
respectively, using the Braun-Blanquet releve method or other acceptable field method;
11.6.2 Report on site hydrology, including extent of inundation, saturation, depth to groundwater,
function of any hydrologic structures, inputs, outlets, etc.;
11.6.3 Report on slope condition, site stability, any structures or special features;
11.6.4 Report on buffer conditions, e.g., surrounding land use, use by humans, wild and domestic
creatures, etc.;
11.6.5 Report on wildlife, including amphibians, avians, and others as required by County;
11.6.6 Report on soils, including texture, Munsell color, rooting, and oxidized rhizospheres;
11.6.7 Report on and receipts for off -site disposal of any dumping, weeds, or invasive plants;
11.6.8 Report on and receipts for any structural repair or replacement; and
11.6.9 At least 18 4"x6" color photographs taken from permanent photo -points as shown on
Monitoring Plan Map.
11.7 Any deficiency discovered during any monitoring OR inspection visit must be corrected
within 60 days.
11.8 All monitoring reports will be followed by Permitting inspection to verify report findings.
12 MAINTENANCE
12.1 During Year One, every failed planting must be replaced.
12.2 During Year One, and during the first year after any replacement planting, plantings must
receive 1" of water at least once weekly June 15-September 15, inclusive.
12.3 Other Maintenance must be done twice every year for the length of monitoring period.
Weeding and removal MUST be performed within the following constraints: Use no
herbicides or pesticides whatsoever, and All work to be performed by hand wherever
possible, and with the lightest possible equipment where such use is imperative.
12.3.1 WEEDING: Trees and shrubs must be weeded to the dripline, and mulch maintained at 3"
depth. Weed herbaceous plantings as necessary (flowers, ferns, etc.).
12.3.2 REMOVAL: All litter, dumping, and non-native vegetation must be removed, e.g.,
Himalayan blackberry, reed canary grass, evergreen blackberry, Scots broom, English ivy,
morning glory, Japanese knotweed, etc., and properly disposed of off -site. Receipts must
be sent to the Department of Permitting.
12.3.3 STRUCTURES: Damaged or missing fences, posts, signs, habitat or hydrology structures
must be repaired or replaced. Receipts must be sent to the Department of Permitting.
13 CONTINGENCY PLAN
Should any monitoring report reveal the mitigation has failed in whole or in part, and should that
failure be beyond the scope of routine maintenance, the applicant must submit a Contingency Plan.
This Plan may range in complexity from a list of plants substituted, to cross -sections of proposed
engineered structures. Once approved, it may be installed, and will replace the approved mitigation
plan. If the failure is substantial, Permitting will likely extend the monitoring period for that mitigation.
CAM itigationG uideli nes FORM.doc Is-not-samit.pdf C23 11/10/2012 Page 6 of 19
C23 Web date: 11/10/2012
*14 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES
14.1 If the applicant seeks a development permit that is contingent on the performance of a
mitigation project, two options are available:
14.1.1 The mitigation may be installed and the monitoring period successfully completed before any
development permit work is begun, OR
14.1.2. More typically, applicant must provide a Restoration Bond or assignment of funds per King
County procedures.
14.2 Once the mitigation plan is approved, a Bond Quantity Worksheet will be completed based
on all elements of the mitigation plan. The total cost, plus contingency fees, will be the
amount of the Restoration Bond the applicant is required to provide.
14.3 Note that approved Bond will include required start date for mitigation construction.
14.4 Bonds are eligible for reduction to Maintenance status as soon as three years after
successful installation inspection, providing that it also meets project goals as described in
Paragraph 2, Section Two.
14.5 Should the property be sold before the bond is released, you can transfer your obligation. If
the purchaser posts an equivalent bond, and acknowledges responsibility for all details of the
approved Mitigation Plan, Permitting will release your bond and end your obligation. This is
the only way to end the obligation to complete the mitigation.
15 APPENDICES, (ATTACH THESE TO SUBMITTED MITIGATION PLAN)
15.1 Copy of the critical area delineation, study, or report, and other technical documents that
support the proposed plan.
15.2 Copies of signed monitoring and maintenance contracts for the length of the monitoring
period.
SECTION THREE: DESIGN GUIDELINES
This section is divided into three parts: I: Design Requirements; II: Design Guidelines; and III:
Planting Specifications. This section amplifies the Washington State Department of Ecology's
"Guidelines for Developing Freshwater Mitigation Plans and Proposals."
Mitigations may consist of mosaics — emergent wetlands intermixed with shrub and forested
wetlands. Performance goals, standards of success, and planting densities should be applied to
relevant portions of the mitigation.
This document is based on two types of knowledge: first, inspection of wetland mitigations in King
County, and analysis of success and failure; second, on the best science with whichPermitting staff is
familiar. Much information contained herein is derived from "Reference Standards for Depressional
Flow -Through Wetlands in the Puget Lowlands of Western Washington," Azous et al., 1998,
Permitting, Snoqualmie, WA. If you have information, published in professional peer -review journals,
that contradicts this document, please apprise us of it. After careful review, we will revise our
guidelines accordingly.
The following examples are typical of over 90% of all wetlands and buffers in King County for which
mitigations might be designed. Some obvious communities have been excluded, such as bogs.
Unusual situations will require unusual mitigations, and will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis.
This document is meant to guide the design of most mitigation plans.
CAM itigationGuidelinesFORM.doc Is-not-samit.pdf C23 11/10/2012 Page 7 of 19
C23 Web date: 11i10/2012
PART I: DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Every mitigation plan must be guided by the following parameters:
1 VEGETATION
1.1 All plants specified must be native to the Puget lowlands of Western Washington;
1.2 Shade -dependent species (as defined by Permitting publication "Habitat Worksheet",
Appendix C) are to be specified only where shade exists at time of planting;
1.3 No bare -root material shall be specified in anaerobic soil conditions (typically where plants
will be inundated for more than two weeks through the growing season).
1.4 Plant selection and placement should be guided by moisture, light, and other habitat needs —
see the appropriate portion of Part 11 of this Section for more details.
2 SOILS
2.1 Plans for wetlands, streams, and/or their buffers must specify that soils be deconsolidated to
a minimum depth of 12" where trees or shrubs are planted; to 6" depth where grasses or
emergents are planted.
2.2 All plans must specify that soils be amended. Typical amendments on compacted subsoil:
2" of coarse sand and 4" of vegetative compost spread over entire area.
2.3 Peat shall not be used to amend soils.
2.4 See the appropriate portion of Part II of this Section for more details.
3 HYDROLOGY
3.1 When designing for wetlands, streams, or their buffers, all plans must be designed for
demonstrated hydrology.
3.2 Hydrologic calculations for both existing and proposed wetland and stream must be included
with all mitigation designs. See Appendix A, "Wetland Hydrology Management Guidelines"
for calculating hydrologic budgets.
3.3 See the appropriate portion of Part II of this Section for more details.
4 SLOPES
4.1 No slope in buffer shall be graded steeper than 20% (5:1).
4.2 No slope in wetland shall be graded steeper than 10% (10:1).
4.3 Permissible grades in streams and steep slope areas will be decided on a case -by -case
basis.
5 STRUCTURES
5.1 Mitigations must be enclosed by a permanent fence at least 4' high, with Critical Area signs
(available from Permitting) mounted on every 100', or one per lot. A split -rail or round post -
and -rail fence is sufficient for this purpose. Other fence types may be proposed.
5.2 Some minor projects may substitute Critical Area signs mounted on posts set into the ground
at 100' intervals.
CAMitigationGuidelinesFORM.doc Is-not-samit.pdf C23 11/10/2012 Page 8 of 19
C23 Web date: 11/10/2012
PART II: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Every mitigation plan must establish goals, objectives, and performance standards. Every plan
should be specific to mitigation goals and to demonstrated hydrology'. The following are boilerplate
goals, objectives, and performance standards that mitigation plans must follow.
Like all boilerplate, there will be times when exceptions must be made — Permitting requires that all
exceptions be based on careful, documented, well -referenced research. Performance standards are
those aspects of a wetland or buffer mitigation that will be verified by Permitting inspection.
Mitigations that do not meet performance standards will be notified that they are in violation, and will
have 60 days to correct all violations or be liable to bond forfeiture.
Vegetation standards are typically based on both cover and survival. Non-native and other invasives
— Himalayan blackberry, Japanese knotweed, evergreen blackberry, reed canary grass, Scots broom,
English ivy, morning glory, etc. — may only comprise up to 10% cover in any given stratum.
Desirable native volunteers like alder and cottonwood may count for up to 20% of cover in any
stratum. But species diversity is important — where a desirable native volunteer cover more than 20%
of any stratum, a contingency mitigation plan must be created and implemented that restores the
mitigation site to the designed level of diversity. Applicants are strongly encouraged to design
mitigation plans that propose achievable goals, and that carefully prepare and maintain the mitigation
to ensure those goals are met.
The following are typical goals, objectives, and performance standards for the creation or restoration
of typical Cowardin communities.
1 GOAL: CREATE/RESTORE A PALUSTRINE EMERGENT (PEM) WETLAND OF X ACRES
Typical performance goal for these wettest areas is a meadow -like expanse of sedges, rushes,
grasses, and herbs — there may be five or ten trees or shrubs like cottonwood, willow, red -osier
dogwood, per acre on hummocks of higher ground, or there may be none.
1.1 Vegetation performance standards (FAC, FACW, or OBL species):
1.1.1 Emergent Cover: 60% by Year One, 80% by Year Three, 90-100% by Year Five;
1.1.2 Shrub or sapling tree Cover: (where specified) 10% cover by Year Three; AND
1.1.3 100% survival by Year One, EITHER 85% survival by Year Three OR demonstrate that
species diversity and distribution mimic reference standard wetlands.
1.2 Hydrology performance standards:
1 "-4" inundation March 1 through May 15, on average. This plant community requires
stable hydroperiod, i.e., no spiky inputs as from pavements, roofs, etc.
1.3 Soil performance standards:
1.3.1 Soil deconsolidated to at least 6" depth (measured at installation).
1.3.2 Soil to contain at least 45% organic matter by bulk density (verified by invoices).
1 For example, hydroperiod is crucial. Where water depth is appropriate for a Palustrine Emergent (PEM) community, but hydroperiod
will be flashy, i.e., there will be spiky inputs from, roads, roofs, etc., research shows that spiky inputs produce emergent communities
dominated by invasives like reed canary grass. Best practice in this situation might be to design a vigorous Palustrine Scrub -Shrub
(PSS) community. This and other hydrology references are from Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research
Program, a 10-year study, presented at the conference "Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future" on September 26,
1996.
CAMitigationGuidelinesFORM.doc Is-not-samit.pdf C23 11/10/2012 Page 9 of 19
C23 Web date: 11I10/2012
2 GOAL: CREATE/RESTORE A PALUSTRINE SCRUB -SHRUB (PSS) WETLAND OF X
ACRES
Typical performance goal for these wetter areas is a dense thicket of shrubs, such as willows,
twinberry, red -osier dogwood, etc.
2.1 Vegetation performance standards (FAC, FACW, or OBL species):
2.1.1 Emergent Cover (where specified): 60% by Year One, 80% by Year Three, 90% by Year
Five;
2.1.2 Shrub or sapling tree cover by Year Three -- >60%; 85% by Year Five AND
2.1.3 100% survival by Year One, EITHER 85% survival by Year Three OR demonstrate that
species diversity and distribution mimic reference standard wetlands. Hardshack (Spiraea
douglasii) shall not comprise more than 10% of cover.
2.2 Hydrology performance standards:
2"-12" inundation March 1 through May 15, on average. This plant community can tolerate
a flashy hydroperiod.
2.3 Soil performance standards:
2.3.1 Soil deconsolidated to at least 12" depth (measured at installation).
2.3.2 Soil to contain at least 30% organic matter by bulk density (verified by invoices).
3 GOAL: CREATION OF A PALUSTRINE FORESTED (PFO) WETLAND OF X ACRES
The performance goal for these wet areas is the creation of mature, forested wetlands with herb,
shrub (sub -canopy), and tree layers.
3.1 Vegetation performance standards (FACU-, FAC, FACW, or OBL species):
3.1.1 Emergent Cover: 60% by Year One, 80% by Year Three, 90% by Year Five;
3.1.2 Shrub or sapling tree cover by Year Three -- >60%; 85% by Year Five AND
3.1.3 100% survival by Year One, 85% survival by Year Three.
3.2 Hydrology performance standards:
Saturation between soil surface and 12" depth March 1 through May 15, on average.
This plant community requires a stable hydroperiod.
3.3 Soil performance standards:
3.3.1 Soil deconsolidated to at least 12" depth (measured at installation).
3.3.2 Soil to contain at least 30% organic matter by bulk density (verified by invoices).
4 GOAL: CREATION OF A BUFFER OF X ACRES
The performance goal for these areas is to create a dense forest that will protect wetland from human
encroachment and provide wildlife habitat.
4.1 Vegetation Performance Standards (UPL, FACU, or FAC species):
4.1.1 Emergent Cover: 60% by Year One, 80% by Year Three, 90% by Year Five
4.1.2 Shrub or sapling tree cover by Year Three: >60%; AND
4.1.3 100% survival by Year One, 85% survivals by Year Three
4.2 Hydrology performance standards:
Not applicable, but note that slopes must be 20% or gentler to allow interaction between
wetland and upland.
4.3 Soil performance standards:
4.3.1 Soil deconsolidated to at least 12" depth (measured at installation)
4.3.2 Soil to contain at least 20% organic matter by bulk density (verified by invoices).
CAMitigationGuidelinesFORM.doc Is-not-samit.pdf C23 11/10/2012 Page 10 of 19
C23 Web date: 11/10/2012
PART III: PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
Planting types and densities should be specific to demonstrated hydrology and site conditions. The
following densities should enable mitigations to meet their performance standards. Quantities are
average, based on container -grown material — divisions, slips, cuttings, and bare -root materials
require higher planting densities to compensate for lower survival rates. Rough equation to correlate
is: 1'-3' = 1 gal.; 2'-4' = 2 gal.; 4'-6' = 5 gal. Planting densities only give figures for total plants per
area — plants should be placed in random, naturalized clusters. The following minimum acceptable
densities per plant community are:
1 EMERGENT (PEM) WETLANDS (FAC, FACW, OR OBL SPECIES) ARE TO BE PLANTED
TO:
1.1 Emergents 1' O.C., or one per square foot of area (this assumes 10" plug or 4" pot); OR
1.2 Emergents 18" O.C., or 0.444 per square foot of area, if supplemented by overseeding of
native emergents or graminoids as appropriate.
2 SHRUB (PSS) WETLANDS (FAC, FACW, OR OBL SPECIES) ARE TO BE PLANTED TO:
2.1 Shrubs 5' O.C., or 0.04 per square foot of area; (this assumes 2 gal. size);
2.2 Plus herbs and groundcovers 4' O.C., or 0.063 per square foot of area; (10" plug or 4" pot);
2.3 Plus overseeding with native emergents, graminoids, or sterile ryegrass as appropriate.
3 FORESTED (PFO) WETLANDS (FACU- TO FACW SPECIES) ARE PLANTED TO
3.1 EITHER:
3.1.1 Trees 9' O.C., or 0.012 per square foot of area; (this assumes 2-5 gal. size) — such trees
are to be at least 50% conifers;
3.1.2 Plus shrubs 6' O.C., or 0.028 per square foot (this assumes 1-2 gal. size);
3.1.3 Plus herbs and groundcovers 4' O.C., or 0.063 per square foot of area (10" plug or 4" pot);
3.1.4 Plus overseeding with native emergents, graminoids, or sterile ryegrass as appropriate.
3.2 OR: The Simple, Two -Step Process
3.3 Plant alders, cottonwood, willows (other seral species, e.g., big -leaf maple, Doug fir, as
appropriate to site) at densities of 8' O.C., or 0.016 per square foot (assumes 2 gal. size);
plus overseed with clover, low -growing non-invasive grasses, lupines, etc.;
3.3.1 After three years or greater than 85% survival, underplant with:
3.3.2 Conifers (e.g., Sitka spruce, cedar, hemlock, yew, Douglas fir in a wetter -to -drier
continuum) 12' O.C., .007 per square foot of area, (this assumes 2-5 gal.size);
3.3.3 Plus shade -tolerant or dependent sub -canopy species (e.g., Indian plum, vine maple, etc.)
9' O.C., .012 per square foot of area, (assumes 1-2 gal.size);
3.3.4 Plus shade -tolerant and dependent herbs and groundcovers (e.g., waterleaf, trillium,
Smilacina, etc.), 4' O.C. or 0.063 per square foot of area (10" plug or 4" pot), plus overseed
with native herbs and grasses.
4 BUFFERS (UPL, FACU, OR FAC SPECIES)
4.1 Are to be planted as for Forested Wetlands, except:
4.2 See Site Placement in Habitat Worksheet, Appendix C — best species for this area are
those marked WB (wetter buffer) and DB (drier buffer).
CAM itigationG uideli nes FORM.doc Is-not-samit.pdf C23 11/10/2012 Page 11 of 19
C23 Web date: 11110/2012
LQ
King County
Department of Permitting
and Environmental Review
35030 SE Douglas Street, Suite 210
Snoqualmie, Washington 98065-9266
Appendix A
WETLAND HYDROLOGY MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
The Puget Sound Wetlands & Stormwater Management Research Program' has developed
guidelines for managing wetland hydroperiods post -development. These guidelines have, however,
proven to be difficult to translate into engineering requirements for development proposals. In order
to resolve these problems, the following technical guidelines have been developed.
These guidelines provide methods for determining pre -development wetland hydrology and designing
surface water conveyance systems to maintain this hydrology post -development. Two methods have
been developed, a simple method using the King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) hydrologic
program and a more accurate method using calibrated Hydrologic Simulation Program — Fortran
(HSPF).
The "Basic" analysis is applied to wetlands that have low to moderate functions. A "High Value"
analysis has been developed for wetlands that have high functions. Wetland functions may be
determined by the utilizing the "Wetland and Buffer Functions: Semi -Quantitative Assessment
Methodology."2 This method establishes three groups of wetland functions. Group 1 are roughly
"low" functioning wetlands while Groups 2 and 3 are "moderate" and "high" functioning wetlands.
Basic Analysis (HSPF w/Regionalized Parameters, or KCRTS)
This analysis does not model the wetland hydraulics, but instead matches the project's hydrologic
contribution to the wetland. The basic analysis is performed with the full historical runoff files as
statistics will be performed on partial water years, which the reduced 8-year runoff files were not
designed for. The basic analysis should be combined with BMP's (e.g. dispersion, infiltration,
energy dissipation, etc.) designed to closely match the transport characteristics of the existing
site's hydrologic contributions to the wetlands. (i.e. do flows from the existing site enter the
wetland via concentrated surface flow, as interflow, or combination of both?).
a) determine the wetland contributing basin area, and soil and landcover types.
b) determine the pre -development probability of flow exceedence (flow durations) for different
periods of the water year, as described below in Time Period of Interest.
c) determine the post -development probability of flow exceedence (flow durations) for the same
time periods used in b. Different site development scenarios should be analyzed to
determine the optimum developed site configuration.
d) determine the optimum developed site conditions which best match the pre -development
frequency of exceedence.
i) modifying the post -development contributing basin area (bypass increased volumes
around wetland).
ii) increased forest retention.
iii) infiltrate/disperse increased runoff volumes.
CAMitigatio nG uideli nes FORM.doc Is-not-samit.pdf C23 11/10/2012 Page 12 of 19
C23 Web date: 11/10/2012
TIME PERIOD OF INTEREST
Group 1 wetlands, perform analysis seasonally with Spring and Summer being of primary concern
to maintaining wetland functions. Spring is defined as February 1 through May 31, summer is
June 1 through August 31, fall is September 1 through November 30, and winter is December 1
through January 31. Seasons may be adjusted based on specific wetland characteristics. (e.g.
bogs may have a different critical season than lakes).
Group 2 wetlands not required to perform High Value Analysis: (Time period shorter than
seasonal during critical season(s)). Perform partial -year duration analysis for each month during
the wetlands critical season(s), use seasonal time step for remainder of the year. The shorter
time period will better match the existing, time variable, hydrologic contributions from the site. The
time period could be reduced further to a minimum of 1 week, which would essentially analyze
flow durations on a storm -by -storm basis. An initial goal of matching the majority of partial -year
flow durations should be used. Final determination as to the optimum site configuration will be
agreed to through the engineering plan review process, in conjunction with review by county
and/or private wetlands biologists.
The increased number of data points resulting from a shorter time period will likely require more
judgment as to the optimum developed site configuration, as it is likely that different storm types
will produce variable changes in runoff response under different land use assumptions (e.g., a
thunderstorm may produce little to no runoff under existing conditions. A fixed structure set to
bypass the increased runoff from that storm may divert too much volume during a long duration
winter storm). In other words, it is likely that a project will not be able to match, to the same level,
the partial -year flow durations for all time periods, and therefore judgment must be applied.
Proposals to modify the wetland hydraulics (storage or discharge) to control impacts should
perform a calibrated HSPF analysis to measure fluctuations, as described in 2 below.
2. High Value Analysis (Calibrated HSPF) Group 3 wetlands. Use combination of existing MDP
procedures and PSWSMRP guidelines to analyze wetland water level fluctuations.
a) determine the water level fluctuation (WLF) for the wetland by gauging the wetland for 1 year.
Use a combination of groundwater wells and crest -stage gages or continuous recording
gages.
b) survey the topography of the wetland at a minimum of 1 foot contours
c) perform a stage excursion analysis for 72-hour intervals
d) limit stage excursions post -development using the PSWSMRP guidelines.
Note: Comparisons of existing and proposed conditions should be done based on calibrated
simulations. Many of the errors in the analysis (e.g. reservoir hydraulics) will cancel (to a large
extent) if both conditions are simulated.
References
Homer, Richard R., S.S. Cooke, K.O. Richter, A. L. Azous, L.R. Reinelt, B.L. Taylor, K.A. Ludwa, and M. Valentine.
1966. Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future. Chapter 15. Puget Sound Wetlands & Stormwater
Management Research Program.
2 Cooke, Sarah Spear. May 1996. Wetland and Buffer Functions: Semi -Quantitative Assessment Methodology. Cooke
Scientific Services. Seattle, WA.
CAM itigationG uideli nes FORM.doc Is-not-samit.pdf C23 11/10/2012 Page 13 of 19
C23 Web datell/10/2012
LQ Appendix B
King County
Department of Permitting
and Environmental Review
35030 SE Douglas Street, Suite 210
Snoqualmie, Washington 98065-9266
Location of impacted wetland County City State
USGS Quad NWI Quad
Location of impacted wetland County City State
USGS Quad NWI Quad
Summay of project, including wetland functions impacted and mitigated
Acres of wetland impacted (Cowardin classification)
Aquatic bed Emergent Forested
Open Water Scrub Shrub
Other impacts to Streams Lakes Estuaries Coastal Waters
Acres of wetland mitigation (Cowardin classification)
Restoration Creation Enhancement
Open Water Open Water Open Water
Aquatic Bed Aquatic Bed Aquatic Bed
Emergent Emergent Emergent
Scrub Shrub Scrub Shrub Scrub Shrub
Forested Forested Forested
Total
Is preservation being proposed as part of the plan? ❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, acres of wetland will be preserved
and acres of upland buffer and/or acres of riparian corridor.
Buffers for mitigation site
Maximum width ft; Minimum width TOTAL buffer area acres.
Water regime at mitigation site
Source of water? Ground Water Rain Water _
Owners of water rights?
Existing
Average winter outflow (cfs)
Average spring outflow (cfs)
Average summer outflow (cfs)
Average fall outflow (cfs)
Soil Surface will be saturated at the surface or flooded for
Estimated time to reach Performance Standards yrs.
CAM itigationG uideli nes FORM.doc Is-not-samit.pdf C23 11/10/2012
Surface water
Proposed
months per year.
Page 14 of 19
n
N
w
97
O
(D
cn
O
co
�
�km�a°a°O��"vc^ua�CD
ma
CD
CD
Ql�
���
N
-a
�aaorov,v��o��aycv`a
C.)
0
'��a�i
,...oZ3ro
m
v�arom
�
o�vammoQ
m
W_
T
_Cb
qs
N
v
(D
_
W
C)
p
O-�a
D
(D
LT
in
CCD
CD
N
n
O
CD
n
(D
00
O
a
n
Q
O
z
m
CD
�;n
�
CD
CD
o
m
ro
Q
B
Q
�
O<
Li
Q1
(n
n
S
n
p
7�
Q
O
(n
O
7
a-
n
Q
(D
fl1
�'
O
CD
=r-s
CDQ
(D
_h
-z
CD
:
O
v
(n
7
(D
2
n
w
cnn
0
Z
CO
CD
7
'O
3
CD
3
CL
O
O
O0
0
CD
CD
<D
m
3
(n
Q
O
a
(D
CD
O
7:
a)
Q
—
Z
CD
NTITIZTIT
TITTITITITITC'll-1lTl(n�
ADD
—DDDDDDDDD�DD>EL
CD
(�
n
-�
(7
n
(7
n
n
C)
(7
n
C�
r
C�
C�
n
F'
-
C
yCC
+C
CC(n
v
4s
o'
+
O
y
D
D
�
�
n
r-
�
N
C)
N
W
0o
OOOOCDNO
W
Cn
N
-4
M
N
WOOOOON=W
W
W
00
00
-�
cD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
(n
X
(n
(n
(A
(n
fn
2
(n
C/l
2
(n
(n
Cl)(!)
(n
(A
(n
Z r
y--y—�--(n(n(n�
0
r.
m
N�
W.
cocoocom03mmmmmpOW
WCA0
m
m
D
W
�.W���
m
v
W
co
�
m
D
W
W
W
n
Doo<D�(n(nZ���(nr(ncnoo
0
p
N
CD
�.
(D
(D
(D
O
ro
(D
W
T
(�D
N
(D
0
0
�
�
�
CD
(n
0-r' 0'
(n
�
O
v
Q
O
O
-0
O
0
�
(n
o
3-
�
fn
n
a
0
��
N
(D
D
00
O
�;
�
�
O
(�/�i
Cr
O
7
cn
D
h
v
-
0
�
°
W
o
m
CD
a
Qo
�
3
(n
CD
CD
�
3
m
0
�
o
W
�
Sp
l
I
(n
a
v
O
=
o
cn
CD
(D
m
7
m
(n
(D
(n
cn o
O
m
N
o
Z
w
a
�,'
CD
o
n
(n
°
CCDto
CD
�o
r'
m
o
m
ocn
<
cD
y
CD
Q
y
v
o (=D -
CD W
Q Q .►
53'�CD
(a
(n v c
=.
o c CD
CD
O CD
CD N
(n CD
❑.
CD (D
cn CD
0 CD
0
CD 0 it
CD O
N G) !y
� � O
.-�
Q (CD N
(n 5
CD
CD n
n
90
3 v n
((DD N.
U) o,
0 �
v
c CLO
�cn-*
v CD
N o
(D
C)
v CD v
Q
CD
T Ln.
CD CO o
w Qo
0
m
07 cn o
CD n
o
m �
O `G
(n w al v
n
r
o Ul 3 m
9
to
rr
n
O.
(D
.C.
�D
c omd
O1 cn 3
L
o
rt
0
p
Z
Z
ru O�'�
o
3
'+
Z
>y
v
�'
���rt`<
En
En M
CD
(
(�
rt rt
to m
� m
0 N
� rt
rt
00 C rt
Coil CD �• (c
r
C)
* 0 cn (n (n r
mOo=1D II G)
II II m II m
�0-u�=�
m c� nQ-Cm
CD
00 M CD 0
Cl) CKp �
m= mm o
nCZ -
m
m �� v
JCL:
CD
U) D (n
II II II II
U)CD
_
= 3 Q
� r-r
00 -11
CD `G CD
a� ao
Cn -1
O. CD W
(n c
CD
Cr
r=r
CD
0 Q
0
X.
m
rF
m
CD
CD
c
C
CA
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
W
W
W
Z
;10
�0
�0
�0
�0
�0
Z
Z
Z7
-0-Ti?-
0
o
o
0
o
o
M
M)
�
n
CO
m
m
3
o
a
m
v
v
m
m
c
a
c
a
c
Zr
o
0
0
O
0
0
m
m
m
m
C
c�
_
a0
o
ff=�
`�
o�
n0i
°'
��
o
a
m
`�°
CD�
n
c�
a
c
a
z
O
m
m
m
v,
cn
cn
cn
s;
y
O
=�
CZ
a
m
O
O
a
m
c
m
m
v
C
Z
c
Z
s;
o-
O
cn
c
O
y .
n
cn
O
m
cn
a
O
c°
CD
'C
ca
0
rn
a
c.
a_
�'
o(a
c
pyj
m
a
c
c
v,
v
O
m
O
�.
m
�
m
N
n
m
`O
ti
u,
y
Co
0
n
�;
a
O
cj
Cl).
;-.
c
Cn
Zr
o
fl1•
O
�
m
a
CD
m
CD
O
O
C
m
C)
cn
cn
C)
C,
�
�
a
a
O-
m
k
m
n
m
z•
0
y
m
s;
Cl)
0
o
y
o
�
°'
�-
j
c
N
O,b
m
O
S
N
CD
C,
(D
Z
4
CD
_.
O
N
O
�,.
O
O
C)
m
m
O
z(a
O
Cn
a
m
p
�•
c
co
c
y
Z-
CD
�
C
co
Q
3
°
CD
�
��
O
Z
m
C
'O
CD
v_)
vi
O
j
m
m
7
m
m
�_
O
D.
CD
a
m
n
�
j
S
CD
Cp
O
0
j-
�
m
W
O
m
y
O
n
?
�
O
c
N
�,
N
ti
y
COD
m
m
=
�
a)
z
�
m
�
O
n
�c
�
c°n
m
j
CD
p
m
Co
0
Cl)
Cl)
�
�
�'
�
y.
�
�
�
�
y
N
�
0
co
co
fn
y
CD
Cn
C7
Cn
Cn
-0
2
G)
rn
v
r
a
C�
Z
a
C)
v
r2
O
�
T
ID
3
0
CD
5
(n
6
O
n
En
v
_
y
fn
Cn
CD
5.
7
n
d
N
O
cn
Q-
n
O
TD
0
O
O
CD
`<
3
3
m
n
c
a
O
O
O
Q-
0
c"
X
CD
m
o
O
00
5
CS
-
CD
ID
o
CD
W
—
M
c)
N
n
i
0
°
—
CD
O
3
Z
�
o
CD
v
c
�;
°
X
CD
CD
o�
m
a
o
m
m
m-
m
x
M
B
CD
p
�.
y
3
0
m
Cl)
m
m
m
°)
m
�'
o
o
v
3
0
o
0.
cn
m
e
m'
p
ca
m
°°
a3
0
o'
CD
m
•a
CL
o
rn
m
e
m
'.
O
O
m
0'
O-
3
CD
—
O
0
—
`�
`�
6
0
cn
(D
m
7
j
0
m
'�
CD
O
a
3
v
S
0
0
O
O
Z
CD
C
°
(D
Cn
cn
a5
U
CD
O
(D
O
O
CD
CDv
:3
CD
m
a
CD
m
w
CD
En
Z
C
�l
7•I
7l
TI
TI
TI
'C1
'rl
"T7
7'I
Z
�•I
'C1
�'I
Z
�'I
TI
TI
TI
7l
TI
Z
7l
TI
p
�•I
Z
TI
TI
TI
TI
C
C
7l
TI
(n �
-
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D-
D
D
D-
D
D
D
D
D
D-
D
D
co
D-
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
r
0
0
0
0
C)
C)
C)
r-
C)
C)
0
0
C)
r
r
n
C)
y
C
C
C
C
+
C
+
C
C
C
C
c"0
C)
+
+
yW
+
C
C)
r
U7
v
--+
N
N
W
Ul
N
v
-•
v-4
v
W
W
N
N
-4—
6)
v
N—
N
A
-I
N
N=
W
CT
O
CJ7
01
O
O
U1
fJl
O
O
O
O
O
U1
O
O
O
C71
O
O
O
Cn
O
O
Ln
X
Cl)
Cn
Cn
Cn
=
2
Cn
2
Cn
Cn
2
Cn
Cn
Cn
(n
(n
(n
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
co
cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Z r
vv—�DD
D--y—���-I--i��
Cn
tn�n�v
���-���v-
vCDc0
CD
cn
0
C7
v
Cn
cn
co
v
C
0
0
Co
Co
co00Mm
nm
mWcomcnMMMMMm0Do0MmMmm00W00°°m°°00°°
Co
vvvcn*cn
cn
vvvvg
vv*vcncn
v
cn
vC
0o
co
m
cn
oo
cn
m
m
v
cn
W
M
W
v
W
M
M
W
W
v
cn
cn
v
cn
co
3
cn
v
CD
co
W
v
cn
uo
co
W
v
00C
U)G)C;a
00-i-nmZZEZ00
0M-.1G»v0M
`<
Z
C�
CD
"'
m
O
3°
°
v
v
o
3
-O
0
3
7
m
v
cD
CD
o
o=
C
v°
c
O
m
m
w
o-
c
O
M
CD
CD
T.
m
CD
CD
c
zs
O
3
m
I°
c
v
cn
�.
o
o
m
�.
cD
C1
CC
CD
CD
O
3
c
m
3
v
a
3
3
3
cn
N
°1
O
<
a
cO
?°
v
�.
c
O_
m<
cn
m
n
o
w
a
cn
°
3
m
(n'�
"
v
o
m
cD
cn
cn
r:
m
a
o
m
o
co
o°
o
cn
o�
a<
o
.:
3•
°
c°
,�
o
m?
o
`0
m
c
m
o
o
5.
O
N
3
0
D
o�
90
3
c
c
a°
c
c
c
a
m
o
N
3
3
5
o
Co
0
0
-°
c
c°°
0
m
a
-°
m
o
�
a
m
C
°_
o
m
o
co
°
a
n
a
o
�'
a
n
o
o
0
cD
o
O.
v
3
o
n<
3.
m
c
cn
m
CD
Co
cn
v -
o
co
c
�
a
cn
n
°
o
�
v
c°
3
�
s
<
°
m
v
0
o
v
3-
v°7)
°
o
v
N°
o
c
m
v
m
m
cn
�
°
m-
°
m
°
rt
a
°
v)
�'
m
CD
m
m
o
°'
�
o
m
Q
o
o
v
v
m
3
�'
-
o
E
o
5
3
'in
o
a
m
Q)
E
v
o
O_
v
'�
o
�'
m
�,
vm,
m
3°
0
3
-
m°
C
W.
o
m
e
o
0
3
v
to
c
rn
°
S
3
w
°
cn
°
3
0
5.
3
3
0
0)
CD
MO
�.
o
o
in
C)
U)
O
2)
cO
cn
0
Cn•
o
to
N
CD
N
rt
E
cnm
m
CD
°°
qp
O
o
CD
m
`n
3
Er
O-
m
to
m
3
N
-
v
e
a
Q:
CD
0.
m
0
m
cD
ur
c
cci
3
m
c
CD
v
CD
v
=
v
m-
C)
n
0
o
CD
0
c
N
m
�
M
m
CD
CD
h
co
m00
0
oaa
U
Q
z
CD N,
o
u�i
III
3
`o
`o
y
m
N
a
v
Cll
nai
j
z
2
z
c
c�
°
p
O
°
CO
Co
N
Q41
y
(n•
(n
CAD
CD
N
z
y
sli
y'
N
CDco
N
N
n'
CD
c°i
C
a
�
n
m
a
v
°U
CD
z
CD
CD
co
y'
�z;L7aoo
D
(n
n
(n
�-
a
c
CD
O
o
O
C
`D
3
CD
v
O
O
3
3
v
O
m
—.
CLaO•3.m
N
v
3
3
j
0
(n
oc
y
C L
-=
O
o
O
v
v
CO
3
CD
c
"CD
(D
�.
CD
a
m
(n
v
7_
0
w
M
CD
CD
O=
C
O
N
'
Ncn
cn
7
f0
(n
(n
C°
En
(fl
CO
v
3
CD
N
cn
cn
cn
cn
m
m
o
m
m
m
m
m
m
00
0
w
DDp3DDDDDDoomm—
r+
r
r
r
C
C
cn N
+
+
h
O
;-
-P�
N
N
N
N_
(A
N_
—
_ K
02
_
_
_
X
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
z r-
-p—I----�
—7-7-CD(fl
i
Q 3
(n
m
m
m
l)
07
00
m
m
m
m**
(n65
c
u
vi
m
n
x
(nnu)
cnc
n
cn
m
m3
3
cn
cn
CO
W
WcoW
cn
cn
i
p(D
0
0�
o
O�
O�
0
0
0
rvn�
m
m
v
3
3
a
3
3
(vn
m
o
n
CD
CD
3
3
v
3
(n
(n
0
3
°
v'<
a
o
m
Cn
Q
W
v
rt
o
m
n
o
m
o
v
a
a
5'
m
CD
o
v
:3
m
5
m
m—
o
'0
_—
O
0
CD
(D
0
co'
3
v
0
a
—M.3
0—
a
0
0
m
3
3
:3a
0
�0
�0
co
CL
CD
0
v
(n
CD
CD
`
ZCZZ
O
0
_
m
m
vvvv0
D
y
y
�'
�'
x
k
k
k
X
k
CL
n
Co
Co
CO
CoCoy
CD
n
CD
v
c<
Z
c
0
0)
v
z
a
0'
o
Su
O
c
3
c
3
w
°1
v
`c
s_
co
z
7
N
CO
0
Co
v
c�'
v
iv
`�
v
N
v
3
Q.
cn
y
�.
to
y
Z'
Et
O
Co
(D
Co
cn
a
y
°
�
v
y
G
cn
m
=
o
p
w
C-
ma1
v
Q
O
5'
v
(n
O
0
O
O
3�*
"a
w
(D
w
`<
cQ
S-
o
O
3
—
3
(n
—
CO
CD
CD
cD
cD
o
CD
CT
a
CO
Cr
CD
�
'h
v
CD
a
ai
(n
Q
a
c
v
`�
(n
(n
S.
c
3
CD
C
7'
CD
CD
C L
Q
CD
CY
C
='
cn
S
'a
CD
a
O
m
O
z
C
C
C
N
m
(0
CD
CD
CD
N
3
Cn
(n
S
3
CD
CD
N
cn
S
O
O
O
m
TI
m
o
o
o
00
0
0
o
m
o
(n -
0o0owDDDWW
W
WoDo0mWDoo
o
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rC:
0
+
+
M
O
(A
W
_
N
_
W
-
N
N_
O
O
W
K
CJl
U7
Ul
Ul
Cn
r- M
-
-
-
-
X
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
rn
cn
cn
z r
—
—
CD Ca
cn
cn
cn
CL
w
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
fn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
�
cn
� cn
m
n�
�
CD
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmcnm3
CD
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
r
n
r
r
r
m
m
0
m
x
()
m
0
0
0
N
N
3
°
v
O
0
O
3
v
v
O
O
v
3
3
3
(n
v
3
(n
3'
3
c
—
CD
C1
a
-
3
3
0
0_
O
0
—
CD
0
cno
C
o
0
O
o
o
D=
°'
w
0
0
O
O
v
(n
v
0
�
3
'<
v
m
Q
—(zw
0
0
7
CD
N
7
m
l<
0
0
Cm
m
O
C
m
l
o
3
3
cnCD
3
v
o
(�D—
CD
9-a
O
m
0
3
��
0
3
N
O
3
:.p
5
�
3
?
�
�
a
o
�
CD
CD
<
m
m
CD
:3v
cn
m
n
n
90
CD
ni
m
CD
m
CD
CD
ib
0
vim
o
sv
m
�—•m�cmv3oo�•v�.a.Za�ciQom�•�oa=•
O
O
cD
x
ul
(D
su
`�
C
j
=c)mmopaaaa
CD
CD
a
Cll
�
P)
Z
0
cn=
0
m•�
zcba�3�a�m0u
CD
tea'
�omvm��•v,oza
v
sv
(n
=
o
cu
o
—.
y
ti
S
0'
v,
sv
3
C
3
ni
c
o
a
cn
ssl
m
m
=1
to
0
CD
3
CD
Q
nl
0
O
Q)
y
C
uJ
W
Q
N'
N
CD
uJ
a)
0
Z
O
O
w
a
O
z?
O
c
sn
0
C)
>-
nl
-
O
3
S:
O-
O
a
zr
•G
vi
Q)-
3
0
Z
lu
C
O
O
w
0
W
x
C
�
0
y
Z
CD
Nco
CD
O
co
y
G
co
W
0
CD
CD
o
cOt
C2
C�-D
Zr
G
Vi
CD
W
O-
C
N
O
CD
m
o
�.
�o
z
v:3
a3
u,o
vv3
m
N'co
c
o
CD
coy
3'
m
7
N
Q.
0
C
CD
U)
Cn-v
3.0
-n
-nG)
�.
-
n03r-Q
O
c
W
O
n
CD
3
CD
-•
wm
p
-00
W
O
0
0-
(D
ill
0
M
CD
ID
O
n01
a
fl
m
N
3
S
d
(n
in
o
O
°
(D
2
n1
N
O
*_
a
f
'c
m
O
o°
0
D
'.
v
w
O
o�
0
a
v
rn
O-
E<
O
3
3
3
<
naj
-
°
D
C
D
CD
C
0
0
C
O
rt
O
�'
W
0
3
<
O
0
U
CAD
G`
W
n<
cn
0❑
3
CS
3
(D
O
7
p
X
O
(n
cn
j
3
m
—<<
COD
ul
CD°
(T
0
CD
D
CD
W
S-
m
•
W
-
0
7-
<
m
m
n
m
w
C
CD
w
o
aCD
CD
<
W
CD
3
o
�
<
❑CD
�•
CD
-n-n-nZ-I-n-n-n-nzz000
DDD—DDDDD--po0om>w>D—DD--DOoDD
m
0-n-nz-n-nZZ-n0-nTn2!z(n�
CL
+CyC+�
CrCC
�0
(n 0)
+
+
O
-1
=
W
O
N
-
N
-
ce
W
-
W
N
O
(D
-
0
-
W-
-
Cn
W
-
1
r
O
W
CA
'
N
CA
W
-
CA
x
4�,
-
.00
O
N
-
-
cncn
p
Cl)
�
cncncncncncn
—I
�
Cl)
—i
cncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncncnmZr
Ti
--I
--I
—1
Ti
—i
—I
—
`
�
--I
CD (a
p
p
p
CDC) ^•
(n
p
p
0U)
pC/)
(n00:E*:E00
Cn
000-0UJ
000o0°
00030303:EMM
03*mm
W
*OD
03MMMCO03
03
W
070707
ETm
cn
cn
0
cn
cn
Cn
cn
0
0
Cn
cn
cn
p
p
CD
3
00
m
CO
m
00
_cn
03
im
Cp
CD
03
Cn
03
W
W
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
W�T
0
CD
O
O
O
W
O
(D
Cn
0
7c
0
W
(D
CD
•O
p
0
CD
O
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
0
7
<
N
0
3
0
0
3
D
a
(D
3
N
C
W
CD
m
3
3
D
a—
W
'W
(n
CD
W
(s
C
-
rn
3
3
0
0
3
0
>
3
0
0
3
0
0°
w
(D
(n
0
oio°3
3
W
�
W
6
0
o
3❑
3
0
3
3
Cn
3
0
D
0
0<
0
0�
CD
o
0
0
0
D
o
0
o
3
3
(n
n
0
(n
-•
o
n
CD
W
0
0
_
0
(n
oc
(p
C
cn
0?
om��3���'
CD
W
3
0
a
N
m�3
W
0
0
CD
En
'�
cn
CD
(D
7
<
(n
(n
n
O
O
a�
D
w
C1
m
1
^�
-0
O
(D
O
in
C1 CD
v
0
7
—
W
O
(T
(n
D
7
r.
7
0
oa
W
O
n<
.or
CD
W
m
o
(n
O
Q-
CD
C
vl
0
mCD
7
m
W
(n
(D
cn
CD
vl
N
CD
1
Z
0
L
COD
0
fl.
m
(s
0
<
(n
CD
o
n
0�
cn
d
O
m3
W
W
3
❑
�m�oW
0
o
m
m�CL
mCD
m3
0—
�
m
(n
(n
c
u,
W
a
.0
o
3
D
0
v
(n
o
7
3
0
(n
0
w
•S
='
(S
o
0
_7
<
0
C L
°
FD
7
0
CD
o
CD
(n
O
=
W
3
<
o
=r
W
W
v
0
CD_7
N
W
C
N
m•
W
Q
v
vvom
w-n
o
O
9
C
cWi
C
CD
CD
3��•3_
0
Q
3
m
n
k•
Z
m
v
3
CD
a
W
:E
S
(D
W
C)
0
0
N
=
_
(D
d
CD
CD
�
m
3
❑
:3❑
N
3
O
O
7
D
O
Z
0-m
3
m
m
0
-nmmmmu�
D
D
D
D
D
CCC)
+
O�
0
to
O
Ul
N
-N
W
=
X
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
Z r
CDCO
CL
(n I
pp:
cn
-uC/)
00
co
m
,0
g
0 m
cn
cn
W
CD
3
CD
cn
-0
r
.z
<
C�
CD
Z
�(n
CD
CD
CD
�
O
3
o
(T
3
a
'u'
0
3
0
uLn.
CL
rn
*,
❑
<
a
'F
o
cn
C
Oo°.'30
N
7
Q
En
y
(D
CD
cn
,,
v
0
W
cn
C1
CD
O
3
0
c
CD
C23 Web date11/10/2012
LQ
King County
Department of Permitting
and Environmental Review
35030 SE Douglas Street, Suite 210
Snoqualmie, Washington 98065-9266
FG No.
Inspector
Special Conditions:
Permit No.
RESULTS
Appendix D
Project Name
Date
I. Summarize how mitigation compares to standards of success.
A. Vegetation:
B. Hydrology:
C. Other:
Corrective actions needed?
II. Summarize how well the buffer protects the mitigation
Corrective actions needed?
III. Does mitigation function like a wetland or stream in any stage of serial progression? If so, how? If not,
what overall corrective actions would make it do so?
IV. What other notes would you make that these forms do not include?
Check out the Permitting Web site at www.kin count . ov1 ermits
CAMitigationGuidelinesFORM.doc Is-not-samit.pdf C23 11/10/2012 Page 19 of 19
R5,0
RS35.0
l
(Retrieved March 2019)
CIV 9V
I
WETLA". CONSULTANT
AUTHORIZATION ,FORM
Date:
March 9, 2019
City.
City of Federal Way
Community Development bepartm-eid
�Ih
3-3375 Avenue South,
Federal Way, WA 98003
W"ISUA
Mark Heclwq
C-ozo.01tant:
BeaverCr4ek.aviropmental Services Inc.
PD. liox 731595
Nyallup, -WA "373
rrojoct.
BraMbi*-Gu=an — Wetlan"trearn Wnfica.fion-
FfleNo.:
1-9401,015L-AV, (rDlatedfilo,.-,,18-1,39680-VO)
Project Proponent. Abel Brambila Guzman
3.6606 Pacific - Highway South
Federal W4y, WA 98003
AgLIbMWkSu?,,rqan u ahoo-com
Project Manner: Associate Planner. LOlaWilloughby-Oakes
leilAwill oiighbv-og"e V_h_hYoffederaiw_iV.Wm, 255,4354644
Project The appli.cant has submitted.a crifical; area report in response to a code violation (pity
Background: -file no. 18-13YO80-VO) issued . in August 2018. The single-family residential site
contains a TYPO-F stream.and.Category I wetland mkippcd-on the city's critical area
-inventory of the W Ijylebos etiand$ (Figure 1). The. pose of a review by.:the city's
third, -party co will _'bet tq ide-q#fy rc.=ntdL-.velopmenviand-&turbancewithin
critical areas. Ifthere are unauthorized intrusions; re the property owner
A ntrus ons,, t�a pity requires
remcdiatethe disturbed areas and .submit .a restoration p)[aft witli mitigation prepared at
-
the, owner's expense (Fedeal'W ay-Reyded Code.. [FWRC] 19,145460).
The unauthorized work appears 19 include a bridge/stream crossing replacement and
drive way work (importing gravellfill) without permits. Staff havc not dctern2iricd gthe
existing itit;ms!I roads were widened impacting the stream or wetiond buffer. Please
note that any disturbance toa wetland orstream buffer would notentitle the property
owner to develop or -encroach within the protected arm. The owner mustrestoreall
critical are3s.prio-T -to any proposed -development or flesideritial additions described in
the critical area re - (i.e. Fall 2019).
ea _port if applicable by the next pla'atinR season
We-001d Consultant AiftltoriWdill Form
Page 2 of 3
lDoctiments FiTetlands arts[1]i'atiiage Corrld0.r's �vclluc�tioJ3 & �elxJeeatfvn 17epoYt—$rQrrtbrl
Provided. Residence, Beaver Creek Enviromnental.Servicds, Inc. (Aupst 30, 2018), date
stamped received F.`ebmary, Z54, 2019
• Federal Way Critical Area Map
• King County Parcel`View.eiMEty
Task Scope: 1. Review the wetland and gtream delineationslraftgs far crosis'teaey:with FWRC
Chapter 19.145, "'Environmentally Critical Areae' 'requirements.
-a.; Article 111 'Chapter 19:1 5 "F sli:ai?d WW.Jife Habiiat^:Conservation-Areas."
•b. AilticleNChapter:19145 °`fttlands'.'
2. Conduct a site visit.
3. Provide a beef miew, merno on whether you cniieur or do: not concur with the
6ritic6l area delineaxion,-and if the site experienced feeeiit unautliorized caifical area
intrusions. And if so where?
Tusk Cost. • Not to ex d $ 2,481.00 witbotit a j*ior wtritten amendnidntto this Task
A>rtlioizatioti. - - -
Figure 1. Critical Arent Mapping
Source: City of Federal Woy — GIS Division (retrieved -March T, 2019)•
19-:okv*O O Oae..1.D. *45
Wetland Consultant Audior#adon Form
pago.3 O'M
�p JP2
C.- d6ral
Fig are 3. RM81011a-Guzman Property
Aijur*,ee. King -County Fircel Viewer (retrieved March 1,201 .
A to a c e
7-1
City 0 Federal Date
Dide
19.101051-WAD
Consultant .Fee De,,term ingtion 5ummary PERTEET
. . . . . . . . . .
2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900, Everett, WA 982011 P 425.252.7700
Project: Federal W.ay0h-Call Wetland/Stream Consultant-B.rom6il.a-Guzman-CAR-Violation-Rev
client: City of Federal Way
Pr,qject.No.; 2.0130090.017
Hourly Costs
classificolion
Haws Rate
Amount
Sr. Associate
2 $195.00
$390
Lead Ecdl/M.gr
14 $140.00
$1,960
Accountant
1 $90.00
$90
Total Costs
17
$2p;440.00
Am
Total Expenses
0
In-Housg,.Q.� J.t, -,
QU Rate
Amount
Miledge - $58
70 30.580
$41
Total In -House Costs
$41.00
Prepared By: ._YVilliam:Kidder Date: Mardi 14,2019
Or
:A City of Federal Way
Wetland inventory Field Form
Wetland Number 1 /4 Sectrrwn/Rng
4w
Location (addraWaoss-streets} �j �iiQ. li , -k 1 ' f L� S. /A) i-'- 5.37-5
Team Members/ _ _ Date Field Check: L111-T
Base Map #: /6F l 1Q7 16t'
FIELD DATA
(:nwarr in (;lass
Windshield Accessl ite Arx 1 Site Not Accessed6ff -'U05
e ---_ •.7+�-
Dominant Snn
% total W L
d
r u 4
r.
h
0%
t7V W
/l am%_ fj `I L1 1 6' t
Notable Wildlife Features
Snags:#'s Z6" Z12" z24" Heights:
f
Inlet present N; width''ow: N ! Outlet present:N; width w flow*N
_ None Observed None Observed
Water SourcesN�
ream culvert: (diam) sheet flow floodplafn seeps
Human Disturbances:
crr b S� «65 4w.
Buffer Conditions: /&tdi oC y- S° "`
44-m5 �(JaS�ccreS' -� harSR- ��lncL�S,
OFFICE DATA
NRCS Soil Unit: WL Rating
Approximate Size: GEC rE=S
500 tos 2,500 sq.ft z 1 acre, s 2 acre
Z 2,500 sf, s '/2 acre z 2 acre, s 5 acre
z �/2 acre, S 1 acre acre
COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS
y
4e 6 -,,e L (S4,- , 93
October 17, 2018
Mr. Abel Brambila Guzman
36606 Pacific Highway South
Federal Way, WA 98003
4EEnlia;u4ikrilu�.t�rni��n:ee,,:� lti�!��r
Re: File # 18-103908-000-00-VO; WETLAND & STREAM INTRUSION
Guzman Property, 36606 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way
Dear Mr. Guzman:
Regarding our September 7, 2018, letter concerning unauthorized clearing, grading, and replacement of a
water crossing bridge within a wetland and stream buffer area. The letter asked for a timeline and plan by
September 14, 2018, as needed to bring your site into compliance.
Mr. Guzman, as always the City of Federal Way would like to reach an agreement for restoration;
however, if you do not contact our planning office, by October 19, 2018, a civil citation of $100.00 per day
will be enacted.
X First violation: $100.00
Second violation: $200.00
Third violation: $300.00 /per day until compliance is achieved
If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact Planning Manager Robert "Doc" Hansen at
(253) 835-2643, or rubert.hansen roc itvol'ledertiltt'a •.cam.
Sincerely,
Nick Ruiz
Code Compliance Officer
253-835-2647
enc:
Building Division
Fed r� Vila 33325 8 h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone 253-835-2607
Fax 253-835-2609
Name
Site Address .._�C��; Case
WRITTEN NOTICE OF ORDER TO CEASE ACTIVITY
It is unlawful for any person with actual or constructive knowledge of the order to conduct the activity or perform the work covered by this order,
even if this order to cease activity has been appealed, until the enforcement officer has removed the copy of the order, if posted, and issued written
authorization for the activity or work to be resumed. 1
Description of Violation: LG.U+'1 �T��vh a'
r-n'L^ ,! C.
Corrective Action Required:
Vc- r i _
Described action to be completed within �• �Qr Y S of the date of this no
Staff
-
Date
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
BUILDING DIVISION
ORDER TO
CEASE ACTIVITY
Site address SG6 O6 Case # 0 0
THE ACTIVITY OF C Uti"VIOLATIO
IS HEREBY ORDERED TO CEASE
DUE TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS 1
VIOLATION OF AN ORDER TO CEASE ACTIVITY CONSTITUTES A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY A
FINE OF UP TO $1,000.00 OR IMPRISONMENT FOR UP TO NINETY (90) DAYS OR BOTH.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CALL Low C (253) 835-
DATE
� - ^— STAFF
ANY UNAUTHORIZED PERSON REMOVING THIS SIGN MAY BE PROSECUTED
RESUBMITTED
JAN 31 2020
�MuN� D
WETLANDS AND DRAINAGE CORRIDORS
EVALUATION & DELINEATION REPORT
Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan
Brambila Residence
PARCEL # 2921049044
36606 Pacific Hwy. South
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
City File 18-139080-VO
Revised based on City of Federal Way Review of June 27, 2019
Prepared for:
Thomas Thompson Architect
29619 15th Ave NE
Stanwood, WA. 98292
206-409-0755
ttsguared@gmaiI.com
Prepared by
Beaver Creek Environmental Services, Inc.
P. O. Box 731695
Puyallup, WA 98373
253 732-6515
MHeckert(aD-Q.Com
Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Brambila Residence Project Site is an approx. 15-acre project area comprised
of one parcel #2921049044, located at 36606 Pacific Hwy. South, City of Federal
Way, Washington. An assessment of this project area following the procedures
outlined in the Corps of Engineers (CoE) Wetland Delineation Manual - 2010
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (WMVC) Regional Supplement, Revised
Washington State Wetland Rating System (WSWRS), and City of Federal Way
Code 19 (Critical Areas) resulted in the identification of one wetland area
(Wetlands A) and two Aquatic Areas.
Onsite assessment included an evaluation of the function and value rating for each
wetland, a classification of each wetland and stream following the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service methods, a categorization of each wetland and stream following
City of Federal Way Code 19 - Critical Areas, and an identification of the standard
City of Federal Way buffer width.
WETLAND
SIZE
(sgft.)
CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY
CATEGORY
WA WETLAND
RATING
SCORE
GENERAL
BUFFER WIDTH
Adjustment by
Function And
Land Use
Buffer
Total
I
Oft- 300 ft.
A
200,000+
1
25
300 ft.
* Wetland size onsite — west & south boundary not defined, continues off site
The Seattle District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Washington Department of
Ecology, and City of Federal Way (as well as a number of other resource agencies)
regulate activities in and around identified wetland and stream areas. Such
regulations focus on the avoidance of adverse impacts to wetlands and the
mitigation of such impacts that cannot be avoided. In addition, City of Federal Way
has established criteria to categorize wetlands for purposes of regulation and
requires a buffer along wetland and drainage corridor areas.
As presently defined for the site the proposed action is to rectify the outstanding
critical areas violations.
The on -site wetland will be protected by standard buffer.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.............................................................................................. 2
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. I
STUDYPURPOSE............................................................................................ 1
SITEDESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................
1
BACKGROUNDINFORMATION................................................................................
2
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY.......................................................................
2
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY WETLAND INVENTORY ...............................................
2
WDFW PRIORITY HABITS AND SPECIES DATA.................................................................
2
SOILSMAPPING...........................................................................................................
2
ONSITEANALYSIS........................................................................................................
2
CRITERIA FOR WETLAND AND STREAM IDENTIFICATION ..............................
2
STUDYMETHODS .............. ........ -....................... .........................................................
3
FIELDOBSERVATION................................................................................................
3
WETLAND AND STREAM DETERMINATION........................................................
4
WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT .............................................
5
SITEWETLAND VALUATION...................................................................................
6
REGULATORY CONSIDERATION.............................................................................
6
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - SECTION 404...................................................
7
STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY .....................................
7
CITYOF FEDERAL WAY............................................................................................
8
SELECTED DEVELOPMENT ACTION...................................................................... 9
FIGURES.........................................................................................................................12
REFERENCELIST........................................................................................................13
ATTACHMENT 1- FIELD DATA FORMS..............................................................14
ATTACHMENT2..........................................................................................................15
WESTERN WASHINGTON - REVISED WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND
RATING SYSTEM(WSWRS) FORM..........................................................................15
ATTACHMENT 3 - WETLAND DELINEATION MAP...........................................16
STANDARD OF CARE
Prior to extensive site planning, this document should be reviewed and the wetland
boundaries verified by the appropriate resource and permitting agencies. Wetland
boundaries, wetland classifications, wetland ratings, and proposed buffers should
be reviewed and approved by City of Federal Way Planning and Land Services
and potentially other regulatory agencies. Beaver Creek Environmental Services,
Inc. (BCES) has provided professional services that are in accordance with the
degree of care and skill generally accepted in the nature of the work accomplished.
No other warranties are expressed or implied. BCES is not responsible for design
costs incurred before this document is approved by the appropriate resource and
permitting agencies.
Mark Heckert
BCES
4
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
INTRODUCTION
This report details the activities and onsite evaluations undertaken to complete a wetland
and drainage corridor evaluation as an element of the planning and site development of
the Brambila Residence Site. The Brambila Residence Project Site is an approx. 15-
acre project area comprised of one parcel (#2921049044), located at 36606 Pacific Hwy.
South, City of Federal Way, Washington.
The evaluation and delineation of onsite and adjacent wetlands and drainage corridors is
a vital element in the planning and selection of a site development action. The goal of
this approach is to assure that planned site development does not result in adverse
environmental impacts to regulated wetlands, streams, and their associated protective
buffer areas.
Wetlands are generally defined as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface
water 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."
(City of Federal Way Title 19).
STUDY PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to present the results of an onsite assessment and
evaluation of wetland areas within the Brambila Residence Project Site following the
methods and procedures outlined in the Corps of Engineers (CoE) Wetland Delineation
Manual - 2010 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (WMVC) Regional Supplement
and City of Federal Way Code 19 (Environmentally Critical Areas), and categorized using
the Revised Washington State Wetland Rating System (WSWRS). Drainage corridors
were also assessed in accordance with the criteria established by City of Federal Way
and the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice
Rules (WAC 222-16-030). This study was designed to accommodate site planning and
potential regulatory actions and is suitable for submittal to federal, state, and local
authorities for wetland and stream boundary verification and permitting actions.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project area is generally rectangular, approximately 15 acres in size. The site
contains a house, workshop, lake, and ornamental gardens.
The northern portion of the site has been cleared of most woody vegetation, and is
maintained as lawn. A created lake and stream occur in the southwest.
A stream transects the site in the southeast corner, flowing southeast.
1
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment (fig. 2). This mapping resource
identified a PFOC, PEM1A, PSSC, PUBH wetland through the south and western part of
the parcel, and continuing significantly offsite to the northwest and south.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY WETLAND INVENTORY
The City of Federal Way Wetland Inventory Mapping was reviewed as a part of this
assessment (fig. 3). This mapping resource identified a Cat. 1 Wetland through the south
and southwest corner of the site, and a major stream (West Hylebos Creek) in the
southwest corner of the site, and a major stream (Hylebos Creek) in the southeast corner
of the site. Wetland continues significantly offsite.
WDFW Priority Habits and species data
WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) data was reviewed as a part of this
assessment (attached). This mapping resource identified "documented" anadromous fish
habitat and resident migratory utilization in the two streams and a wetland complex in
which the site is included.
SOILS MAPPING
Soil Resource Report by NRCS was reviewed as a part of this assessment (fig. 5). This
mapping identified the following soils throughout the project site: Bh - Bellingham silt
loam, No - Norma sandy loam, Tu - Tukwila muck. These soils are listed as "hydric".
ONSITE ANALYSIS
CRITERIA FOR WETLAND AND STREAM IDENTIFICATION
Wetlands are transitional areas between aquatic and upland habitats. In general terms,
wetlands are lands where the extent and duration of saturation with water is the primary
factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal
communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin et al., 1979). Wetlands are
generally defined within land use regulations as "areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions" (CoE Manual).
z
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
Wetlands exhibit three (3) essential characteristics, all of which must be present for an area
to meet the established criteria within the Wash. Manual and the CoE Manual. These
essential characteristics are:
1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: A predominance of plants that are typically adapted
for life in saturated soils.
2. Hydric Soil: A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper horizons.
3. Wetland Hydrology: Permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation to the
surface, at least seasonally.
STUDY METHODS
BCES Consulting completed a specific onsite evaluation of the project area on May 15,
2018. The objective of this evaluation was to define and delineate potential wetland and
drainage corridor areas which may be present within and adjacent to the project area as
defined by the three -parameter criteria test noted within the Wash. Manual and CoE
Manual, and the water -typing criteria noted within the WDNR Forest Practice Rules (WAC
222-16-031).
Boundaries between wetland and non -wetland areas were established by examining the
transitional gradient between wetland and non -wetland characteristics criteria throughout
the site. Delineation was performed using the routine methodology for areas greater -than
than five acres as detailed in the CoE Manual.
FIELD OBSERVATION
As defined by existing site conditions and aerial photos, the project site has experienced
extensive use and development. The site was a large residential parcel, with the house
in the center of the site, a workshop east, gazebo, and sheds east of the house. A
constructed pond is situated in the southwestern boundary. A stream transects the site
along the south boundary, and another in the southwest corner. The stream in the
southwest corner appears to have been restored by rerouting the streambed and adding
gravels, and enhanced with vegetative plantings.
• Soils
The majority of the project site was comprised of Norma sandy loam, a hydric soil.
The soils through the southern and western majority of the site are dark gray to black silt
loam and peat, with concretions and organic streaking. This area appears to remain
saturated to the surface well into the growing season. The surface soil layer within the
Wetlands A depression was generally silt loam. Soils in Wetland A meet the hydric soil
criteria.
3
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
Hydrology
Hydrology within the project area appeared to be the result of hydro support by the
streams, and seasonal storm water runoff from onsite and adjacent properties; long and
short-term seasonal ponding and soil characteristics. The constructed pond is supported
by a spring at the north end of the feature. Stormwater surface runoff through the overall
project area was directed by topography to the south into the wetland area.
O Vegetation
The primary plant community is the mixed forested portion of the property along the
southern boundary dominated by trees: Fraxinus lafifolia (Oregon ash), Alnus rubra (Red
alder), and a few Salix lasiandra (Pacific willow). This plant community was identified as
hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of wetlands) in the areas identified as wetlands in the
west portion of the site.
The plant community outside the wetland areas was identified as non-hydrophytic in
character (i.e. not typical of wetlands).
WETLAND AND STREAM DETERMINATION
Wetland determination was based on sample plots which contained hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology in accordance with the COE Manual and
the Wash. Manual. Based on these methods one wetland was identified within the project
area. Two areas were identified onsite to exhibit characteristics typical of a stream. One
area was identified onsite to exhibit characteristics typical of a pond.
WETLAND
SIZE
(sgft.)
CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY
CATEGORY
WA WETLAND
RATING
SCORE
GENERAL
BUFFER WIDTH
Adjustment by
Function and
Land Use
Buffer Total
A
200,000+
1
25
300 ft.
0 ft.
300 ft.
* Wetland size onsite — west & south boundary not defined, continues off site
Wetland A: This wetland is located throughout the southern portion of the site, and
continues substantially offsite to the south, east, and west. This wetland encompasses
the southeast, south, and southwest of the site. Hydrology for this wetland was provided
by primarily by overbank flooding from the streams, seasonal precipitation, and spring to
the pond.
Wetland A contains a created pond. This pond appears to have been created in wetland.
4
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
The various wetland areas on the site are determined to be one wetland, which has been
segmented by development. The buffer for Wetland A has been cleared and landscaped
to the wetland edge as part of previous development. A fence and paved driveway
transect the buffer adjacent to the created pond.
Since this wetland scored 25 Points by WSWRS, this wetland appeared to meet the
criteria for designation as a City of Federal Way Category 1 Wetland. General buffer for
a City of Federal Way Category 1 Wetland is 300 ft.
Stream A: Stream A is a stream which originates north of the project site and flows onsite
in the southeast corner of the site. This stream provides habitat for both anadromous and
resident fish species and has perennial flow. This stream meets the criteria for
designation as a Type F stream. Type F streams require a 100 ft. buffer from the stream
edge [Ordinary High -Water Mark]. Within the project site, the stream buffer is subsumed
by the wetland buffer.
Stream B: Stream B is a stream which originates northwest of the project site and flows
onsite through a culvert under Hwy. 99. This stream provides habitat for both
anadromous and resident fish species and has perennial flow. This stream meets the
criteria for designation as a Type F. Type F streams require a 100 ft. buffer from the
stream edge [Ordinary High -Water Mark]. Within the project site, the stream buffer is
subsumed by the wetland buffer.
Offsite Wetlands: Wetland A continues substantially offsite to the east, south, and west.
WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT
Wetlands are known to perform significant roles in the ecosystem, some of which are of
immediate value to society. These roles vary greatly with the size, type, hydrology,
vegetation, and location of wetland areas. Although the ecological functions performed
by these wetlands are complex, interrelated, and difficult to assess and quantify, methods
have been developed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (FGDC, 2013). The functions
provided by wetlands include hydrologic support, shoreline protection, stormwater and
floodwater storage, water quality, groundwater recharge, and provision of wildlife habitat.
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON FUNCTIONS
The functions that a wetland performs are characterized by answering a series of
questions that note the presence, or absence, of certain indicators. Indicators are easily
observed characteristics that are correlated with quantitative or qualitative observations
of a function (Hruby et al. 2000).
❑e ressional or Flats Wetlands
Potential to Improve Water Quality
Potential to Reduce Flooding and Stream Erosion
5
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
Riverine and Freshwater. Tidal Fringe Wetlands
Potential to Improve Water Quality
Potential to Reduce Flooding and Stream Erosion
Opportunity to Reduce Flooding and Stream Erosion
Lake -fringe Wetlands
Potential to Improve Water Quality
Opportunity to Improve Water Quality
Potential to Reduce Shoreline Erosion
Opportunity to Protect Resources from Shoreline Erosion
Slope Wetlands
Potential to Improve Water Quality
Opportunity to Improve Water Quality
Potential to Reduce Flooding and Stream Erosion
Opportunity to Reduce Flooding and Erosion
Functions Related to Habitat for All Classes of Wetlands
Potential to Provide Habitat
Opportunity to Provide Habitat
Score and Category Based on Functions
Wetlands that are Category I based on functions need to score 23 points or more. Total
scores between 20-22 are Category II; 16-19 are Category III, and less than 19 are
Category IV.
SITE WETLAND VALUATION
The wetland areas identified within the overall project area were evaluated following the
functional value assessment process noted above.
As identified in this assessment Wetland A would be considered to have the overall
functional rating of Category 3.
• Water Quality Functions —
8 points
• Hydrologic Functions —
8 points
• Habitat Functions —
9 points
■ TOTAL score for functions —
25 points
REGULATORY CONSIDERATION
The proposed alteration of lands defined by various federal, state, and local authority
rules and regulations as "wetlands" raises environmental concerns that are generally
addressed in the development review process. These concerns center on the
development's potential adverse impacts to the structure, function, value, and size of
6
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
these "wetland" areas. Such adverse impacts may include a reduction in wildlife habitats,
reduced surface water quality, reduced water retention, a reduced ground water recharge
rate, reduced plant species diversity, and the reduction in the function and value of other
associated wetland and non -wetland characteristics.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - Section 404
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) prohibits the discharge of dredged
or fill material into "Waters of the United States" without a permit from the Corps of
Engineers (Corps). The Corps has jurisdiction over freshwater systems waterward from
the ordinary high water line of a water body or waterward from the upland boundary of
the adjacent wetland. The definition of fill materials includes the replacement of aquatic
areas with dry land, grading which changes the surface contour of a wetland, and
mechanized land clearing in wetlands. For the purposes of Section 404 permitting the
Corps makes the final determination as to whether an area meets the wetland definition
and would be subject to regulation under the Corps program.
Currently the Corps has two specific types of permits which apply to wetland fill proposals.
These two types are a series of specific Nationwide Permits and the Individual Permit.
The Nationwide Permit process identifies specific categories of work that can be
undertaken following a set of specific conditions applicable to each Nationwide Permit
number.
The Corps requires an Individual Permit where a proposed activity within an identified
jurisdictional wetland area can not be authorized under one of the Nationwide Permits.
Within the Individual Permit process the Corps undertakes a much more in-depth review
of the proposed project and the proposed impacts. The Corps must evaluate whether the
benefits derived from the project outweigh the foreseeable environmental impacts of the
project's completion.
All projects that proceed forward using either one of the Nationwide Permits or the
Individual Permit process must also comply with the provisions of the Endangered
Species Act.
As defined by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions the Corps of Engineers does not
typically regulated "isolated" wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Under this decision "isolated" wetlands do not exhibit a continuous surface water
connection to other, downstream aquatic system.
STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Proposed action undertaken through either of the Corps of Engineers processes
(Nationwide or Individual) are also subject to the provisions of the Washington State
Department of Ecology Section 401 Water Quality Certification Process. Projects that
may be exempt from Corps of Engineers Section 404 jurisdiction may still require review
7
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
by the Washington State Department of Ecology to ensure consistency with State water
quality protection provisions.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
• 19.145.420 Wetland rating 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 II wetlands are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels
of some functions. Category II wetlands are those wetlands that score between 20 and 22 points
based on functions.
(c) Category III wetlands are wetlands with a moderate level of functions that score between 16
and 19 points based on functions.
(d) Category IV wetlands are wetlands with the lowest level of functions (scoring less than 16
points based on functions) and are often heavily disturbed.
(2) Wetland buffers shall be measured perpendicular from the wetland boundary as delineated
and marked in the field. Buffer widths are established as follows in Table 1:
s
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
Table 1
Wetland Category
Buffer Width
Buffer Width
Buffer Width
(wetland scores 3-
(wetland scores
(wetland scores
5 habitat points)
6-7 habitat
8-9 habitat
points)
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 III
80 feet
150 feet
300 feet
Category IV
50 feet
.50 feet
:50 feet
(3) No wetland buffer is required for those isolated wetlands 1,000 square feet or less in total
area.
(4) All compensatory mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements
of this section. Buffers shall be based on the expected or target category of the proposed wetland
mitigation site.
(5) Lighting shall be directed away from wetland buffers unless otherwise determined by the
director.
(6) All lots approved in a recorded subdivision or binding site plan that contain wetlands and
their associated buffer in a native growth protection easement or tract may be improved pursuant
to easement or tract boundaries established in the plat regardless of subsequent regulatory buffer
increases or natural migration.
(7) All wetland and wetland buffer boundaries shown on an approved use process decision
and/or building permit shall be honored regardless of subsequent regulatory buffer increases or
natural migration.
SELECTED DEVELOPMENT ACTION
As presently defined for the site the proposed action is to remediate past unregulated
development activities.
Impact Assessment
The proposed onsite action selected focuses on the impact of site development and
maintenance activities on the Critical Areas (wetland and buffer) on the site (See
attachment 2).
9
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
The unpermitted development activities occurred in three areas:
1). The island on the created pond had a deck installed around the entire island. 4 ft. X
176 ft. = 704 sqft. impact
2). The two bridges over the Hylebos Cr. were repaired. 410 sq ft. x 2 = 820 sq. ft. impact
3). The boundary path in the southwest corner of the site was graveled and cleared.
Impact Area Analysis —
Area
Area Impacted
square feet)
Previously
cleared
Regulatory Impact
Pond Island dock
704 sq. ft.
0
704
Hylebos bridges
820
820
0 sq ft.
Gravel path
9,215 903 lin ft.
5,418
1 3,797
903 x 6
TOTAL
Impact Resolution —
Area
Area Impacted
(square feet
remedy
Regulatory Impact
Pond Island dock
704 sq. ft.
Remove entire dock from
island
704
Hylebos bridges
820
Permit repair and remain
0 sq ft.
Gravel path
9,215 (903 lin
ft.)
Remain in -situ
3,797 sq. ft.
2,302 cu. ft.
903 x 6
TOTAL
To determine the volume of fill placed on the gravel path in the southeast quadrant, the
length of the trail which was regraveled was measured at 903 linear ft.
The impacted area was known to have been previously graveled. This is assumed to be
6 ft. wide throughout.
The path was excavated and sampled by cross-section at 50 ft. intervals. The
differentiation between old and new gravel was difficult to discern.
Maximum width of the path was 9 ft. and maximum depth of new fill was 9 in.
Present path =
Ave. width = 7.75 ft. = 1.75 ft. additional width
Ave. depth of fill = 3.9 in. (0.329 Ft.)
7.75ft x .329ft x 903ft. = 2,302 cu ft = 85 cu yd fill additionally placed.
CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Pond Island dock: The pond island dock which surrounds the island in the southeast will
be removed.
Hylebos bridges: The two bridges over the Hylebos Creek in the southeast have been
resurfaced with 4 x 8 planking timber. These upgrades will remain.
10
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
Gravel path: The gravel path in the southeast was resurfaced with approximately 85 cu.
yds. of gravel surface. It may be more impacting to remove the additional fill. Owner
proposes to rake in all spillage greater than 6 ft. wide, to 6 ft. width maximum trail width
and leave in -situ.
The owner attests there will be no further clearing activity, and wants the site to be
managed as presently configured with no further planting or cutting.
Standard buffer will be attached to the wetland. No encroachment will occur to the
wetland, it's buffer or the Type F streams or their buffers.
11
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
FIGURES
12
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
REFERENCE LIST
Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. CoE. Wetland Evaluation
Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology, Operational Draft Technical Report Y-87,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31.
Environmental Laboratory. CoE. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Miss.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater
habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands
Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC.
Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist. 1977. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of
Washington Press. Seattle, Washington.
Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland
Values - Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Research Report 79-R1, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service. Soils Survey of King
County Area Washington, February 1979.
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), ed. J. S.
Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands
Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication Number 96-94.
Washington State Department of Fisheries, Catalog of Washington Streams and
Salmon Utilization, Volume 1., 1975
13
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
ATTACHMENT 1 — Field Data Forms
14
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Western Washington - Revised Washington State Wetland Rating System(WSWRS)
form
7s
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
ATTACHMENT 3 - WETLAND DELINEATION MAP
16
19001 - Guzman FedWay WetRept REV 1
Wetland name or number Brambila FedWav
RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland A Date of site visit: 15-May-18
Rated by M Heckert Trained by Ecology?0 es"o Date of training 15-May
HGM Class used for rating Depressional & Flats Wetland has multiple HGM classes? OYes "o
NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ESRI King County
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY I (based on functions Etr special characteristics 13
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
X Category I - Total score = 23 - 27
Category II - Total score = 20 - 22
Category III -Total score = 16 -19
Category IV -Total score = 9 -15
FUNCTION
rologic
Improving 17yd
Habitat
Water Quality
List appropriate rating (H, M, Q
Site Potential
M
M
H
Landscape Potential
H
H
H
Value
H
H
H
Total
Score Based on
8
8
9
25
Ratings
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC
Category
Estuarine
Wetland of High Conservation Value
Bog
Mature Forest
Old Growth Forest
Coastal Lagoon
Interdunal
None of the above
X
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
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number Brambila FedWay
Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
R1
Hydroperiods
D 1.4, H 1.2
R2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods)
D 1.1, D 4.1
R2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)
D 2.2, D 5.2
R3
Map of the contributing basin
D 4.3, D 5.3
R4
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2. 1. H 2.2, H 2.3
R4
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods
H 1.2
Ponded depressions
R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)
R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to anotherfigure)
R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin
R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2. 1. H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
L 1.2
-Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another fi ure)
L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods
H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to another figure )
S 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)
S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
S 3.3
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number Brambila FeclWav
HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington
For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If 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?
0NO-goto2
0 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)?
0 NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) DYES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is
Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for
estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it.
Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
0 NO -go to 3 DYES -The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
Ell 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;
Ell At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
ONO - go to 4 []YES -The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
IO The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
[] The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps.
It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks.
I❑ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
ONO-goto5
[YES -The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind
hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
1][Fhe unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding
from that stream or river,
UThe overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
ONO-goto6
DYES -The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number Brambila FedWav
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.
13NO-goto7
AYES - The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding?
The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high
groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet.
ONO-goto8
[JYES -The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For
example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a
Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE
HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT
(make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for
the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of
the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10%
of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine
Riverine
Slope + Depressional
Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe
Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe
Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe
Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2
HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating.
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS.
Wetland
Brambila WL A 200-ft. buffer FINAL
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number 6rambila FedWav
- MPRESSIONALAND FIATS WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improvc water quality
D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key)
with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).
points = 3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly
constricted permanently flowing outlet.
points = 2
1
Metland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet
that is permanently flowing
points = 1
ElWetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is
a permanently flowing ditch.
points = 1
D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the _surface _(or duff_layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS
0
definitions ).
Yes = 4 No = 0
D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent glan_t_s (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin
classes):
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area
points = 5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > % of area
points = 3
5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/l0 of area
points = 1
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/,p of area
points = 0
D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding Orin undatfon:
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual.
Area seasonally ponded is >'/2 total area of wetland
points = 4
4
Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland
points = 2
Area seasonally ponded is < Y4 total area of wetland
points = 0
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above
10
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1C3 = H 6 -10A 0 - 5 = IO Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0
1
D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that
1
generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0
1
D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are
not listed in questions D 2.1 - D 2.3?
1
Source Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above
4
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 34ESH i orEA 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,
1
lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list?
1
Yes=1 No=O
D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important
for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the
0
unit is found )? Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes abovel
2
Rating of Value If score is: EW H 1 EM 0 = l0
Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number Brambila FeclWav
DPI=SSlpf k Ali FLA#3.Y�VETkAH05
Ky"ogic Funetiorfs - Inditatom that the site furwftrrs tip mduce (loading and stmrn idegradatien
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 outlet points = 2
1
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is
a permanently flowing ditch points = 1
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet
that is permanently flowing points = 0
D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For
wetlands with no outlet; measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part.
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5
5
[]Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3
[ The wetland is a "headwater' wetland points = 3
Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft 6 inpoints = 0
D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin
contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5
3
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0
[]Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5
Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes abovej
9
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12M H 6 -1UP 0 - 5 = Q Record the rating on the first page
D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic function of the site?
D 5.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0
1
D 5.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff?
Yes=1 No=O
1
D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human
land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)?
Yes=1 No=O
1
Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes abovel
3
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 =E§ 1 or J:j 0 = L 0 Record the rating on the first page
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions
around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the hiclhest 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):
e Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -
gradient of unit. points = 2
2
Ej • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -
gradient. points = 1
13Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1
[The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained
by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland
cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0
OThere 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
0
conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above
2
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number Brambiia FedWav
Rating of value If score is: Eff H 1=[7 0 = t0 Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number Brambila FedWav
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the
Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be
combined for each class to meet the threshold of X ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller
than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
[Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
4
ElEmergent 3 structures: points = 2
Mcrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points - 1
OForested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
if the unit has a Forested class, check if:
0 The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous,
moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime
has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods ).
[]Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
Measonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
3
Mccasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
Maturated only 1 types present: points = 0
OPermanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Measonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
[]Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
OFreshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftZ.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do
not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife,
Canadian thistle
2
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes
(described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats)
is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open
water, the rating is always high.
( 0
E) (*)
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row are
HIGH = 3 points
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number Brambila FedWav
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.
OLarge, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long)
Mtanding 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)
4
Mtable 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)
�t least Y4 ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas
that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians)
[]Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H
1.1 for list of strata )
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes abovel
16
Rating of Site Potential If Score is: 15EJ = H 7 - 1 f 7j 0 - 6 =" Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat function of the site?
H 2.1 Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate:
10 % undisturbed habitat + ( 30 % moderate &
low intensity land uses / 2) = 25%
If total accessible habitat is:
2
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon
points = 3
20 - 33% of 1 km Polygon
points = 2
10 - 19% of 1 km Polygon
points = 1
< 10 % of 1 km Polygon
2oints = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate:
40 % undisturbed habitat + ( 60 % moderate &
low intensity land uses / 2) = 70%
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon
points = 3
3
Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches
points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches
points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon
points = 0
H 2.3 Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use
points = (-2)
0
<_ 50% of 1km Polygon is high intensity
points = 0
Total for H 2
Add the points in the boxes above
5
Rating of Landscape Potential If Score is: 4 - ED 1- 3 " < i = L 0 Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only
the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
Olt has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
Olt provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant
or animal on the state or federal lists)
Olt is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
2
Olt is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the
Department of Natural Resources
Olt 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) with in 100m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If Score is: 43 1 4A 0 = !0
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Record the rating on the first page
WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number Brambila FedWay
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats fisted by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be
found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.
http://wdfw.wa.-gov/publications[00165/wdfw00165. j)df or access the list from here:
http J/wdfw.wa. gov/conservation/phs/list/
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This
question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
0 Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
0 Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
0 Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
0 Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west of Cascade crest — Stands of at least 2 tree species,
forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha)
> 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests — Stands with average diameters
exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of
snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200
years old west of the Cascade crest.
0 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).
0 Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
0 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 reportp. 161—see web link above).
0 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.
0 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.
0 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.
0 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
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number Bramoila FedWav
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number Brambila FedWa
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Category
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. List the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
SC 1.0. Estuarine Wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
0 The dominant water regime is tidal,
0 Vegetated, and
[7 With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt
DYes - Go to SC 1.1 No = Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary
Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific
Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151?
"Yes = Category I El NO - GO to SC 1.2
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
0 The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing,
and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are
Spartina, see page 25)
0 At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-
grazed or un-mowed grassland.
0 The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with
open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands.
DYes = Category I NO = Category II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list
of Wetlands of High Conservation Value?
DYes - Go to SC2.2 Q No - Go to SC2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
DYes = Category I El No = Not WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
h ttp: //www 1. d n r. wa. gov/n h p/ refd es k/d a tas ea rc h /w n hpwetl a rids. pd
0 Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 Q NO = Not 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?
DYes = Category I No = Not WHCV
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation
In bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its
functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks,
that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile?
DYes - Go to SC 3.3 0 No - Go to SC3.2
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?
DYes - 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?
DYes = Is a Category I bog 11 NO - GO to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may
substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at
least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present,
the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir,
western red cedar, western hemlock, Iodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann
spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed
in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
[]Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bogj
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 12 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number Brambila FedWav
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least :L 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.
0 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).
LJYeS = Categoi
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
No = Not a forested wetland for this section
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
[7 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
0 The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or
brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be
measured near the bottom)
0 Yes - Go to SC 5.1 0 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
0 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).
0 At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un.
grazed or un-mowed grassland.
0 The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ftz)
ElYes = Category I LJ NO = Category II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland
Ownership Or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its
habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
0 Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
0 Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
[] Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
0 Yes - Go to SC 6.1 EN NO = Not an Interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form
(rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)?
DYes = Category I [] No - Go to 5C 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?
DYes = Category II E] 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?
DYes = Cateeory III
V1 No =
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics 1�
If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 13 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region
Project/Site: Guzman Pacific hwy City/County: Federal Way, King Sampling Date: 8/23/2019
Applicant/Owner: State: Wa Sampling Point: sp7w
Investigator(s): J. Heckert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope
Subregion (LRR) A, Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam, Norma sandy loam NWI classlflcatlon:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site mao showing samulina point locations. transects. imoortant features. etc.
n
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes x
No
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes x
No
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes x
No
within a Wetland? Yes x No
Precipitation:
According to the NWS Seattle station, 0.00 inches
of rainfall was received on the day of the site visit and less than 0.5 inches within the two weeks prior.
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stra_m_fPlal_Size; 30' r or 9
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 • Alnus rubra
20%
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2• Thuja plicata
20%
Yes
FAC
3•
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
40%
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 10' r or
1
Percent of Dominant Species
1 - Rubus spectabilis
70%
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 83% (A/8)
2•
Prevalence Index worksheet:
3.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
4.
OBL species 20 x 1 = 20
5.
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
70%
= Total Cover
FAC species 130 x 3 = 390
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5' r or 3
FACU species 15 x 4 = 60
1 • Urtica dioica
206
Yes
FAC
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
2- Lysichiton americanus
20%
Yes
OBL
Column Totals: 165 (A) 470 (B)
3- Pteridium aquilinum
15%
Yes
FACU
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.85
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.
5.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
7.
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
8.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
9.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
10.
5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
11.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)'
55%
= Total Cover
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 10' r or )
be present.
1
2.
Hydrophytic
0%
= Total Cover
Vegetation Yes x No
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 45%
Present?
Remarks:
BCES Job ON
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: sp7w
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'
Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-16 10 yr 2/1
loam
'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':
_ Histosol (At)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
_2 cm Muck (At0)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
x Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) (except MLRA 1)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Dark Surface (Al 2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
'Indicators
_Thick
of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Redox Depressions (F8)
problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Hydric Soil
Depth (inches):
Present? Yes x No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one reoulred; check all that apply)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more reglii(ed]
x Surface Water (At)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
—High Water Table (A2)
1, 2, 4A, and 413)
4A, and 413)
_Saturation (A3)
_Salt Crust (B11)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Water Marks (131)
_Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (B2)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Drift Deposits (63)
—Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
—Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
_ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches): 2
Wetland
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Hydrology Yes x No
Saturation Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
BCES Job ####
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region
ProjecUSite: Guzman Pacific
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date: 8/23/2019
Sampling Point: sp8u
Investigator(s): J. Heckert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope
Subregion (LRR): A. Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam, Norma sandy loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County: Federal Way, King
State: Wa
SIIMMARY OF FINnINGS — Attarh cite man chnwinn camnlinn nnint Inratinnc_ tranter-ts_ imnortant features. etc_
n
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes
No x
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes
No x
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No x
within a Wetland? Yes No x
Precipitation:
According to the NWS Seattle station, 0.00 inches of rainfall was received on the day of the site visit and less than 0.5 inches within the two weeks prior
Remarks:
Sp in mowed field
VEGETATION
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30' r or ]
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
3-
Total Number of Dominant
4•
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
0%
= Total Cover
Sa lin WShrub Stratum Plot Size: 10' r or
Percent of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
2•
3.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
4-
5.
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
0%
= Total Cover
FAC species 100 x 3 = 300
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5' r or }
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
1 • Poa pratensis
100%
Yes
FAC
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
2.
Column Totals: 100 (A) 300 (B)
3.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.00
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4,
5.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
7.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
6.
_
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
9,
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
10.
5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
11.
_
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)'
100%
= Total Cover
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 10- r or
)
be present.
1_
2.
Hydrophytic
0%
= Total Cover
Vegetation Yes No x
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0%
Present?
Remarks:
BCES Job #tl#Ik
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: spau
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'
Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-16 10 yr 3/2
cobble loam
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted):
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
3lndicators
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Redox Depressions (F8)
problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Hydric Soil
Depth (inches):
Present? Yes No x
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators {minimum of one requiredl check all that appllyl_
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
_Surface Water (Al)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA
_ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2,
_ High Water Table (A2)
1, 2, 4A, and 46)
4A, and 4B)
—Saturation (A3)
_ Salt Crust (1311)
_ Drainage Patterns (B 10)
Water Marks (131)
_Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
—Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Algal Mat or Crust (64)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Iron Deposits (65)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
_ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Wetland
Water Table Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Hydrology Yes No x
Saturation Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
BCES Job ####
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region
Project/Site: Guzman Pacific hwy City/County: Federal Way, King Sampling Date: 8/23/2019
Applicant/Owner: State: Wa Sampling Point: sp9u
Investigator(s): J. Heckert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): A, Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam, Norma sandy loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site man showing samalino paint locations. transects. imnortant features. etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes
No x
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes
No x
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
within a Wetland? Yes No x
Precipitation:
.According to the NWS Seattle station, 0.00 inches of rainfall was received on the day of the site visit and less than 0.5 inches within the two weeks prior.
Remarks:
sp in mowed field
VEGETATION
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30' r or )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
I
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
3•
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
0%
= Total Cover
Soollno/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 10' r or
]
Percent of Dominant Species
1 •
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
2-
3.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
4.
5.
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
0%
= Total Cover
FAC species 60 x 3 = 180
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5_'_r or
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
1 • Poa pratensis
40%
Yes
FAC
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
2- Plantago major
20%
Yes
FAC
Column Totals: 60 (A) 180 (B)
3.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.00
4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
7.
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
8.
_
4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
9.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
10.
5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
11.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)'
60%
= Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Woody_Vino Stratum (P1ot Size- 10' r or j
be present.
1.
2,
Hydrophytic
0%
= Total Cover
Vegetation Yes No x
Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40%
Present?
Remarks:
BCES Job ####
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: sp9u
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'
Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-16 10 yr 3/2
cobble loam
'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':
_ Histosol (All)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
-Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
-Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1)
—Depleted Matrix (F3)
Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
3
—Thick
_
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Redox Depressions (F8)
problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Hydric Soil
Depth (inches):
Present? Yes No x
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimumgl one required: check all that apply)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
_Surface Water (All)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
_High Water Table (A2)
1, 2, 4A, and 413)
4A, and 46)
_Saturation (A3)
_Salt Crust (1311)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
—
Water Marks (B1)
_Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Drift Deposits (1313)
—Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) —Geomorphic Position (D2)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Iron Deposits (1315)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
_ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Wetland
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Hydrology Yes No
Saturation Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
BCES Job
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region
Project/Site: Guzman Pacific hwy City/County: Federal Way, King Sampling Date: 8/23/20iQ
Applicant/Owner: State: Wa Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): J. Heckert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): A, Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham sill loam, Norma sandy loam NWI classlflcatlon:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site man showing samolina point locations. transects. important features. etc.
n
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes No
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Precipitation:
According to the NWS Seattle station, 0.00 inches
of rainfall was received on the day of the site visit and less than 0.5 inches within the two weeks prior
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30' r or )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 •
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
2.
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 0 (B)
0% = Total Cover
Sapling►Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 10' ror
]
Percent of Dominant Species
1 .
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.
3.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
4.
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
5.
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
0% Total Cover
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
Herb Stratum Plot Size: 5' r or
—=
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
1.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
2.
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
3.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.
5.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
7.
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
8.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
9.
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
10.
5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
11,
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)'
0% = Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Woody Vine Stratum (Pint Size: 10' r or )
be present.
1.
2.
Hydrophytic
0% = Total Cover
Vegetation Yes No
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100%
Present?
Remarks:
BCES Job ##If#
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
!SOIL (Sampling Point:
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators):
Matrix
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type'
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted):
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
I Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
—Surface Water (All)
_ High Water Table (A2)
—Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (131)
—Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Drift Deposits (B3)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
Water Table Present? Yes
Saturation Present? Yes
(includes capillary fringe)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
-Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA
1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
—Salt Crust (1311)
_Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
_Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
No Depth (inches):
No Depth (inches):
No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous
Remarks:
1 _2 T—f .rc
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic.
Hydric Soil
Present? Yes No
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 4B)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Shallow Aquitard (133)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (135)
_ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Wetland
Hydrology Yes No
Present?
if available:
BCES Job #W#
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region
Project/Site: Guzman Pacific hwy City/County: Federal Way, King Sampling Date: 8/23/2019
Applicant/Owner: State: Wa Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): J. Heckert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): A, Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam, Norma sandy loam NWI classification
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No _
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site man showing samnlina point locations. transacts. imnortant features. etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes No
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Precipitation:
.According to the NWS Seattle station, 0.00 inches of rainfall was received on the day of the site visit and less than 0.5 inches within the two weeks prior
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30' r or )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
t
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
2.
3
Total Number of Dominant
4
Species Across All Strata: 0 (B)
0% = Total Cover
SaAlingl$hrub Stratum (Plot _Size. 10' r a
)
Percent of Dominant Species
1 .
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
2•
3.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
4.
5.
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
0% Total Cover
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
Herb Stratum Plot Size: 5' r or
—=
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
1.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
2.
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
3.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
7.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
8.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
9.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
10.
5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
11.
_
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)'
0% = Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 10' r or )
be present.
1,
2.
Hydrophytic
0% = Total Cover
Vegetation Yes No
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100%
Present?
Remarks:
BCES Job ####
USAGE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators):
Matrix
Color (moist) %
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type'
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted):
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
I Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Surface Water (Al)
—High Water Table (A2)
—Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (131)
_Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Drift Deposits (B3)
—Algal Mat or Crust (64)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
Water Table Present? Yes
Saturation Present? Yes
(includes capillary fringe)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
—Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA
1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
—Salt Crust (B11)
_Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
_Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
—Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
No Depth (inches):
No Depth (inches):
No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous
Remarks:
Locz Texture
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ 2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic.
Hydric Soil
Present? Yes No
Secondary Indicators (2 or more rewired]
—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 (D3)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
_ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A)
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Wetland
Hydrology Yes No
Present?
available:
BCES Job ####
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region
Project/Site: Guzman Pacific hwy City/County: Federal Way, King Sampling Date: 8/23/2019
Applicant/Owner: State: Wa Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): J. Heckert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): A, Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam, Norma sandy loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No _
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site man showino samnlino noint locations_ transects. immartant features_ etc_
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes No
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Precipitation:
According to the NWS Seattle station, 0.00 inches of rainfall was received on the day of the site visit and less than 0.5 inches within the two weeks prior
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30' r or )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
2.
3•
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 0 (B)
0% = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stralum (Plot Size: 10' r or
I
Percent of Dominant Species
1 •
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
2.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
3.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
4.
5.
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
0% = Total Cover
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
Herb Stratum {Plot Size: 5' r or 1
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
1.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
2.
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
3.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
7.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
8•
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
9.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
10.
5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
11.
_
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)'
0% = Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Woody Vine Stratum (Pof Size 10' r or ]
be present.
1.
2.
Hydrophytic
0% = Total Cover
Vegetation Yes No
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100%
Present?
Remarks:
BCES Job ####
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
SOIL (Sampling Point:
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators):
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type'
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted):
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
I Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_Surface Water (Al)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
—Sediment Deposits (B2)
—Drift Deposits (B3)
—Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
—Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
Water Table Present? Yes
Saturation Present? Yes
(includes capillary fringe)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
—Water-Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA
1, 2, 4A, and 413)
—Salt Crust (B11)
_Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
_Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
No Depth (inches):
No Depth (inches):
No Depth (inches):
Loc2 Texture
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ 2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic.
Hydric Soil
Present? Yes No
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 46)
—Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
_ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Wetland
Hydrology Yes No
Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
BCES Job ####
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region
Project/Site: Guzman Pacific hwy City/County: Federal Way, King Sampling Date: 8/23/2019
Applicant/Owner: State: Wa Sampling Point: splw
Investigator(s): J. Heckert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): A, Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham sill loam, Norma sandy loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site maD showina samolina point locations. transects. important features. etc.
n
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes x
No
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes x
No
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes x
No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Precipitation:
.According to the NWS Seattle station, 0.00 inches
of rainfall was
received on the day of the site visit and less than 0.5 inches within the two weeks prior.
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 3W r or }
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 - Alnus rubra
60%
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2.
3•
Total Number of Dominant
4-
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
60%
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (:Plot Size: 19 r or
}
Percent of Dominant Species
1 • Rubus spectabilis
500/0
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100/m (AtB)
2• Spiraea douglasii
30%
Yes
FACW
Prevalence Index worksheet:
3.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
4.
5.
FACW species 110 x 2 = 220
80%
= Total Cover
FAC species 110 x 3 = 330
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5' r or }
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
1 • Equisetum pratense
40%
Yes
FACW
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
2• Phalaris arundinacea
40%
Yes
FACW
Column Totals: 220 (A) 550 (B)
3.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.50
4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
7.
3 - Prevalence Index is 253.0'
8.
_
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
9.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
10.
5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
11.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)'
80%
= Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 10' r or ]
-
be present.
1.
2.
Hydrophytic
0%
= Total Cover
Vegetation Yes x No
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20%
Present?
Remarks:
BCES Job ####
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
SOIL I Sampling Point: sp1w
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators):
Depth Matrix Redox Features
inches) Color (moist)
0-16 10 yr 2/1
P/
100
Color (moist) % Type'
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
zLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted):
Histosol (Al)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
x Black Histic (A3)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
I Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
x Surface Water (Al)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (61)
—Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
—Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x
Water Table Present? Yes
Saturation Present? Yes
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data
Remarks:
ck all that apply)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA
1, 2, 4A, and 413)
—Salt Crust (B 11)
_Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Loc2 Texture
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_2 cm Muck (A10)
—Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic.
Hydric Soil
Present? Yes x No
Seoondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 413)
Drainage Patterns (610)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
No Depth (inches): 2 Wetland
No Depth (inches): Hydrology Yes x No
No Depth (inches): Present?
gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
BCES Job ##fl#
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region
Project/Site: Guzman Pacific hwy City/County: Federal Way, King Sampling Date: 8/23/2019
Applicant/Owner: State: Wa Sampling Point: sp2
Investigator(s): J. Heckert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): A, Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham slit loam, Norma sandy loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site man showinn samnlina nnint Inr_atinns_ tmnser_ts_ imnartant fP2t1jres_ etc_
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes x
No
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes x
No
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes x
No
within a Wetland? Yes x No
Precipitation:
According to the NWS Seattle station, 0.00 inches
of rainfall was received on the day of the site visit and less than 0.5 inches within the two weeks prior.
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30' r or I
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1- Alnus rubra
60%
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
3•
Total Number of Dominant
4•
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
60%
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plat Size: 10' r or
j
Percent of Dominant Species
1 •
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
2•
Prevalence Index worksheet:
3.
Total % Cover of: Multiply bv:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
4.
5.
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
0%
= Total Cover
FAC species 145 x 3 = 435
Herb Straturn- (Plat Size: 5' r or ]
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
1- Ranunculus repens
70%
Yes
FAC
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
2- Poa pratensis
15%
No
FAC
Column Totals: 145 (A) 435 (B)
3.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.00
4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
7.
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
8.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
9.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
10.
5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
11.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)'
85%
= Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Wpady Vine Stratum_(Plot Size. 10' r or ]
be present.
1.
2.
Hydrophytic
0%
= Total Cover
Vegetation Yes x No
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15%
Present?
Remarks:
BCES Job #q##
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: sp2
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators):
Depth Matrix Redox Features
inches) Color (moist) %
0-16 10 yr 4/1 90
Color (moist) % Type'
5 yr 4/6 10 cs
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted):
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
I Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ High Water Table (A2)
—Saturation (A3)
—Water Marks (131)
—Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Iron Deposits (135)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
Water Table Present? Yes
Saturation Present? Yes
(includes capillary fringe)
x Sandy Redox (S5)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA
1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
_Salt Crust (1311)
_Aquatic Invertebrates (613)
_Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
x Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
x Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Loc2 Texture
pl sandy clay loam
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sotls3:
2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic
Hydric Soil
Present? Yes x No
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 4B)
_Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
x Geomorphic Position (D2)
ShallowAquitard (D3)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
_ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
No x Depth (inches): Wetland
No x Depth (inches): Hydrology Yes x No
No x Depth (inches): Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial
Remarks:
previous inspections), if available:
BCES Job ####
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region
Project/Site: Guzman Pacific hwy City/County: Federal Way, King Sampling Date: 8/23/2019
Applicant/Owner: State: Wa Sampling Point: sp3w
Investigator(s): J. Heckert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope
Subregion (LRR): A. Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name- Bellingham silt loom, Norma sandy loam NWI classification
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation . Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling Doint locations. transects. important features. etc.
n
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes x
No
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes x
No
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes x
No
within a Wetland? Yes x No
Precipitation:
According to the NWS Seattle station, 0.00 inches
of rainfall was received on the day of
the site visit and less than 0.5 inches within the two weeks prior.
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30' r or I
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 • Alnus rubra
80%
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2.
1
Total Number of Dominant
4•
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
80%
= Total Cover
SaplinalShrub Stratum (Plot Size: 10' r or
1
Percent of Dominant Species
1 • Sambucus racemosa
30%
Yes
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (A/B)
2. Rubus spectabilis
60%
Yes
FAC
Prevalence Index worksheet:
3.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
4.
OBL species 30 x 1 = 30
5.
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
90%
= Total Cover
FAC species 140 x 3 = 420
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5' r or ]
FACU species 30 x 4 = 120
1 • Lysichiton americans
30%
Yes
OBL
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
2.
Column Totals: 200 (A) 570 (B)
3.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.85
4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
7.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
8.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
9.
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
10.
5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
11.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)'
30%
= Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 10' r or 1
be present.
1.
2.
Hydrophytic
0%
= Total Cover
Vegetation Yes x No
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 70%
Present?
Remarks:
BCES Job ####
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: sp3w
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' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-12 10 yr 4/1 sandy loam
12-16 5 y 2.5/2 sandy loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted):
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
x_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
I Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Surface Water (Al)
—High Water Table (A2)
x Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
—Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Drift Deposits (63)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
x Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
Water Table Present? Yes
Saturation Present? Yes x
(includes capillary fringe)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
—Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA
1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
—Salt Crust (B11)
_Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
—Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
No x Depth (inches):
No x Depth (inches):
No Depth (inches)? 6
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
2 cm Muck (A10)
—Red Parent Material CTF2)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic.
Hydric Soil
Present? Yes x No
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required
—Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (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 (D3)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (135)
_ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Wetland
Hydrology Yes x No
Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
BCES Job ####
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region
Project/Site: Guzman Pacific hwy City/County: Federal Way, King Sampling Date: 8/23/2019
Applicant/Owner: State: Wa Sampling Point: sp4u
Investigator(s): J. Heckert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): A, Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long. Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam, Norma sandy loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site man showing samnlina point locations. transacts. important features. etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes
No x
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes
No x
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No x
within a Wetland? Yes No x
Precipitation:
According to the NWS Seattle station, 0.00 inches of rainfall was received on the day of the site visit and less than 0.5 inches within the two weeks prior.
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum IPlot Size: 30' r or 1
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Populus alba
30%
Yes
NOL
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
3•
Total Number of Dominant
4•
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
30%
= Total Cover
Saolino/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 10' r or
j
Percent of Dominant Species
1•
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
2•
3.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
4.
5.
FACW species 0 x 2 = fl
0%
= Total Cover
FAC species 100 x 3 = 300
Herb Stralum (Piot Size: 5' r or )
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
1- Poa pratensis
80%
Yes
FAC
UPL species 30 x 5 = 150
2• Plantago major
20%
Yes
FAC
Column Totals: 130 (A) 450 (B)
3.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.46
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.
5.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
7.
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
8.
_
4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
9.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
10,
5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
11.
_
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)'
100%
= Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Woody Vne Stratum IPlot Size: 10' r or 1
be present.
1.
2.
Hydrophytic
0%
= Total Cover
Vegetation Yes No x
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0%
Present?
Remarks:
BCES Job ##a#
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
SOIL ISampling Point: sP4u
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'
0-16 10 yr 3/2
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted):
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
I Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Surface Water (Al)
—High Water Table (A2)
_Saturation (A3)
—Water Marks (B1)
—Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Drift Deposits (B3)
_Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
—Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
Water Table Present? Yes
Saturation Present? Yes
(includes capillary fringe)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
-Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA
1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
—Salt Crust (B11)
_Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
_Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Loc2 Texture
gravelly loam
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
2 cm Muck (A10)
—Red Parent Material (TF2)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic.
Hydric Soil
Present? Yes No x
Seconds ry Indicators 2 or more re uiredI
—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 (D3)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
_ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
No x Depth (inches): Wetland
No x Depth (inches): Hydrology Yes No x
No x Depth (inches): Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
BCES Job ####
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region
Project/Site: Guzman Pacific hwy City/County: Federal Way, King Sampling Date: 8/23/2019
Applicant/Owner: State: Wa Sampling Point: sp5u
Investigator(s): J. Heckert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): A, Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam, Norma sandy loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No _
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site maD showing samnlina point locations. transects. imnartant features. etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes x
No
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes
No x
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No x
within a Wetland? Yes No x
Precipitation:
According to the NWS Seattle station, 0.00 inches of rainfall was received on the day of the site visit and less than 0.5 inches within the two weeks prior
Remarks:
Vegetation neutral
VEGETATION
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30' r or 1
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 • Thuja plicata
15%
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2.
3
Total Number of Dominant
4•
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
15%
= Total Cover
Sapllrlo/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 10' r or
]
Percent of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A1B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
2-
3.
Total % Cover of: Multioly by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
4.
5.
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
0%
= Total Cover
FAC species 115 x 3 = 345
Herb Stratum - (Plot Size: Sr or ]
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
1 • Poa pratensis
80%
Yes
FAC
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
2- Plantago major
20%
Yes
FAC
Column Totals: 115 (A) 345 (B)
3.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3_00
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.
5.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
7.
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
8.
_
4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
9.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
10,
5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
11.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)'
100%
= Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Woody Vine Stratum !Plot Size: 10' r or
]
be present.
1.
2.
Hydrophytic
0%
= Total Cover
Vegetation Yes x No
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0%
Present?
Remarks:
BCES Job ##ff#
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: spsu
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'
Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-16 10 yr 4/2
'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':
Histosol (Al)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
—2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
— Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
—Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
—
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
—Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Redox Depressions (F8)
problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Hydric Soil
Depth (inches):
Present? Yes No x
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary indicators (minimum of one required: check all that
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
_ Surface Water (Al)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
—High Water Table (A2)
1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
4A, and 4B)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Salt Crust (1311)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Water Marks (B1)
_Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (B2)
_Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Drift Deposits (63)
—Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
_ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Wetland
Water Table Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Hydrology Yes No x
Saturation Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections),
if available:
Remarks:
BCES Job ####
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region
Project/Site: Guzman Pacific hwy City/County: Federal Way, King Sampling Date: 8/23/2019
Applicant/Owner: State: Wa Sampling Point: sp6u
Investigator(s): J. Heckert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): _
Subregion (LRR): A, Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam, Norma sandy loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site MaD showino samDlino Doint locations. transects. imoortant features. etc.
0
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes
No x
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes
No x
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No x
within a Wetland? Yes No x
Precipitation:
.According to the NWS Seattle station, 0.00 inches
of rainfall was received on the day of the site visit and less than 0.5 inches within the two weeks prior.
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30' r or ]
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Acermacrophyllum
60%
Yes
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
2- Pseudotsuga menziesii
30%
Yes
FACU
3-
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
90%
= Total Cover
Salin_�15hrubStratu_m�Pln3 Site- 10' r ar
}
Percent of Dominant Species
1 • Ilex aquifolium
1511/0
Yes
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0°I❑ (A/B)
2• Oemleria cerasiformis
20%
Yes
FACU
Prevalence Index worksheet:
3. Acermacrophyllum
20%
Yes
FACU
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
4 Arctostaphylos columbiana
10%
No
NOL
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
5.
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
65%
= Total Cover
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5' r or
FACU species 125 x 4 = 500
1 • Po/ystichum munitum
20%
Yes
FACU
UPL species 10 x 5 = 50
2• Rubus ursinus
20%
Yes
FACU
Column Totals: 135 (A) 550 (B)
3.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 4-07
4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
7.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01
8.
_
4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
9.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
10.
5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
11.
_
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)'
40%
= Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size. 10' r or ]
be present.
1.
2.
Hydrophytic
0%
= Total Cover
Vegetation Yes No x
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60%
Present?
Remarks:
BCES Job ####
USACE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: sp6u
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'
Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-16 10 yr 3/2
cobble loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted):
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
—2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (fF2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Depleted Matrix (173)
Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
3
_
_
Indicators of vegetation and wetland
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
rnt, unless disturbed or
hydrology mustt bbe e present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Redox Depressions (F8)
problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Hydric Soil
Depth (inches):
Present? Yes No x
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
_ Surface Water (Al)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
_ High Water Table (A2)
1, 2, 4A, and 413)
4A, and 413)
—Saturation (A3)
_Salt Crust (B11)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
Water Marks (61)
_Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _Geomorphic Position (D2)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
_ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Wetland
Water Table Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Hydrology Yes No x
Saturation Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections),
if available:
Remarks:
BCES Job
USAGE Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Brambila City/County: Federal Way Sampling Date:5/15/18
ApplicanUOwner: Bambrila State: WA Sampling Point: SP 2W
Investigator(s): M. HECKERT Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): _ Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sand loam NWI classification: PEM1A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑
within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑
Remarks:
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 10M)
1. Alnus rubra
2
3.
4.
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 m )
1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 m
1. Ranunculus acris
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11,
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 1
Remarks: sp in lawn next to forest
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
30 v FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
30 = Total Cover
= Total Cover
50 v facw
100 = Total Cover
= Total Cover
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species 0
x 1 = 0
FACW species 50
x 2 = 100
FAC species 30
x 3 = 90
FACU species 0
x 4 = 0
UPL species 0
x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 80
(A) 190 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.4
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
® Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
® Dominance Test is >50%
® Prevalence Index is 53.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ® No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: SP 2W
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' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-10 10/vr3/2 100
10-18 10/vr2/2 100
loam
sandy loam inundated at 10 inches
'Type: C=Concentration. D=Deoletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (Al 0)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
® Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type.
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one reauired: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ® Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA
❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413)
® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311)
® Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
® Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
® Iron Deposits (65) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
® Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
® Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Field Observations:
Secondary indicators (2 or more required)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 413)
® Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (133)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 10
Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks: does meet wetland criteria
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0