Loading...
16-101140CITY OF �L. Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 wwwcityoffederalway. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor April 5, 2016 Mr. Richard Peterson Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle 710 9th Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 FILE Re: File No's 16-101141-00-SE and 16-101140-UP; NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Gethsemane Cemetary Phased Long Range Master Plan 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA Dear Mr. Peterson: The Department of Community Development is in receipt of your Process IV Master Land Use (MLU) application and environmental checklist. The applicant has proposed a phased long term master plan for expansion of the existing cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way. Pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.15.045, within 28 days of receiving an MLU application, the city shall determine whether all information and documentation required for a complete application has been submitted. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Please consider this letter a Notice of Complete Application. The Process IV MLU application is deemed complete as of April 4, 2016. This determination of completeness is based on a review of your submittal relative to applicable requirements referenced within FWRC 19.15.040, "Development Application Submittal Requirements." Submittal requirements are not intended to determine if an application conforms to city codes, they are used only to determine if all required materials have been submitted. A 120-day time line for reviewing this environmental checklist and Process IV application has started as of this date. The city's development regulations allow the department 120 days from the date that an application is deemed complete to take action on the application. However, the 120-day time line will be stopped at any time the city requires corrections and/or additional information. You will be informed of the status of the 120-day time line when you are notified in writing that corrections and/or additional information are needed. The Development Review Committee (DRC) staff is preparing initial technical review comments that will be forwarded to you in separate correspondence. Technical review comments may result in a request for additional information and revisions in order to comply with applicable code requirements. Mr. Richard Peterson Page 2 April 5, 2016 PUBLIC NOTTCE The Notice of Application (NOA) will be distributed within 14 days of this letter as follows: 1) two large notice boards will be posted at the subject property (the applicant will be responsible for installation of these large notice boards and we will provide the signs and installation instructions to you when prepared); 2) in addition, city staff will post one small notice board at the site; 3) city staff will post one copy at each of the official city notification boards; 4) one copy will be published in the Federal Way Mirror, and 4) a copy will be mailed to persons receiving the property tax statements for all property within 300 feet of the subject property. The department also has the responsibility to notify other agencies that may have jurisdiction over your development project or an interest in it. CLOSING If you have any questions regarding this letter or your development project, please contact me by email at jim.hams@itvoffederalway.com, or by phone at 253-835-2652 during my office hours on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays from 8:00 AM until noon. Sincerely, �, 3v �1" arris City Planner c: Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer Sarady Long, Senior Transportation Planning Engineer Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District Carol Ohlfs, J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC, 100 South King Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98104 File #16-101141-00-SE Doc. LD. 72950 CITY OF .. Federal Way June 21, 2016 Mr. Richard Peterson Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle 710 9,h Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 richp Ccr,myca th o liccemetery, o rg CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com FILE Jim Ferrell, Mayor Re: File No's 16-101141-00-SE & 16-101140-UP; Planning Division Technical Review Comments Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Range Master Plan 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Peterson: Planning Division staff has completed the initial review of your SEPA and Process IV Master Land Use (,LU) application submittal package for the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan proposal. The proposal is for a 50-year Phased Expansion and Master Plan with associated site improvements. The application was deemed complete April 4, 2016, and a Notice of Application (NOA) was issued April 15, 2016. The city has received comment letters from the Federal Way Historical Society, Schnitzer Steel, and Washington Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). A copy of the DAHP June 14, 2016, letter is enclosed, and the other two comment letters have previously been provided to you. TECHNICAL COMMENTS Unless otherwise noted, the following comments provided by staff reviewing your project must be addressed prior to setting a hearing date and preparing a staff recommendation to the Hearing Examiner for the Process IV application. Prior to issuance of the Process IV staff report and recommendation, city staff will issue the administrative SEPA determination, with a comment and appeal period. Please address each of the following comments and direct questions regarding any of the technical comments to the appropriate staff representative. 1. The proposal includes several activities and improvements within regulated wetland buffers. These improvements include natural burial sites in three different geographic locations, pervious pavement access paths, grading/ground contouring, and stormwater improvements as shown on page 3.3; including stormwater structure, grading, and maintenance access, etc. None of the proposed wetland buffer intrusions listed above are permissible in a wetland buffer. None of the wetland buffer intrusions referenced above are identified or mentioned in the Otak Inc. February 25, 2016, Wetland and Stream Delineation Report. The only specific intrusions permissible in a wetland buffer are specifically described in Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145.440. Mr. Richard Peterson Page 2 June 21, 2016 The plan should be revised to avoid all intrusions into wetland buffers. Avoidance of all wetland and wetland buffer intrusions should be the highest priority. Any wetland buffer intrusions must meet the mitigation sequen�ro �, C 19.145.140, and regulations for development in wetland buffers under FW#tC 9.1 Ot There is possibility for a potential maximum 25 percent wetland buffer reduction when buffer enhancement is implemented, pursuant to FWRC 19.145.440(6); however, there has been no analysis or evaluation if the standards in this code section can be met. If wetland buffer enhancement is an option you may be pursuing, then the city will require pre -funding of review of any buffer intrusions and enhancement plans by one of the city third party wetland consultants. It would not be appropriate to allow Otak Inc. to prepare a buffer enhancement plan for you as the applicant, as well as review the plan on behalf of city staff. Therefore, a third party review would be required at the applicant's expense. 2. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-100 allows the city to require additional information and/or studies if there is not sufficient information to issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS). Based on review of the submitted information, comments received, discussions city staff has had with staff from DAHP, and the potential cultural resources identified in the SEPA checklist, a cultural resources inventory and plan must be conducted prior to issuance of the SEPA determination as recommended by DAHP. We suggest that a meeting with DAHP staff, city staff, and you should be coordinated to identify key elements of the plan and any DAHP permitting. At this time, DAHP has provided comments to the city in a June 14, 2016, letter (enclosed), and the DAHP staff had the understanding that a cultural resources evaluation was going to be conducted as identified in the SEPA checklist. 3. Please show on the submitted site plan any wetlands off -site on adjacent properties. Specifically, show how the wetlands on the adjacent Karileen site to the north are not impacted by proposed development of the Gethsemane property, and provide a narrative response to this comment as well. Comments regarding this subject were received from Schnitzer Steel, in a May 10, 2016, letter and May 4, 2016, email, and these have previously been provided to you. 4. As city staff has previously indicated, we do not support 50-year project vesting as proposed in the project narrative. We will consider and recommend vesting consistent with applicable state and local regulations and city policy. The city is supportive of the master plan concept as allowed under applicable rules and regulations, as this should provide some overall predictability for future growth. 5. Pursuant to F %RC 14.10.020(6), "Within 90 days of issuing a letter of completeness for the application and environmental checklist, the responsible official shall make a threshold determination or notify the applicant that a determination of significance is likely and indicate the areas of likely impact. The applicant may request an additional 30 days for the issuance of the threshold determination by the responsible official, or for the responsible official to evaluate mitigation measures proposed by the applicant. The responsible official shall grant such extension, if requested. A final determination shall be made within 90 days from the receipt of the applicant's response for additional information, unless the applicant requests an additional 30 days as provided in this section." File #16-101141-00-SE Doc. LD. 73440 Mr. Richard Peterson Page 3 June 21, 2016 The letter of completeness for the project was issued on April 4, 2016; therefore, we are fast approaching the 90-day deadline to issue a SEPA threshold determination. In light of this, we request that you ask the city to hold off on issuing the SEPA threshold determination until the technical review comments are addressed. A written request to place SEPA review on hold is needed by June 27, 2016, (an e-mail can suffice if necessary). If you have any questions regarding this letter or your development project, please contact me at 253-835- 2652, or jim.laarris e.citvoffederalway.com. Sincerely, ra4"ms 44�.� Planner enc: June 14, 2016, DAHP Letter Kevin_ Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer Carol Ohlfs, J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC, 100 South King Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98104, car 11@iabrennan.cam File #16-101141-00-SE Doc. I.D. 73440 ARCHDIOCESE OF SEATTLE ASSOCIATED CATHOLIC CEMETERIES OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR/CALVARY CEMETERY www.mycatholiccemetery.org June 30, 2016 Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archeologist State of Washington Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 ret hen, iehlerfta .wa. o Re. Project Tracking Code: 2016-06-03926 Property: City of Federal Way Gethsemane Cemetery Expansion Dear Ms. Kaehler, 710 9TH AVE SEATTLE, WA 98104-20P7 wwwseattlearchdiocese. org RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JUL -5 2016 I am the Director of Catholic Cemeteries for the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle and I am writing about our Application for Master Plan Approval for the Gethsemane Cemetery in Federal Way. As you may know, the Cemetery has been active since 1972. We appreciate your assistance in evaluating our Application. We do want to sit down with you and Federal Way city staff as soon as possible, even before we embark on further studies, so that we can clarify our proposal and your recommendations. I know Carol Ohlfs from JA Brennan Associates has contacted you to arrange our meeting. We have reviewed the DAHP letter dated June 14, 2016 to Mr. Jim Harris at the City of Federal Way, and I am concerned that there may have been some misunderstandings. The letter makes reference to the Cushman Indian School. However, the Gethsemane Cemetery was never the site of the Cushman Indian School. That school was located much further south in Tacoma. Gethsemane Cemetery was the site of the St. George's Indian School which ceased operation in the 1930's. The school building was removed and the site was substantially regraded when the Cemetery was created in the early 1970's. We honor the past of the St. George's Indian School with a statute and plaque recognizing the wonderful work of Saint Sister Katharine Drexel who led the Catholic sisters who staffed the School for many years. While there are no remnants of the school at the Cemetery, we would still like to consult with you about the value of a cultural resources evaluation of the Cemetery site. The DAHP letter makes reference to the St. George Cemetery. St. George Cemetery is located on the east side of the West Hylebos Creek, across a very large ravine, and is nowhere near the area of the proposed Master Plan Cemetery expansion. Our Master Plan does not include any proposed phase of work on the east side of the West Hylebos Creek, and we are revising our site plan drawings to make this fact more clear. Thus, no work will be done near the St. George Cemetery, which is shown on the plans as it was delineated and recorded in 1971. The plans also show the 60' access Holyrood Cemetery Calvary Cemetery Gethsemane Cemetery St. Patrick Cemetery 205 NE 205TH STREET 5041 35TH AVE NE 376o0 PACIFIC HwY S S. 204TH AND ORILLIA ROAD SHORELINE, WA 98155 SEATTLE, WA 98105 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 KENT, WA 98032 2o6-363-8404 2o6-522-o996 SEATTLE: 253-838-2240 ADMINISTERED BY FAX: 2o6-365-658o FAX: 2o6-525-9628 TACOMA: 253-927-3350 GETHSEMANE CEMETERY FAX:253-874-5910 SEATTLE:253-838-2240 easement across Gethsemane Cemetery owned property which was legally delineated and recorded in 1995. We are very much aware of the need to respect and avoid archaeological resources, especially Native American remains. Indeed, our mission and our work is to protect graves and remains of everyone. We will not be doing any work near the St. George Cemetery and did not intend to seek a permit to do so. We are concerned that the DAHP may have misunderstood the Master Plan so we are very interested in clarifying our plans for the DAHP and other interested parties. There is a lot of material required by the Federal Way city Code for our application, and we stand ready to clarify that material, as needed. This is another reason why we are anxious to meet with you. We suggest a meeting at Gethsemane Cemetery in Federal Way so DAHP Staff can assess conditions on the ground. We look forward to meeting with you and the City to determine if a Cultural Resources Inventory is required at this stage of the process given the facts outlined above and to determine what the scope of that study might need to be considering all work proposed is for the west side of West Hylebos Creek. Given the potential misunderstandings, I would appreciate it if you can please forward this letter to those organizations who were copied on the Department letter dated June 14, 2016. If you want to give us appropriate contact information, we will be happy to send the copies ourselves. Very Truly Yours, tlu)A� Richard Peterson Director of Cemeteries Archdiocese of Seattle CC. Mr. Jim Harris, Planner, City of Federal Way Mr. John Hempelmann, Cairncross & Hempelmann Ms. Carol Ohlfs, J.A. Brennan and Associates dahp June 14, 2016 Mr. Jim Harris Contract Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA98003-6325 Allyson Brooks Ph.D., Director State Historic Preservation Officer In future correspondence please refer to: Project Tracking Code: 2016-06-03926 Property: City of Federal Way Gethsemane Cemetery Expansion Re: Professional Archaeological Survey Requested, More information Requested, Permit from DAHP may be required under RCW 27.53. Dear Mr. Harris: Thank you for contacting the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The above referenced project has been reviewed on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The project area has a high probability for containing both historic archaeological resources associated with the Cushman Indian School and precontact resources associated with Native American use of the area. There is also a high probability for unmarked burials in the project area associated with the St. George Cemetery which has undetermined boundaries. The project area has never been surveyed for cultural resources. Archaeological sites are protected from knowing disturbance on both public and private lands in Washington States. Both RCW 27.44 and RCW 27.53.060 require that a person obtain a permit from our Department before excavating, removing, or altering Native American human remains or archaeological resources in Washington. F ' re too Lain permit t nishable by civil fines and other penalties under RCW 27.53.095, and by criminal prosecution under RCW 27.53. Chapter 27.53.095 RCW allows the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to issue civil �1 1 penalties for the violation of this statute in an amount up to five thousand dollars, in addition to site restoration costs and investigative costs. Also, these remedies do not prevent concerned tribes from Yo undertaking civil action in state or federal court, or law enforcement agencies from undertaking criminal investigation or prosecution. Chapter 27.44.050 RCW allows the affected Indian Tribe to undertake civil action apart from any criminal prosecution if burials are disturbed. e a tk� the SEPA checklist that ❑u sent for review that state under Question 13d. Proposed treasures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss. changes to and disturbance to resources, that a professional archaeological survey be conducte rior to any ground disturbance. a research design and methodology should reviewed by DAHP prior WU 1 surey report should be sent to DAHP and the interested Tribes for revi prior to beginning the project. VAT DA State of Washington • Department of Archaeology 8. Historic Preservation Q n P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 a L rx l n www..;dahp.wo.gov A I N- h r F,2 "' k� SCPA C `e (i� 10A7 �U ft\, . kGt- J- J(c C6 6 d1 �]-7 An Archaeologial Monitoring and lnadvertnt Discovery Plan (MIDP) should. also be prepared for the �Q f project. Areas of the project that require archaeological monitoring will be determined on based on review of the archaeological survey report. Thank you for the opportunity to review. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments (360) 586-3088 are tchen.kaeliler!u)dah .wa. ov cc. Laura Murphy, Archaeologist, Muckleshoot Tribe Brandon Reynon, Cultural Resources, Puyallup Tribe Jackie Wall, Cultural Resources, Nisqually Tribe Rhonda Foster, THPO, Squaxin Island Tribe Stephanie Neil, Archaeologist, Squaxin Island Tribe l e'� ry� C' J -t *%. 15 CaLN4--7 pZGti r 5 E �� oft c CS ► �r o �"` � r �J / /N [ L CG,, 2 41k F q4';:tt=;P Federal Way DEPARTY1f\ pF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RS U BM M t u 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 JUNK 2016 253-8352607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.ci!yDffederalway.com CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS SIGN INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE Project Name: G f hie ro o-A Ce-" i<w 1 Project File No: t 6- l01 l q0 - U p 16 a l l `i 1" 5 C Project Address: _ 3 76OD Pe, ci C,,- 9Ld LA_ S • 6A.,ru I I (-,,A NY -Installed By: "T�;N--( GAVL5-=4 • Date of Installation: (e --7 - .2-a, (a Location of Installation: Ovrsf- F "r S^i nZxVG S Caws—T—e rx;-( ■� s: .f_ ,i_ .�. _d_ 4_ d: 0-4 _ f_ ■. Si _ f_ f_ •a: M: 0: A_ �_ �_ 0_ i� r_ Y� i_ J_ i. _i_ .i_ ■_ a: • ■1 ■1 !1 !1 !� it ■i !i 1!1 11 i1 Ri ■1 !1 r_ i1 ill i1 RN III i1 id !1 Elµl■ 11 !i !1 !1 1■ 11 a1 li ! ,r. •�. •r. .. .. r. •r. •n. .er a. •r. •s. •e. •r. •r. •r. •.+. �. ..,. .,. a.r n. �. •r. a. •�. •r. •r. ,4. -v •r+. e,r r. I hereby testify that the sign installed fully complies with the installation standards of the Department of Community Development Service's "Instructions for Obtaining & Posting Public Notification Signs" and that the sign will be maintained until a final decision is issued on the land use action. I understand that failure to return this certificate within five days of posting may result in delays, notice of corrections, and re -mailings at the applicant's expense. , &W 6ay"CKA, Installer's Name c Installer's Si ature --7 -,-ai�o Date ZS 3 -K;9 - ZZ L4 Phone Bulletin #036 — January 1, 2011 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Sign Installation Certificate -111i:k CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Project Description: Proposed cemetery expansion into 20.8 additional acres over 50 years. The existing cemetery development is about 8.2 acres. The total cemetery size after 50 years would be approximately 28 acres. The Archdiocese owns approximately 58 acres, but this project proposes changes only to the west portion of the (58-acre) site. The project proposes five phases of incremental constriction over 50 years. The timing and exact details of the phases will be determined by future circumstances. Applicant: Richard Peterson, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Project Location: 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA Date Application Received: March 7, 2016 Date Determined Complete: April 4, 2016 Date of Notice of Application: April 15, 2016 Comment Due Date: May 2, 2016 Requested Decision and Other Permits Included with this Application: Use Process IV (File 16- 101 140-UP); Environmental Determination (File 16-101 141-SE); and Transportation Concurrency (File 16-101 142-CN). The city will use Process IV `Hearing Examiner's Decision' to review and decide upon the Cemetery use and Master Plan. Required Studies: Preliminary Stormwater Technical Information Report, Environmentally Critical Area Report - Stream and Wetland Delineations. Development Regulations Used for Project Mitigation: Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, "Environmental Policy," Title 16 "Surface Water Management," and Title 19 "Zoning and Development Code." Public Comments & Appeals: The initial public comment and notice period ends May 2, 2016. However, any person may submit written comments to the Hearing Examiner by delivering these comments to the Department of Community Development prior to the public hearing date (which has yet to be determined) or by giving these directly to the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing. Only the applicant, persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner, or persons who specifically request a copy of the written decision may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. Details of appeal procedures for the requested land use decision will be included with the written decision. Availability of File: The official project file and environmental documents are available for public review during normal business hours at the Department of Community Development (33325 8`I' Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003). City Staff Contact: Jim Harris — Planner; i im_liarris@cityoffederalway.cotii, or 253-835-2652; between 8:00 AM - 1:00 PM on Mon, Tues, & Thur. Call and leave a message or email to arrange to discuss proposal at other times. Published in the Federal Way Mirror April 15, 2016. Doc I D 7 082 City of Gethsemane Cemetary - Master Plan Map Dale: Ave S. 1fi 33325oBlh Ave S. City f Federal Way Federal Way 37600 Pacific Hwy S. Federal Way 98003 (206) - 635 - 7000 www.c*ityoffederalway.com (JOHNSON RD NE) ST Gethsemane Cemetary Puget Federal ST cC� Way \ r'u Legend ,!, CITY OF N Federal Way Subject Site C O 250 `yoo 1,000 This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. Le Federal Way City Limits Feet The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. f Jim Harris From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP) <Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov> Thursday, June 02, 2016 2:13 PM Jim Harris Tasa, Guy (DAHP) RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Plan Federal Way Hi Jim, t t I ` fL� ��3 J We have the following comments on� T 5 r � CU • A permit f m DAHP will likely be required for subsurface survey in the cemetery under RCW 27.53, RCW 27.44, RCW 68.6,`R VCTS8-.'5-0—prior any subsurface survey work. • DAHP would like to review the survey methodology prior to any archaeological survey efforts. + The professional archaeological consultant should coordinate closely with DAHP and the State Physical Anthropologist, Dr. Guy Tasa. • The interested Tribes should review survey methodology as well prior to survey. Most of the above would be assimilated under the A���Ppmit process. This process requires the services of a professional archaeologist and may take up to 60 da e DAHP perM to be issued after DAHP has received a sufficient permit application. No ground disturbing work including archaeolo 'cal survey may take place until the DAHP permit has been received. Please call me on Monday if you wish to discuss or need a formal letter. Best, Gretchen fCCJ_� �� ��✓ Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) Office: 360-586-3088 Cell: 360-628-2755 Gretchen. Kaehler dah .wa. ov From: Jim Harris [maiito:Jim.Harris ci offederalwa .com] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 12:07 PM To: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP) Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Plan Federal Way Gretchen: 1 Any update on your review status? Thanks, Jim Jim Harris Planner Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2652 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.cltyoffederalway.com Office Hours Mon, Tues, & Thur, 8:00 AM —12:30 PM or by appointment From: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP)[mailto:Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:55 AM To: Jim Harris Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Plan Federal Way Thanks Jim, I will take a look at this and get back to you next week. Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) Office: 360-586-3088 Cell: 360-628-2755 G retchen. Kaeh ler@ da hp.wa.goV From: Jim Harris [mailto:Jim.Harris@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:43 AM To: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP) Subject: Gethsemane Cemetery Plan Federal Way Gretchen : Thanks for the call today. Attached is a Phasing Plan Map, SEPA checklist and project narrative for the proposed Gethsemane Cemetery in Federal Way. As we discussed, The City has not yet issued a SEPA Determination on this proposal, but we are asking for your comments and input at this time. Also remember, contrary to the response in the SEPA checklist, the applicant is not proposing to conduct a Cultural Resources Inventory at this time. Your time and assistance is appreciated. al ARCHDIOCESE OF SEATTLE ASSOCIATED CATHOLIC CEMETERIES www.mycatholicceinetery.org June 1, 2016 Jim Harris, Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Dear Mr. Harris: RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY 8L ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 710 9TH AVr J U N 2� 16 SEATTLE, WA 98104-2017 wwwseattlearchdiocese. org We have reviewed the public comments on our application for Long Range Master Plan approval for Gethsemane Cemetery. We would like to respond to two comments as follows: 1. Email from Bryan Graham of Schnitzer Steel. May 4 2016. This comment requests that the Cemetery provide a 100 buffer around all wetlands on the Karileen site where Schnitzer Steel did some environmental mitigation and restoration a few years ago. No further action need be taken by the City in response to this comment. This request is unreasonable, contrary to law and contrary to principles of fundamental fairness. To the extent buffers are required around any restored wetlands on the Karileen site, such buffers should be provided by Schnitzer on the Karileen site and not be imposed on a neighboring property owner. Our response is consistent with FWMC 19.145.120(4) which provides: "(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." We should also note that this may be a mute issue because of the analysis done by Otak for the February 25, 2016 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report to the City produced as part of the Cemetery Application. Figures 5, 6, 7 and 7A of the Otak Report show both the wetland on the Karileen site and the "North Arm" Wetland or Wetland #1 on the Gethsemane site. The wetland buffer on the Gethsemane site shown in Figure 7 of the Otak Report already protects the wetland on the Karileen site. 2. Memo and attachments from Diana Noble-Guiliford._May 2�16. This comment and its many attachments address the historical St. George's Indian School Building and Cemetery. No further action need be taken by the City in response to this comment. As the submitted records themselves show, the old school building was closed in the 1930s and was demolished in the late 1960s or early 1970s. There is no part of the old school building remaining. Gethsemane does have a plaque on the statute of Sister Katharine Drexel who was one of the founders of the Holyrood Cemetery 205 NE 205TII STREET SHORELINE, WA 98155 2o6-363-8404 FAX: 2o6-365-6580 Calvary Cemetery 5041 35TH AVE NE SEATTLE, WA 98105 2o6-522-o996 FAX: 2o6-525-9628 Gethsemane Cemetery 37600 PACIFIC H ArY S FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 SEATTLE:2S3-838-2240 TACOMA: 253-927-3350 FAX:253-874-5910 St. Patrick Cemetery S. 204TH AND ORILLIA ROAD KENT, WA 98032 ADMINISTERED BY GETHSEMANE CEMETERY SEATTLE:2S3-838-2240 school. The inactive St. George Cemetery is on the east side of West Hylebos Creek and is not adjacent to any planned expansion of the Cemetery. It is not part of the Gethsemane Cemetery property. There is existing legal but unopened access to the St. George Cemetery on the easternmost boundary of the cemetery property. Gethsemane Cemetery has no plans to access or take any action near the St. George Cemetery. Sincerely, Richard Peterson Director of Cemeteries Archdiocese of Seattle CC. Mr. John Hempelmann, Cairncross & Hempelmann Mr. Jim Brennan, J. A. Brennan and Associates Ms. Carol Ohlfs, J. A. Brennan and Associates Mr. Fred Morley, Superintendent, Gethsemane Cemetery CIT 1�k Federal Way May 10, 2016 Mr. Richard Peterson Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle 710 9"' Avenue Seattle; WA 98104 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor Re: File No's 16-101141-00-SE and 16-101140-U..P; Public Comments on Notice of Application Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Range Master Plan 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way Dear YIr. Peterson: The City has received two comment letters in response to the Notice of Application for the Gethsemane Cemetery Long Range Master Plan. City staff is providing you copies of these two comment letters at this time for your information. City staff is not requesting any action from you at this time; however, if you have comments in response to these letters, your comments can be provided to the City. City staff is currently evaluating the comments in these two letters and conducting a technical review of the proposal. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your development project, please contact me by email at jim.harriQcicyot edei•alway.com, or by phone at 25-3-835-2652 during my office hours on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays from 8:00 AM until noon. Sincerely, ti im Harris Planner enc: Comment Letter from Diana Noble-Guilli ford dated lvlay 2. 2016 Comment letter from Bryan Graham, Senior Environmental Manager_ Schnitzer Steel Industries, dated May 4. 2016 c: Carol Ohlfs. J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC, 100 South King Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98104 Kevin Peterson. Engineering Plans Reviewer Doe I.D 73436 Stacey Welsh From: Carol Ohlfs <Carol@jabrennan.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 2:50 PM To: Stacey Welsh Subject: RE: mailing list Okay will do, thanks! Carol Ohlfs Landscape Designer J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC 100 S. King St., Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98104 206.583.0620 l 206.583.0623 fax www.iabrennan.com From: Stacey Welsh mailto:Stace .Welsh ci offederalwa .com] Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 2:49 PM To: Carol Ohlfs Subject: mailing list Hi Carol, I'm routing the materials for review and noticed that the mailing labels 300' radius map does not include parcels located outside of King County/Federal Way. Please provide a map, parcel list, and 3 sets of mailing envelopes to "finish the radius" for the properties within 300' of the project that are located within Pierce County/Milton. All of that can be mailed to the Permit Center along with a Resubmittal Form (attached). (Pierce County GIS) http://matterhorn3.co.pierce.wa.us/publicgisl Thank you, Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner Federal Way 33325 8'r' Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2634 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.citvoffederalwaV.com �.a. brennanaS SO C1 at CS :o/�/ I LC landscape architects & planners 2701 First Avenue I Suite 510 Seattle, WA 98121 t 1206.583.06201 w I jabrennan.com Memo City of Federal Way Permit Review To: Jim Harris, Planning Department Date: 08/16/2018 From: Emily Griffith, RLA Project: Gethsemane Cemetery Re: EN Permit resubmittal SUMMARY As requested in the 07/25/2018 letter from Mr. Brian Davis, this letter addresses Gethsemane Cemetery planting design for the Soil Reuse Area (Sheet 6.5 in the EN Permit Plan resubmittal set, submitted to City of Federal Way 08/17/2018). Due to the proximity of the soil reuse area between two wetland buffers, a wetland buffer planting specialist was consulted in preparing the replanting and restoration plan for the area. The planting plan is designed to enhance and complement the wetland buffer functions and values and provide improved ecological conditions. This narrative memo accompanies the final planting plan submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. BACKGROUND The soil reuse area is located within 5-ft of Wetland 6's 165-ft buffer and within 20-ft of Wetland 14's 60-ft buffer. The existing conditions of this sloped area are overgrown Himalayan blackberry and second -growth volunteer, mixed deciduous and evergreen forest. Wetland 6 provides a high level of biological and habitat functions. Production/export of organic matter is provided since the wetland receives overbank flooding and drains to West Fork Hylebos Creek. The wetland includes a mosaic of different vegetation communities, has multiple hydroperiods, and has accessible undisturbed habitat associated with the West Fork Hylebos corridor. Wetland vegetation is dominated by native plants. Special habitat features include large woody debris, standing snags, and permanently ponded areas. The buffer west of Wetland 6 in the study area is a secondary growth, mixed deciduous and evergreen forest on a steep slope, dominated by red alder trees, that extends up to the Gethsemane Cemetery. Wetland 14 provides a low level of biological and habitat functions. Wetland 14 is adjacent to a gravel road and hay field, which limits its use by wetland -associated wildlife. The southwest edge of the wetland is bordered by a barbed wire fence. Wetland vegetation is dominated by non-native, invasive reed canary grass, which limits the establishment of native vegetation. Page 1 of 2 The buffer west and south of Wetland 14 includes a gravel roadway and hay field, which is mowed regularly. The buffer east and north of Wetland 14 is a steep slope dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus americanus). A second -growth, mixed deciduous and evergreen forest abuts the southeastern edge, and has a dense understory thicket of Himalayan blackberry within 150-ft of the boundary of Wetland 14. DESIGN NARRATIVE Enhancement will take place in the form of native plant species installation and non-native invasives removal. As a result, the vegetated area is expected to improve wildlife habitat adjacent to the buffers and impose no adverse impacts. All exposed areas will be stabilized with native vegetation. The new plantings will secure unstable earth conditions, and when combined with construction BMPs for temporary erosion and sediment control, the site design will reduce or eliminate erosion hazards. A variety of native species are included in the planting plan, including native shrubs or small tree species, native conifer tree species, and native deciduous tree species. Native plant species were chosen for the following characteristics: • native to the Puget Sound area; established presence of source populations at the project site; suitable for expected site hydroperiod, light, and soil conditions; e known plant community associations; ability to provide structural complexity, food, and shelter for wildlife; availability from local sources; and aesthetic appeal. The planting design for the soil reuse area includes: ID Coniferous trees: Picea sitchensis (sitka spruce), Tsuga heterophylla (western hemlock), and Thuja plicata (western red cedar) Large deciduous trees: Betulus papyrifera (paperbark birch), Alnus rubra (red alder), and Popousus balsamifera (black cottonwood) Small deciduous trees: Crataegus douglasii (black hawthorne), Malus fusca (pacific crabapple) Native shrubs: Mahonia aquifolium (Oregon grape), Rosa nutkana (nootka rose), Oemlaria cerasiformis (indian plum), symphoricarpos albus (snowberry), pliladelphus lewisii (mock orang), and ribes sanguineum (red flowering currant) To create robust habitat and ecological functions, the planting design for the soil reuse area includes a comprehensive approach to site restoration. The new plantings will produce a final landscape that enhances and complements the functionality of adjacent wetland buffers, both through vegetation cover and hydrology. The planting design proposed will continue to provide habitat connectivity in this location of Gethsemane Cemetery. Sincerely, Emily Griffith, RLA Landscape Architect, Habitat Restoration & Planting Designer J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC Page 2of2 DECLARATION OF MAILING Gethsemane Master Plan; 16-101140-UP; 16-101141-SE I, Phil Olbrechts, make the following declaration: I am a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a witness herein. 2. On the 18th day December, 2017, I mailed, via First Class U.S. Mail, a true and correct COPY of the FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION on the above captioned matter to the following: Jim Brennan J.A. Brennan Associates 100 South King St., Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98104. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED at Granite Falls, Washington, this 18th day of December, 2017. Phil Olbrechts {PA0827324.DOC;1\13041.900000\ ) BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF 16-101140-UP; 16-101141-SE LAW AND DECISION INTRODUCTION The applicant requests Process IV approval of a master plan for a 20.8-acre expansion of the Gethsemane Cemetery to its current 8.2-acre site located at 37600 Pacific Highway South. The Process IV application is consolidated with a 25%/41-foot wetland buffer reduction request. The applications are approved subject to conditions. The proposal is approved for a 20-year phased build out to be vested for the duration of the build outs period. FWRC 19.15.100(2) authorizes a minimum five-year build out period for master plans with discretion to extend for an unspecified number of years. Given the unique circumstances of cemeteries, it is difficult to conceive of any development that would qualify for more than a five year build out if cemeteries do not. As acknowledged by the City in its recommendation, the long-term development horizon of Gethsemane, which may approach 100 years, amply justifies a lengthy build out period. The City and the Applicant have agreed upon a 20 year build out and that is the build out period approved by this decision. The City and the Applicant do not agree on whether the project will remain vested during the agreed upon 20-year build out period. As outlined in Conclusion of Law No. 10 below and summarized in this Introduction, it is concluded that vesting attached to the entire 20-year build out period. The City advocates a five-year vested period. The Applicant asserts that once conferred, vested rights adhere to the end of the build out period. The City position on vested rights during a permit's expiration period is certainly unusual. Taken to its extremes, the City position could be construed as authorizing the City to impose newly adopted editions of perennially updated building codes if new editions are adopted during the 180-day expiration period for building permits. It is unlikely that the City actually takes this position, yet the expiration provisions of the building codes are as silent on vested rights as the phasing provision that applies to this case. The only court opinion that directly addresses vesting during a project's expiration period, Noble Manor v. Pierce County (addressed in COL No. 10), concludes that vesting attaches throughout the development of the proposal. Despite the unique position of the City, it also must be recognized that the 20-year vesting requested by the Applicant provides for an unusually lengthy vesting period. Given the fairly low bar for meeting the due process standard of reasonableness, the 20-year period sought by the ' This decision treats "build out periods" interchangeably with "permit expiration periods" and "phasing periods." With the exception that phasing periods tend to be longer than expiration periods (which is addressed in the analysis), there is no material difference between the terms for purposes of vested rights analysis. Process IV P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision City is probably considerably more than the minimum expiration period that would be constitutionally required for the Applicant. The only improvements needed to complete the proposal are the construction of roads, which does not entail a tremendous investment compared to other developments subject to lengthy expiration provisions. Further, if the Applicant doesn't want to have to build everything within five years, it always has the option of simply limiting its proposal to a smaller area and applying for future phases separately as the need arises. For these reasons, a five year build out period is imminently reasonably under due process standards. If the City chooses to authorize a longer build out period for the convenience of the Applicant, it arguably should have the discretion to condition that extension as it finds necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare. Those conditions could include limits on the vesting period. Certainly, if the City is only required to grant the Applicant a five-year expiration period, it shouldn't be punished for extending that period via limitations on its ability to protect the public interest. Ultimately, this decision need not address whether extending vesting to the end of the proposed 20-year expiration period is mandatory or discretionary because 20-year vesting is justified for this proposal even if it is discretionary. The City's code doesn't contain any standards for formulating the expiration periods of phased projects or, not surprisingly, whether vested rights should extend for the life of the authorized phases. The basic rule in land use law is still that, absent more, an individual should be able to utilize his land as he sees fit. Norco Construction v. King County, 97 Wn.2d 680, 685 (1982). Under this principle, in the absence of any public interest to the contrary, vesting should be allowed to extend to the end of the 20-year expiration period proposed by the Applicant if consistent with City standards. Given the minimal improvements associated with the proposal, there is nothing in the administrative record that establishes or suggests anything inimical to the public interest with a 20-year vesting period. In assessing the public interest, the code criteria for extensions of the City's expiration periods is marginally pertinent. FWRC 19.15.110(2) authorizes extensions of approved expiration periods generally if the need for the extension are beyond the control of the applicant and the extension won't adversely affect the public interest for a variety of specified reasons including taking away traffic capacity from other projects or rendering mitigation ineffective due to the passage of time. As clearly demonstrated by the Applicant, the need for a 20-year phasing period is directly attributable to the inherent and unusual characteristics of a cemetery and are not attributable to any circumstances within the control of the Applicant. The only significant mitigation at stake is wetland mitigation. As required by state law, the City's wetland mitigation is based upon code standards based upon best available science. As demonstrated in the Applicant's wetlands report, the proposed wetland buffers are fully compliant with the City's wetland standards and provide for significantly enhanced wetland functions over current conditions. Project impacts to the wetlands are minor and limited to run off from a road system that will handle very minor amounts of traffic. Under these circumstances, there is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that the buffers proposed by the Applicant will be any less able to fully mitigate wetland impacts than they would 20 years from nowt. As to traffic capacity, the proposal will only generate 13 PM trips at full build out, 2 It is recognized that once the boundaries are approved, they are locked into place by FWRC 19.145.420(7) regardless of whether the expiration period is limited to five years or extended to 20 years. However, if the expiration period is limited to five years instead of 20, there's a good chance that the Applicant won't build all of its Process Iv p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision which is negligible and would create no material impact on the capacity available to other development. Stormwater regulations and vesting are set by the: Department of Ecology and would not be subject to the expiration period. Beyond wetland, traffic and stormwater impacts, the Iow impact proposal doesn't create any other material impacts that could adversely affect the public interest. In the absence of any significant impacts associated with extending vesting to 20 years as opposed to five, under the "absent mare" principle of Norco Construction, the extension of vested rights to the 20-year period is imminently justified by application of FWRC 19.15.100(2). ORAL TESTIMONY Jim Harris, Senior Planner for the City of Federal Way, summarized the proposal. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Harris noted that roadside parking would take care of parking needs for persons visiting gravesites in future phases of cemetery development. Mr. Harris had not heard back from the Tribes on whether they were satisfied with the proposed archaeological resource mitigation, but the mitigation appears to have directly addressed their concerns. John Hempehnann, land use counsel for the Applicant, noted that the wetland buffer mitigation required of the Applicant will be a substantial improvement over current conditions. The current buffer area has been cleared. Mr. Hempelmann noted there's no peak traffic associated with cemeteries. People don't park at the office, they park to where the hearse takes them. The burial rate has stayed steady despite population increases because of longer life spans. The plots will be maintained for at least 100 years. The Church is also now allowing cremation, which reduces burials. The master plan is necessary because the Applicant needs to know where the roads go and from that needs to know where the wetland boundaries are located. He identified that the "carry distance" is limited. It's the distance from a paved surface (the master plan roads) to the grave site. The carry distance is limited by how far elderly people can walk with a funeral procession from the road. That's why so much road surface is necessary in cemeteries. As to examiner questions on property value impacts, Mr. Hempelmann noted that property values around the Cavalry Cemetery in Northeast Seattle have been skyrocketing. People like the open space and historical nature of cemeteries. Mr. Hempelmann noted that the Applicant agrees with everything from staff except for the length of vesting. Richard Peterson, Director of Catholic Cemeteries, testified that there are a number of factors that determine the design of a cemetery, including topography and critical areas. The carry distance is one of the most important factors. Two-thirds of the persons walking to a grave site ceremony are women in their 80s. The carry distance is an industry standard and is 150 feet from the nearest roadway. Full body burial is still favored by the Church even though cremation is now permitted. Long term phased development is necessary for cemeteries because it is Catholic cemeteries in Washington State go back as far as 1838 and worldwide they go bacCatholic religious tradition for cemeteries to be designed and used over lengthy periods of time. k to roads before the expiration period and would then have to submit new applications for portions of the currently proposed 20-acre expansion site. Those new applications would arguably vest to subsequently adopted wetland buffer standards. Consequently, FWRC 19.145.420(7) does not make a significant difference in assessing the appropriate expiration period for this application. Process IV p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision the Roman catacombs. Under Catholic religious doctrine, the cemeteries must remain in place until the second coming. People who buy ltes buy them cemeteries arenotdlimitcd to advance membersnot of the themselves but future generations. The Catholic Catholic church. The cemetery is nand lto ensure longt operation. term funds are and excess maintenance.nsare The used to prepare for future burial sites cemeteries represent faith of eternal life and associated hope and joy. Therefore, they must be well maintained. As cemeteries grow, there's more to maintain, so monies have to be invested for growing maintenance. 50 or 20 years are definitely within midterm planning ranges for cemeteries. Cemeteries don't go anywhere and are not replaced with other development. Mr. Hempelmann noted in all his years of planning he's never had to deal with such long -terns planning, where master plan residential developments are usually done within 20 years. This is why the City found it appropriate to accommodate a 20 year build out. He noted that the Applicant had initially been inclined to use a development agreement but was told by staff a couple years ago that wasn't necessary because it was covered by the phased provisions of the City code. All subsequent discussions were based upon the understanding that the build out and vesting would be long term. Vested rights last from the filing of a complete application to the life of the approvals. The Applicant has done snof tthousanlds and ofcritical llars area basedstudies uponfor the the entire site of the expansion totaling hundred understanding that the proposal would be vested to the entire expansion area over a long period of time. Up until a couple months ago the Applicant had been pushing for 50 years and then recently agreed to 20 years instead pursuant to direction of the City. The traffic study is based upon full build out of the expansion area. The code provision allowing phased development is open-ended and doesn't place an upper limit on phasing. Cities have considerable discretion to address vesting if it's not contrary tOstate aw. ecifyhthatequested vestg is wetland requirementsnly for City are set once regulations. The City's critical area regulationsspecify approved. The stormwater codes are n able toeneray ated by the circumvent Department of Ecology. The avy federal or state mandates Applicant agrees that the City would not be regarding vesting. The vesting the Applicant t to Cityrtains vesting of City transportation oncrurrency particular, the Applicant would like Y standards. Mark Orthmann, deputy City Attorney for Federal Way, addressed vesting. Mr. Orthmann acknowledged that vesting is a discretionary decision. 19.105.040 grants vesting. The City has already given greater vesting rights than required by state law. The wetland buffer vesting provision also sets buffers in place for full build out. The Applicant is already receiving the benefit of the City's vesting provisions and the 20-year build out. A lot of the Applicant's concerns are already resolved. Stormwater vesting is covered by state law. The buffers are set for the 20-year build out. The City has never agreed to what vesting would apply. It's apparent on this issue. The City doesn't believe that vesting for 20 there was some misunderstanding years is necessary for the build out. The City agrees with the Applicant on all other issues. If the Hearing Examiner finds that the City is under a mandate to provide vesting for the build out, then the City revises its recommendation to make it a five instead of 20-year build out. Process Iv p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Mr. Hempelmann noted that there are City regulations not mandated by state law that are within the City's police powers, such as traffic concurrency ordinances. It's inherently a City regulation. The examiner has authority under City code to vest traffic concurrency for 20 years. The state supreme court decision on stormwater is still subject to considerable -debate as to its scope and meaning. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Hempelmann noted it's not a viable option to simply build out everything in five years because it's a large site and it would be a significant expense from the reserve fund to have to maintain an unused road system over the 20- year period. It will take more than 50 years to build out the entire site. EXHIBITS The December 4, 2017 staff report and all its attachments (A-Y) were admitted as Exhibit 1 during the hearing. In addition, the City's power point presentation was admitted as Exhibit 2. A memo from Hempelmann to Examiner dated December 4, 2017 was admitted as Exhibit 3. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. The applicant is the Catholic Church. The applicant's agent is Jim Brennan, J.A. Brennan Associates, 100 South King St., Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98104. 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at 2:00 pm at Federal Way City Hall on December 4, 2017. Substantive: 3. Site/Pmposal Description. The applicant requests Process IV approval of a master plan for a 20.8-acre expansion of the Gethsemane Cemetery to its current 8.2-acre site located at 37600 Pacific Highway South. The Process IV application is consolidated with a 25%/41-foot wetland buffer reduction proposal. The Archdiocese owns approximately 58 acres total at the project site, but the Applicant only proposes changes to that 29-acre portion of the site that is west of Hylebos Creek. The project proposes five phases of incremental construction. The proposal is to further develop and expand the existing cemetery with new burial sites, driveways, shrines, columbaria, landscaping, stormwater and utility improvements, and other associated improvements. The site contains several wetlands and Hylebos Creek. Vehicular access to the cemetery is from Pacific Highway South. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The subject site is surrounded by residentially zoned property ranging in density from Suburban Estate to RS 35.0. Surrounding uses are limited to existing cemetery use, a wetland mitigation site, single-family residences and, according to the staff report, "various unauthorized land uses." Process IV p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 5. Adverse Impacts. Given the fairly modest intensity of the proposal, the extensive open space associated with the proposal and the wetland mitigation proposed by the applicant, it is determined that the proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts. A Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance was issued by the City October 6, 2017. Pertinent impacts are addressed individually as follows: A. Critical Areas. The only critical areas at the project site are wetlands and Hylebos Creek. The application materials include a Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan dated January 27, 2017 by Otak Inc. (Exhibit R), and an August 18, 2017 Addendum to Wetland and Stream report by Otak (Exhibit S). Perteet, working as the City's wetland consultant, provided written reviews of the wetland report in letters dated March 24, 2017 (Exhibit T) and September 26, 2017 (Exhibit U). The wetland and stream mitigation plan proposed by the Applicant after addressing Perteet's third party review, as encapsulated in Ex. S, is required of the Applicant in the MDNS issued for the proposal, Ex. G. With this mitigation plan, staff found the wetland proposal to be consistent with the City's wetland and stream standards and thereby recommended approval of the proposal. Nothing in the administrative record suggests any noncompliance with applicable City wetland and stream standards. Consistency with the City's wetland and stream standards establishes no significant impacts to wetlands and streams. Consequently, it is determined that the proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts to wetlands and streams. B. Drainage. The project is subject to the requirements of a Full Drainage Review as outlined in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and City Addendum. These stormwater standards require that new development not increase off -site stormwater flow volumes or velocities from predevelopment conditions. Preliminary storm drainage information for the Gethsemane Cemetery expansion was provided in the applicant's March 2016 and April 2017 (revised) preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR). The TIR was reviewed and approved by the city's Public Works Department for the initial phase(s) of expansion. Since the proposal is consistent with the City's stormwater standards, it is determined that the proposal will not create any significant adverse drainage impacts. C. Traffic/Access. Traffic impacts are highly nominal and found to not be significantly adverse. The Applicant's transportation concurrency application for a 20.8-acre expansion of the cemetery was approved by the Federal Way Public Works Department on July 14, 2016. The city's concurrency report found that the proposed cemetery expansion will generate 13 new PM peak hour trips and will not degrade intersection operations below the concurrency level of service standard. To off -set the system -wide impacts created by the proposal's trip generation, the proposal is subject to a traffic impact fee at the time the applicable grading and/or engineering permits are issued as required by the FWRC. The development is not expected to meet the 25 percent threshold criteria for requiring street improvements as identified in FWRC 19.135.030. As such, no frontage improvements are required on SR 99. Process Iv p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Vehicular access to the site is provided via an existing private access driveway off SR 99 (Pacific Highway South). The Federal Way Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the location of the existing access location and it meets applicable sight distance and spacing requirements. Access points have been determined to be at the optimal location and configuration based on city staff review considering applicable code requirements, and by South King Fire and Rescue considering emergency access requirements. D. Other Utilities and Public Services. According to the staff report, public services and utilities, including police and fire protection, and water service, are available and are provided to the site. E. Compatibility. The proposal is inherently of low intensity with no significant noise or odor impacts to surrounding properties. With its absence of adverse impacts and significant open space and low traffic, the proposal is compatible with surrounding residential use. The staff report also notes that project design is consistent with the existing cemetery. F. Cultural Resources. As an element of the SEPA review, the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) requested that a professional archeologist conduct an archeological assessment of the site. In response, the applicant prepared a Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Range Master Plan, dated January 31, 2017 (Exhibit N). In summary, the report and assessment provide background and assessment of the potential discovery of significant archeological resources or human remains within the project boundaries. Several Tribes were consulted while preparing the cultural resources assessment. The Cultural Assessment concludes that no significant archeological materials are present in areas where development is proposed. The report recommends continued coordination with the Tribes. The report also includes a recommendation that future ground disturbing activity follow a plan for inadvertent discovery in case cultural resources are unexpectedly discovered. A SEPA mitigation measure includes a condition requiring an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP). The Washington State DAHP has already approved the IDP in a letter dated October 20, 2017 (Exhibit J — pg 1). 6. 20-Year Vesting. There are a number of factors that support a twenty-year vesting period. First and foremost, cemeteries are singularly unique in the extensive amount of time necessary for full build out. As testified by the Applicant, it could take as long as 100 years to build out the proposed 20.8-acre expansion. Road networks that serve the developed portions of the cemetery must be built out slowly and incrementally to provide for the minimal "carry distance" described in the Summary of Testimony section of this decision. Cemetery development must be planned years in advance because plots are purchased decades in advance of use for current and succeeding generations of family members. The road network could be built out in its entirety within a five year or other shorter period of time, but this would require maintenance of roads that are unused for periods that may actually exceed the useful life of the road. Process Iv p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Since the proposed improvements are limited to roads and modest cemetery structures such as monuments, shrines and columbaria, adverse impacts to public health, safety and welfare from a 20-year vesting period are nominal. The only long-term impacts of the proposal are limited to traffic, stormwater and stream/wetland impacts. At full build -out traffic is limited to just 13 PM trips. The wetland mitigation required of the Applicant will create an overall improvement of wetland function over current conditions. Adherence to the City's stream and wetland critical area requirements, as proposed, coupled with the exceptional amount of pervious and undeveloped land in the cemetery area, make it very unlikely that any new critical area regulations adopted five to fifteen years from now would be necessary to further protect wetland and stream functions. Further, the greatest adverse impact to the stream and wetlands would be water run-off from the roads, which in turn would be addressed at least in part by stormwater regulations. Any new stormwater control measures addressing water quality would most likely be mandated by the Washington State Department of Ecology, which would not be subject to the 20-year vesting authorized by this decision. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner: The proposed cemetery is authorized in the Suburban Estate zone subject to Process IV approval. FWRC 19.70.150 provides that the Examiner shall issue a written decision on Process IV applications. The proposed wetland buffer reduction is permitted subject to Process III Director Review pursuant to FWRC 19.145.440(6). FWRC 19.70.010 requires consolidation of Process III applications with Process IV applications. Since the proposal involves both Process III and Process IV review, those two applications are consolidated into one Process IV review before the Examiner. Substantive: 2. Zoning Designation: SuburbanEstate . 3. Review Criteria and ARRlication. Process IV criteria are governed by FWRC 19.70.150(3). The Applicant's Process III buffer reduction request is governed by FWRC 19.145.440(6). Since buffer reduction requests are usually addressed administratively and there is no error in the findings or conclusions adopted by staff in in the staff report, the findings and conclusions of Section XIV of the staff report are adopted by reference and not further addressed in this decision. All applicable Process IV criteria are quoted in bold italics below and applied to the application under corresponding Conclusions of Law. Hearing Examiner Review Process IV Decisional Criteria, FWRC 19.70.150(3): (a) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 8. The proposal is consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive as outlined in Section XV(a) of the staff report. Process Iv p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision (b) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this chapter and all other applicable laws. 9. General Consistency. The city's Community Development Review Committee (CDRC) has reviewed the proposal and found it to comply with all applicable codes, policies, and regulations. Development of the site in accordance with these requirements and the recommended conditions of approval will ensure compliance with all applicable codes, policies, and regulations. 10. 20-Year Vesting. The Applicant's 20-Year vesting proposal is found to be consistent and authorized by the City's vesting ordinances. Contrary to the positions of both City and Appellant, there is no direct case law that addresses whether vesting applies throughout the expiration period of master plan permit approval. The City's staff report asserts that "[i]n general, vesting of the phased project to current regulations is not permissible under state and local land use regulations." The City cites no case law for this position and in point of fact the closest case law (Noble Manor, addressed below) strongly suggests the opposite conclusion, that vesting does apply during the permit expiration period. In its December 4, 2017 memo (Ex. 3), the Applicant points to the City's permit vesting ordinance and vested rights doctrine case law in support of its position that vesting is mandated through the permit expiration period. However, the City's vesting ordinance, FWRC 19.15.100(2) only provides that a Process IV application "shall vest to and be considered" under applicable development standards. This provision says nothing about whether and how long vesting will extend past permit approval. Washington case law since the inception of the vested rights doctrine in Hull v. Hunt, and in the vesting cases cited by the Applicant, has only applied the vested rights doctrine to permit review and has not expressly applied the vested rights doctrine to development rights after permit approval. See, e.g., Bull v. Hunt, 53 Wn.2d. 125 (1958) (The vested rights doctrine "entitles developers to have a land development proposal processed3 under the regulation in effect at the time the complete building application is filed, regardless of subsequent changes in zoning or other land use regulations."); accord Erickson and Associates, Inc. v. McLerran, 123 Wn.2d 864, 867-68 (1994) and Abbey Road Group, LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 167 Wn.2d 242, 250 (2009)(emphasis added). Vested rights that attach to a permit after approval are not addressed by the vested rights doctrine case law cited by the Applicant but are addressed at least in part in Noble Manor v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997). Noble Manor strongly supports the position of the Applicant. In Noble Manor, the court was faced with addressing what development standards vest during development of a short subdivision. The court was faced with interpreting RCW 58.17.033, which like the other vesting provisions discussed in the preceding paragraph, limits its language to vesting during permit processing, i.e. RCW 58.17.033 provides that a proposed division of land "shall be considered" under the short subdivision ordinance and other land use controls in 3 It is recognized that the "processing" of a permit could be construed as including the supervision of a permit during development review. However, outside of the Noble Manor case the courts have not expressly extended the vested rights doctrine past permit approval. At the least, the issue of whether project development is encompassed within permit processing is ambiguous. Process Iv P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision effect at the time of a fully complete application. The court determined that short plats have no expiration period and that vesting of specified standards apply in perpetuity as follows: We conclude that it is not only the right to divide land which vests at the time of a short subdivision application, but also the right to develop or use property under the laws as they exist at the time of application. 133 Wn.2d at 283. Given that the vesting language in both case law and City ordinance for the Process IV application is materially the same as the language in RCW 58.17.033 with its focus on permit processing, the Noble Manor case strongly supports the position that vested rights that attach upon the filing of a complete permit application extend through the permit expiration period. Another principle that more marginally supports the position of the Applicant is the judicial doctrine of finality. The doctrine of finality provides that once the appeals period for a land use decision subject to the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW ("LUPA") has expired, the decision can no longer be collaterally attacked in another administrative or judicial proceeding. See Nykreim Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904 (2002); Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397 (2005). Arguably, the principle of finality could be applied to whether vested rights apply throughout a permit expiration period. It could be asserted that authorizing a municipality to apply new rules to an approved permit would enable a municipality to circumvent the finality doctrine's prohibition on collateral attacks through legislative action. The finality doctrine is based upon statutory construction of judicial appeal deadlines. Those deadlines could be construed to preclude collateral attack by local legislative action just as easily as they are interpreted to preclude revisiting approved permits in additional administrative or judicial proceedings. However, no case has yet addressed the issue so how finality would ultimately be applied is still speculative. Despite the Noble Manor court opinion and principles of finality, the position of the Applicant is largely undermined by cujus est dare, ejus est disponere4 — "he who can give can also dispose or regulate". As acknowledged by the Applicant in their legal briefing, the City is not mandated to provide vested rights to master use permits, but can do so by ordinance. State statute imposes no limits on municipally crafted vesting provisions other than setting a floor for building permits and subdivisions. The City's authority to craft vested rights provisions beyond that floor, therefore, is limited only by constitutional restriction and the scope of the City's police powers. Via FWRC 19.15.100(2), Federal Way has adopted its own expiration period for Process IV applications that allows for an exercise of discretion to vary the expiration period from one Process IV application to the next. None of the language in FWRC 19.15.100(2) identifies whether and how long vested rights must extend through an expiration period. The common understanding for project development, as expressed in the Noble Manor decision and as presumably exercised by the City in its processing of building permits, is that vested rights extend through the permit expiration period. In the absence of any other applicable principles of statutory construction, this regulatory context and the common law supports an interpretation a This Latin phrase has not been used in any Washington case law, but the use of Latin is appropriate in this case given the Latin references made by the Applicant's counsel during the hearing and the background of the Applicant. Process Iv P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision favoring the Applicant's position, i.e. that vesting extends through permit expiration. See Washington Sate Department of Transportation v. City of Seattle, 192 Wn. App. 824, 838 (2016)(courts consider a provision within the context of the regulatory and statutory scheme as a whole); State v. Torres, 151 Wn. App. 378 (2009)(when a statute fails to define a term [such as vested rights], the term is presumed to have its common law meaning and the Legislature is presumed to know the prior judicial use of the term). Although the weight of authority appears to support the Applicant's position, there is no need to resolve that issue in this decision. This is because that even if the duration of vesting during the permit expiration period is subject to discretion, a 20-year vesting period is still consistent with the City's vesting standards for this application. The factors identified in Finding of Fact No. 6 as applied in the Introduction section of this decision identify that the unique circumstances inherent in a cemetery development necessitate a lengthy build out period and also that such a lengthy vesting period will not create any significant adverse impact to public health safety and welfare. If cemeteries do not qualify for multiphase development extending for more than five years under FWRC 19.15.100(2), it is difficult t conceive of what projects would qualify for permit expiration periods greater than five years. As identified by the Applicant's attorney during the hearing, 20-year periods are the longest vesting periods currently granted to the state's largest development projects, composed of residential master plan developments. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 6, cemeteries have even longer build out periods than the residential master plan developments. Given these circumstances and the "absent more" concept outlined in the Introduction section of this decision, a 20-year vesting period is consistent with the City's vesting standards and is authorized by this decision. (c) It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. 11. The proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5 and the proposal allows for reasonable economic development of land while also providing a needed service to the public. For all these reasons, the proposal is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Hearing Examiner Review Process 1V Decisional Criteria, FWRC 19.70.150(d): (d) The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal. 12. The proposal will be served with adequate streets and utilities as identified in Finding of Fact 5(B)-(D). (e) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration for access. 13. This criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(C). (f) Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and off site, are adequately mitigated. Process Iv P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 14. This criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(C). DECISION The Process IV application and consolidated wetland buffer reduction request are approved subject to the following condition: • The Process IV site plan shall be valid and vested for a period of up to twenty years from the date of approval per FWRC 19.15.100, with five phases of incremental development. The vesting authorized by this decision shall not extend to development standards barred from vesting under state or federal law. Vesting shall only apply to improvements and structures identified in the approved proposal and shall not apply to the design or materials required of columbaria or other structures that require separate building permit approval. Dated this 18th day of December 2017. Phir A. 0Ibrechts Hearing Examiner City of Federal Way Right of Appeal FWRC 19.70.010 provides that the Hearing Examiner makes the final decision on Process IV applications. Process IV final decisions are subject to judicial appeal under the Washington State Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW, as outlined in FWRC 19.70.260. Appeals requirements of Chapter 36.70C RCW are strictly construed and must be served and filed within 21 days of the issuance of the final decision as outlined in Chapter 36.70C RCW. Change in Valuation Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130 that property owners who are affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Process IV p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision GeoResources, LLC Ph. 253-896-1011 5007 Pacific Hwy. E, Suite 16 Fx. 253-896-2633 Fife, Washington 98424 RESU3MI TIED JUG 2 9 2017 June 20, 2017 J. A. Brennan Associates, PLLC 100 South King Street, Suite 200 CO 17Y OF L WAY T Seattle, WA 98104 (206)583-0620 Attn: Ms. Carol Ohlfs Geotechnical Engineering Report Addendum Existing Stormwater Pond Gethsemane Master Plan 37600 Pacific Hwy S Federal Way, Washington PN: 322104-9025, -9020 Doc D: JABrennan.GethsemaneCemetery.RG(A1) INTRODUCTION This addendum report summarizes the results of our recent site reconnaissance, supplemental subsurface explorations, and geotechnical engineering analyses of the existing stormwater pond on the east side of the parcel. We previously prepared a Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Gethsemane Master Plan on February 26, 2016. We understand that during plan review, the City of Federal Way in their internal review letter dated April 18, 2017 indicated that the pond had not been maintained for several years, and that any proposed use of the pond in the new proposed master plan would require the pond to brought up to the requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), currently used by the City of Federal Way. The letter also stipulates that any proposed use of the pond should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. Furthermore, according to the City's April 20, 2017 letter, since the pond is located within a wetland buffer, improvements to the pond are not feasible because of the anticipated intrusion and disturbance of the wetland buffer. The letter further stated that according to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145.110 (3) an exemption to reusing the pond because it was constructed as a sediment pond that subsequently took on wetland characteristics is not applicable since the pond is within a buffer of a natural wetland (wetland #6). However, in our opinion, use of the pond and improvements to the interior of pond should be allowed by FWRC 19.145.110(2). This section of the FWRC states that: (2) Operation, maintenance, or repair of existing public improvements, utilities, public or private roads, parks, trails, or drainage systems if the activity does not further alter or increase impact to, or encroach further within, the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed operation, maintenance, or repair, and no new clearing of native vegetation beyond routine pruning. In order to address the concerns by the City in their April 18, 2017 letter, we returned to the site on May 15, 2017 and excavated a series of hand auger explorations within the pond and pond berm. We created a general cross section showing the surface and subsurface conditions of the pond, and then modeled the pond berm slopes for stability in a JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery ARG June 20, 2017 Page 2 full pond / saturated berm condition. Our supplemental services were originally outlined in our email dated May 4, 2017. We received authorization from JA Brennan on May 5, 2017. We then received authorization to perform our field work within the Critical Area Buffer from the City of Federal Way in their Administrative Approval dated May 11, 2017. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions As stated in our original report, the subject site is located between SR-99 and 1-5, and is generally south of South 373rd Street in the Hylebos area of Federal Way, Washington. The site is irregular in shape, measuring approximately 1,700 to 1,800 feet wide (north to south) by about 2,700 feet deep at its longest portions and encompasses approximately 76 acres. Portions of the site are developed and are in use as an active cemetery. The developed portions are generally limited to the western, center portion of the site. The site is bounded by SR-99 to the west, existing large -lot residential development to the north, 1-5 to the east and large -lot residential development to the south. The site is located on the southern margin of the Federal Way glacial upland area. A large portion of the site, including the existing developed areas, generally slopes down gently from south (main cemetery parcel) to a low lying wetland area north of the site. The central portion of the property slopes up from the main building to a flat grassy area, and then slopes back down toward Hylebos creek that generally bisects the parcel. The western slope and steeper eastern slope are cut/fill slopes associated with previous stages of development as shown on the as -built drawings from 1971. These constructed slopes are about 50 percent, or 2H:1 V. The eastern most side of the property, east of Hylebos Creek, is generally flat. The total topographic relief across the site is on the order of 125 feet. The pond is located east of the main, developed portion of the site on the slope west and above Hylebos Creek, as shown on Figure 1. No surface water was observed on the flatter, central portions of the site or on the steep slope areas on the site. There are several mapped wetlands and wetland buffers on the north side and south central portions of the site. At time of our recent site visit, no water was noted within the pond. No water was observed in the pond during our previous 2016 site visits either. The wetland/habitat assessment and survey (by others) shows a portion of the pond within the mapped buffer of wetland, as shown on Figure 2, but the existing access to the pond and western portion of the pond appear to be outside of the mapped wetland buffer. Site Soils Our previous report describes the pond area as being underlain by Kitsap silt loam. The Kitsap soils are described as derived from silty lake sediments that form on slopes of 2 to 30 percent and have a "slight to severe" erosion hazard when exposed, depending on slope inclination. The area below the pond and Hylebos creek is mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) web soil survey as being underlain by the Bellingham silt loam (Bh) soils. These soils are derived from alluvium, form on slopes of 0 to 2 percent, and have a slight to no erosion potential. Site Geology The Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Washington by Booth, Waldron, and Troost (2003) indicates the pond area is primarily underlain by recessional lacustrine deposits (Qvrl) and Glacial till (Qvt). These glacial soils were deposited during the most recent Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, approximately 12,000 to 15,000 years ago. The recessional lacustrine deposits consist of a well -sorted lightly stratified mixture of silt and sand that may contain localized deposits of clay that were deposited in low -energy, ice- JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery ARG June 20, 2017 Page 3 marginal lakes formed during the recession of the continental ice mass. The recessional lacustrine deposits are considered normally consolidated and typically have low to moderate strength characteristics. No areas of landslides or landslide debris are mapped on or within the vicinity of the site. The near surface soils at the site have been disturbed by natural weathering processes that have occurred since their deposition in addition to previous earthwork activities and site grading. Subsurface Explorations On May 15, 2017 GeoResources personnel visited the pond site and excavated three hand auger explorations. A field engineer from our office continuously monitored the excavations, maintained logs of the subsurface conditions encountered, obtained representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. Representative soil samples obtained from the hand augers were placed in sealed plastic bags and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing as deemed necessary. Each test hole was then backfilled with the excavated soils. The hand augers excavated as part of this evaluation indicate the subsurface conditions at specific locations only, as actual subsurface conditions across the pond and pond berm may vary. The nature and extent of such variation would not become evident until additional explorations are performed or until construction activities have begun. The approximate locations of the hand augers are indicated on the attached Site and Exploration Plan as Figure 1. Descriptive logs of our hand augers are presented as Figure 3. Subsurface Conditions The stratigraphy across the site as observed in our hand augers generally consisted of a few inches to about 1 foot of topsoil overlying 2'/2 to 10 feet of light brown to gray occasionally mottled silt with variable amounts of sand, gravel and organic debris that was in a soft to stiff and wet condition. We interpret these surficial soils as fill material associated with prior grading activities at the site. Underlying the surficial soils we observed medium dense to dense gray - brown gravelly sand or stiff to very stiff blue -gray clayey silt in a moist to wet condition to the full depth explored. We interpret these lower soils to be native recessional lacustrine deposits. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater seepage was observed in all of the hand augers at the time of excavation. We expect that perched groundwater may develop seasonally atop the stiff glacial-lacustrine deposits that underlie the site. We anticipate fluctuations in the local groundwater levels likely will occur in response to precipitation patterns, off -site construction activities, and site utilization. CONCLUSIONS As described below, the pond needs to be improved prior to being reused as stormwater detention pond. The pond is a private stormwater facility that has been in place since before 1972. As outlined in FWRC 19.145.110(2), necessary improvements to the pond that will be required to bring it up to the current codes and safety requirements should not require any activity that will further alter or increase impact to, or encroach further within, the critical area or buffer of wetland number #6. A summary of our pond and slope stability analysis as well as recommendations for pond lining is presented below. JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery ARG June 20, 2017 Page 4 Slope Stability We analyzed the stability of the existing slope geometry using subsurface profile A -A', as shown on Figure 1. We used the computer program SLIDE version 7.016, from RocScience, 2016, to perform the slope stability analyses. The computer program SLIDE uses a number of methods to estimate the factor of safety (FS) of the stability of a slope by analyzing the shear and normal forces acting on a series of vertical "slices" that comprise a failure surface. Each vertical slice is treated as a rigid body; therefore, the forces and/or moments acting on each slice are assumed to satisfy static equilibrium (i.e. a limit equilibrium analysis). The FS is defined as the ratio of the forces available to resist movement to the forces of the driving mass. A FS of 1.0 means that the driving and resisting forces are equal; an FS less than 1.0 indicates that the driving forces are greater than the resisting forces (indicating failure). We used the Morgenstern -Price method to search for the location of the most critical failure surfaces and their corresponding FS. The most critical surfaces are those with the lowest FS for a given loading condition, and are therefore the most likely to move. We modeled the existing condition based on our literature review, recent subsurface explorations, and site observations. Our analyses indicated that with a full pond and saturated berm, the calculated FS are 1.366/1.109 in static and seismic conditions. In general, these results indicate the pond and embankment to be marginally stable in their current condition, but not industry or jurisdictional requirements that typically require FS of 1.5 and 1.1, respectively. With a liner or bentonite slurry cut-off wall that prohibits the lateral migration or seepage of water through the embankment, the FS of the outside slope of the embankment increases to 1.504/1.146 for static/seismic, respectively. Results of our slope stability analyses are included in Appendix "A". Pond Considerations Without having documentation about how the pond embankment was constructed and based on the results of our model, we recommend that the pond be lined in order to prevent seepage through the embankment that could result in a pond embankment failure. Lining the pond will address the requirements of FWRC 19.145.110(2) by decreasing the risk of failure or risk to life or property. The lining will only need to occur on the inside of the pond and extend up the interior slopes of the pond. Vegetation removal as a result of the proposed repair (lining) would only occur within the pond footprint, but this would only affect invasive species that have grown into pond since the pond was constructed or last maintained. No new or additional clearing of native vegetation would be necessary outside of the pond. The least intrusive option would be to line the pond with a geo membrane (PVC or HDPE) pond liner, per section 4.4.3 of the manual. Access to the pond would be from the existing access road in the northwest corner of the pond that appears to be outside of the wetland buffer. The liner should extend up the interior slope and be placed in an anchor trench excavated in the top of the pond embankment. To mitigate for vegetation removal required to install the pond liner, the liner could be covered with amended soils and hydroseeded. Section 4.4.1 of the manual says that where the grass will be planted over a low permeability liner, a minimum of 6 inches of topsoil or compost amended soils must be placed over the liner, and that 12 inches is preferred. Section 4.4.3 states that where geomembrane liners are used, they shall be installed so that it is covered with 12 inches of top dressing. The top dressing shall consist of 6 inches of crushed rock covered with 6 inches of native soils. Amended soils discussed previously should be suitable. The crushed rock layer is to mark the location of the liner for future maintenance. Twelve inches of native or amended soils can be used in lieu of the crushed rock section provided orange safety fencing, or other highly -visible marker is installed 6 inches above the membrane. Texture membrane is required on interior side slopes between 5H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical) to prevent sloughing. JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery ARG June 20, 2017 Page 5 A lower -impact to installing a liner in the pond would be to install a low -permeable bentonite slurry cut-off wall or trench. The slurry wall would be installed through the center of the pond berm (embankment) and would extend through the embankment fill and into the underlying native soils. The low -permeable trench should be backfilled with a bentonite slurry, bentonite amended soils, or low permeability concrete mixture. The low -permeability cut-off wall will reduce or prevent seepage from flowing through the embankment and daylighting on the outside slope of the pond embankment. Unlike the liner option, the low -permeability cut-off wall will still allow water within the pond to infiltrate and recharge the wetlands below the pond. While the interior slopes of the pond would still be prone to shallow surficial failure or slumps. The existing trees within the pond and interior side slopes, should be removed within the depth of ponded water. The current stormwater manual discourages Ponding water will eventual kill the trees, making them a maintenance issue. The trees should be cut, but the stumps left in place in order to minimize disturbance within the pond. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this addendum report for the Archdiocese of Seattle, Gethsemane Cemetery and members of the design team for use in evaluating a portion of this project. The data used in preparing this report and this report should be provided to prospective contractors. Our report analyses, conclusions and interpretations are based on data from others, our subsurface explorations and limited site reconnaissance, and should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Variations in subsurface conditions are possible between the explorations and may also occur with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided by our firm during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. The scope of our services does not include services related to environmental evaluations or construction safety precautions. Our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report. If there are changes in the loads, grades, locations, configurations or type of facilities to be constructed, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may not be fully applicable. If such changes are made or site conditions change, we should be given the opportunity to review our recommendations and provide written modifications or verifications, as appropriate. 1311111111213K), JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery ARG June 20, 2017 Page 6 We have appreciated working for you on this project. Please do not hesitate to call at your earliest convenience if you have questions or comments. Respectfully submitted, GeoResources, LLC 17- Keith S. Schembs, LEG Principal KSS:DCB/kss Doc ID: JABrennan.GethsemaneCemetary.RG Attachments: Figure 1: Site and Exploration Plan Figure 2: Wetland Buffer Plan Figure 3: Hand Auger Logs Appendix "A": Slope Stability cc: J.A. Brennan & Associates Dana C. Biggerstaff, PE Senior Geotechnical Engineer ;r-/j-7 EX. FENCE GATE EX. SLOPES >40% r EROSION PRONE ' AREA (CITY MAPS) O C 0 0: W. HYLEBOS CREEK O j CREEK BUFFER 0 .; WETLAND BUFFER 1 /I �0 000 0 0 00 1 00 0 Q. 0 O . z . 9�' L"o �T� 60` ACCESS EASEMENT GeoResources, LLG 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Ph: (253) 896-1011 Fax: (253) 896-2633 01 w ro GRAPHIC SCALE ( 01 !III ) fba - NOR Wetland Areas and Buffers Gethsemane Master Plan Federal Way, Washington Doc ID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F June 2017 Figure 2 Hand Auger HA-1 Location: Bottom of Stormwater Pond Approximate Elevation: Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 0.8 - Forest Duff, dark brown silty SAND (loose, moist) 0.8 - 2.0 SM Tan/light brown silty SAND (loose, moist)(fill) 2.0 - 3.8 SM Tan/lightbrown mottled silty SAND (loose, wet to saturated) Terminated at 3.8 feet below ground surface. No caving was observed. Groundwater seepage observed at 3 feet below ground surface. Hand Auger HA-2 Location: Top of berm to east of stormwater pond Approximate Elevation: Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 _ 0.8 - Forest Duff, dark brown silty SAND (loose, moist) 0.8 - 4.5 ML Tan/gray disturbed fine sandy SILT (soft, moist) 4.5 - 5.5 SM/ML Tan/Grey silty SAND with silt clast inclusions and gravel ( loose, moist) Terminated at 6.5 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. Hand Auger HA-3 Location: Lower eastside of berm east of stormwater pond Approximate Elevation: Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 0.5 - Forest Duff, dark brown sandy SILT with gravel (loose, moist) 0.6 - 3.5 SM-ML Brown silty SAND (loose, moist) 3.5 - 7.5 SM Grey/tan oxidized SAND with some silt (loose, wet to saturated) Terminated at 7.5 feet below ground surface. Minor caving observed at 5.5 feet below ground surface. Groundwater seepage observed at 5.5 feet below ground surface. DRT/CC G GEORESOURCES earth science & geotechnical engineering 5007 Paclfic Hwy E., Suite 16 1 Fife, WA 93424 1253.195.1011 1 www.georesources.rocks Excavated on: May 16, 2017 Hand Logs Gethesmane Cemetery Master Plan 37600 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, WA DocID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F I June 2017 k� N - - ul N N r E fV O O N V) 3` G a E M pL1 +1LOO I a oc v � H M M N C a o o V) a i o r ,4 o rF C) ey'3 [C o N N I t[7 i v I� I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4j O N O 0 O N O 0 O u7 O N O Lo O 0 O u1 O Lo O 0 O m O O N N r O N o r O N o r- O N N r- O N N [- O N Lo r` O C�4 O O O O .--I r� r-I r-I N N N N In 10 %0 1� N f rj ti r� + 4 � C1L �s CJ Q_ p r� h Q N � E S� ill N_ f m o L f v C O r d C G L ri i i' d r Z B 1 O _0 Vi I I +� H O n I I I LU 0 I p � d i 'i co Pl C) N ri o N 1i •f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I O In o Ill o it i O N O N O N O N O LO O LO O N O N O ill O - V O N Lo f- o N In r- o N Ill [- O N Lo I- O N In I- O N Ln I- o N I%.i O O O O r-I r-I rl 1l CV N N N r4 Cn cl; 1` C' V' v' v' Ill In Ill 117 lD y 1 1 r■ �\ + >I - OM 9G 05 v 0 Li WE ■ N 0 0 o O o o o o 0 o O 0 o o 0 0 0 O O o O O O O o O +j o Ln o up o o o p o o o p o o o o o in O Ln o un o u) o U o N o I- O N Ln I- O N u7 P O N o l- o N un l- O N N r- o 0 0 0 .--I .--I .--I r-I N N N N M M M M 4 4 4 4 N L! Ln Ln l0 44 { � I I T L O 0- 0 a� �o L CC H C Q W N 1 y4q v E In N d C a° x ►M • fr a t n� E C7 N CV _ N C O d I r �71 r i ri f N O f > N M ry C ri Q uj i I L �O I rl L � N N r� Lo I I ►� r j� 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 O 41 O N O N O N O N O No N O N O N O N O N O N O N O ro0 N N [- O N N C� O N N [� O N N r O N N [- O N N C- O W O O O O rl •--1 r-I r-I N N N N C4 C4 (� C4 d' c' 4 a; N N N N 1O � I! w �. suorfn-rve ". Ali+. SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program: Page 1 of'6 Project Summary Slide Analysis Information SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program File Name: PondStab112.sImd - Group 1- Saturated -seismic Slide Modeler Version: 7.024 Pro]ectTltle: SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program Date Created: 6/12/2017, 4:01:46 PM General Settings Units of Measurement: Imperial Units Time Units: days Permeability Units: feet/second Failure Direction: Left to Right Data Output: Standard Maximum Material Properties: 20 Maximum Support Properties: 20 Analysis Options Slices Type: Vertical Analysis Methods Used GLE/Morgenstern-Price with Interslice force function: Half Sine Number of slices: SO Tolerance: 0.005 Maximum number of Iterations: 75 Check malpha < 0.2: Yes Create Interslice boundaries at intersections with water tables and plezos: Yes Initial trial value of FS: 1 Steffensen Iteration: Yes Groundwater Analysis Groundwater Method: Water Surfaces Pore Fluid Unit Weight fibs/ft3]: 9.81 Use negative pore pressure cutoff: Yes Maximum negative pore pressure [psf]: 0 Advanced Groundwater Method: None Random Numbers Pseudo -random Seed: 10116 Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3 Surface Options PondStabil2.slmd 6/12/2017, 4:01:46 PM SUDU?JI90ptT 7.024 �1 �sience SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program: Page 2 of 6 Surface Type: Circular Search Method: Slope Search Number of Surfaces: 5000 Upper Angle: Not Defined Lower Angle: Not Defined Composite Surfaces: Disabled Reverse Curvature: Invalid Surfaces Minimum Elevation: Not Defined Minimum Depth [ft]: 4 Minimum Area: Not Defined Minimum Weight: Not Defined Seismic Advanced seismic analysis: No Staged pseudostatic analysis: No Loading Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.1 Material Properties Property Upper Embankment FIII Native silty sand Grey sand some silt Pond Bottom Fill Upper Weathered Color ❑ In ❑ ❑ ❑ Strength Type Mohr -Coulomb Mohr -Coulomb Mohr -Coulomb Mohr -Coulomb Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight [ibs/ft3] 116 118 127 120 220 Cohesion [psf] 0 0 25 0 0 Friction Angle [deg] 26 26 34 32 30 Water Surface Water Table Water Table None Water Table None Hu Value 1 1 1 Ru Value 0 0 Global Minimums Method: gie/morgenstem-price FS 1.108810 Center. 158.012, 94.071 Radius: 43.363 Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 125.837, 65.000 Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 164.215, 51.154 Resisting Moment: 321896lb-ft Driving Moment: 290307 Ib-ft Resisting Horizontal Force: 6913.78 lb Driving Horizontal Force: 6235.32 lb Total Slice Area: 141.442 ft2 Surface Horizontal Width: 38.3776 ft Surface Average Height: 3.68554 ft Valid / Invalid Surfaces Method: gle/morgenstern-price Number of Valid Surfaces: 4927 Number of Invalid Surfaces: 73 PondStabi12.slmd 6/12/2017, 4:01:46 PM AIDOflIf7wPFr ].0]9 SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program: Page 3 of 6 Error Codes: Error Code -103 reported for 67 surfaces Error Code -108 reported for 3 surfaces Error Code -111 reported for 3 surfaces Error Codes The following errors were encountered during the computation: -103 =Two surface / slope intersections, but one or more surface / nonslope external polygon intersections lie between them. This usually occurs when the slip surface extends past the bottom of the soil region, but may also occur on a benched slope model with two sets of Slope Umits. -108 =Total driving moment or total driving force < 0.1. This Is to limit the calculation of extremely high safety factors if the driving force is very small (0.1 is an arbitrary number). -111 = safety factor equation did not converge Slice Data Global Minimum Query (gle/morgenstern-price) - Safety Factor:1.10881 Angle Base Base Effective Base Effective Base Shear Shear Pore Slice Width Weight of Slice Base Friction Normal Normal Vertical Vertical Cohesion Stress Strength Pressure Number Ift] [lbs] Base Material Angle Stress Stress Stress Stress IPsfl [Psfl IPsfl [Psfl [degrees] [degrees] [Psfl IPsfl [psfl [Psfl Upper 1 0.78448 30.3374 -47.1394 Embankment 0 26 11.3229 12.555 25.7415 0 25.7415 37.9432 37.9432 FIII Upper 2 0.78448 79.9874 -45.6362 Embankment 0 26 29.6729 32.9016 67.4583 0 67.4583 97.7975 97.7975 FIII Upper 3 0.78448 125.295 -44.1723 Embankment 0 26 46.1901 51.2161 105.009 0 105.009 149.883 149.883 FIII Upper 4 0.78448 167.095 42.744 Embankment 0 26 61.3143 67.9859 139.391 0 139.391 196.058 196,058 FIII Upper 5 0.78448 205.628 -41.3479 Embankment 0 26 75.2417 83.4288 171.054 0 171.054 237.267 237.267 FIII Upper 6 0.78448 241.105 -39.9811 Embankment 0 26 88.1412 97.7318 200.38 0 200.38 274.289 274.289 FIII Upper 7 0.78448 273.706 -38.6412 Embankment 0 26 100.158 111.056 227.699 0 227.699 307.771 307.771 FIII Upper 8 0.78448 303594 -37.3258 Embankment 0 26 111.417 123.54 253.295 0 253.295 338.251 338.251 FIII Upper 9 0.78448 330.91 -36.0332 Embankment 0 26 122.027 135.305 277.416 0 277.416 366.182 366.182 FIII 10 0.859677 391.551 -34.7014 Native silty sand 0 26 132.704 147.143 301.688 0 301.688 393.581 393.581 11 0.859677 419.312 -33.3308 Native silty sand 0 26 143.502 159.116 326.236 0 326.236 420.61 420.61 12 0.859677 444.105 -31.9814 Native silty sand 0 26 153,813 170.549 349.678 0 349.678 445.721 445.721 13 0.859677 466.063 -30.6516 Native silty sand 0 26 163.712 181.526 372.183 0 372.183 469.201 469,201 14 0.753474 424.441 -29.4199 Native silty sand 0 26 172.125 190.854 392.698 1.39012 391.308 489.765 488.375 15 0.753474 437.456 -28.2831 Native silty sand 0 26 179.103 198,591 411.246 4.07477 407.172 507.615 503.541 16 0.753474 448.765 -27.1584 Native silty sand 0 26 185.907 206.135 429.21 6.57125 422.639 524.582 518.011 17 0.753474 458.42 -26.0448 Native silty sand 0 26 192.551 213.502 446.631 8.88529 437.745 540.73 531.845 18 0.753474 466.47 -24.9418 Native silty sand 0 26 199.04 220.698 463.52 11.0221 452.498 556.088 545.066 19 0.753474 472.957 -23.8485 Native silty sand 0 26 205.368 227.714 479.871 12.9866 466.884 570.657 557.67 20 0.753474 477.922 -22.7644 Native silty sand 0 26 211.515 234.53 495.64 14.7832 480.857 584.398 569.615 21 0.753474 481.403 -21.6888 Native silty sand 0 26 217.448 241.109 510.762 16.4159 494.346 597.246 580.83 22 0.753474 483.431 -20.6212 Native silty sand 0 26 223.126 247.404 525.142 17.8884 507.254 609.104 591.215 23 0.753474 484.04 -19.5611 Native silty sand 0 26 228.492 253.354 538.657 19.2042 519.453 619.844 600.64 24 0.753474 483.232 -18.5078 Native silty sand 0 26 233.467 258.871 551.13 20.3665 530.764 629.283 608.916 PondStabil2.slmd 6/12/2017, 4:01:46 PM SLIDE - An Interacdve Slope Stability Program: Page 4 of 6 25 0.753474 480.786 -17.4611 Native silty sand 26 0.753474 476.921 -16.4203 Native silty sand 27 0.753474 471.737 -15.385 Native silty sand 28 0.753474 465.253 -14.3549 Native silty sand 29 0.753474 457.49 -13.3294 Native silty sand 30 0.753474 448.462 -12.3084 Native silty sand 31 0.753474 438.186 -11.2912 Native silty sand 32 0.753474 426.675 -10.2777 Native silty sand 33 0.753474 413.942 -9.26741 Native silty sand 34 0.753474 399.998 -8.26002 Native silty sand 35 0.753474 384.853 -7.2552 Native silty sand 36 0,753474 368,515 -6.25261 Native silty sand 37 0.753474 350.991 -5.25194 Native silty sand 38 0.753474 332.289 -4.25288 Native silty sand 39 0.753474 312.413 -3.25511 Native silty sand 40 0.753474 291.366 -2.25833 Native silty sand 41 0.753474 269.153 -1.26224 Native silty sand 42 0.753474 245.775 Native silty sand 0.266521 43 0.753474 221.232 0.729114 Native silty sand 44 0.753474 195.525 1.72497 Native silty sand 45 0.753474 168.652 2.72135 Native silty sand 46 0.753474 140.61 3.71855 Native silty sand 47 0.753474 111.398 4.71688 Native silty sand 48 0.753474 81.0084 5.71665 Native silty sand 49 0.753474 49.4374 6.71817 Native silty sand 50 0.753474 16.6779 7.72175 Native silty sand Interstice Data 0 26 237.945 263.725 562.093 21.3781 540.715 636.908 61553 0 26 241.634 267.926 571.57 22.2417 549.328 642.78 620.538 0 26 244.779 271.413 579.438 22.9597 556.478 646.792 623.832 0 26 247.18 274.076 585A74 23.5344 561.939 648,731 625.197 0 26 248.737 275.802 589.446 23.9677 565.478 648.38 624.412 0 26 249.346 276.477 591.124 24.2617 566.862 645.528 621.266 0 26 248.907 275.991 590.282 24A179 565.865 639.979 615.562 0 26 247.327 274.239 586.712 24.4379 562.274 631.559 607.121 0 26 244.522 271.128 580.218 24.323 555.895 620.117 595.794 0 26 240A15 266.575 570.635 24.0745 546561 605.537 581.462 0 26 234.951 260.516 557.832 23.6934 534.138 587.743 564.049 0 26 228.086 252.904 541.711 23.1808 518.531 566.701 543.521 0 26 219.798 243.714 522.225 22.5373 499.688 542.429 519.892 0 26 210.085 232.944 499.371 21.7638 477.607 514.994 493.23 0 26 198.968 220.618 473.195 20.8607 452.334 484.511 463.65 0 26 186.49 206.782 443.794 19.8286 423.965 451.148 431.32 0 26 172.715 191,508 411.318 18.6677 392.651 415.124 396.456 0 26 157.731 174.894 375.964 17.3782 358586 376.697 359.319 0 26 141.643 157.055 337.971 15.9603 322.011 336.168 320.208 0 26 124.573 138.128 297.618 14A139 283.204 293.866 279A52 0 26 106.657 118.262 255.212 12.7388 242A74 250,143 237.404 0 26 88.0402 97.6198 211.085 10.9349 200.151 205.364 194.429 0 26 68.871 76.3649 165.573 9.00164 156571 159.89 150.889 0 26 49.2976 54.6617 119.012 6.93863 112.073 114.077 107.138 0 26 29.4608 32.6664 71.7212 4.74523 66.976 68.2509 635057 0 26 9.75929 10.8212 24.027 1.84017 22.1869 22.7037 20.8636 PondStabil2.slmd 6/12/2017, 4:01:46 PM SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program: Page 5 of'6 Slice x Y Interslice Interslice Interslice coordinate coordinate - Bottom Normal Force Shear Force Force Angle Number [ft] [ft] [Ibs] [Ibs] [degrees] 1 125.837 65 0 0 0 2 126.622 64.1546 15.8882 0.545417 1.9661 3 127.406 63.3525 54.6547 3.74468 3.91951 4 128.191 62.5904 110.882 11.3565 5.84783 5 128.975 61.8654 180.424 24.5199 7.73917 6 129.76 61.175 259.889 43.8754 9.58252 7 130.544 60.5172 346.482 69.66 11.3677 8 131.329 59.8901 437.874 101.782 13.0858 9 132.113 59.2919 532.108 139.884 14.729 10 132.898 58.7212 627.522 183.388 16.2906 11 133.757 58.1259 731,883 236.414 17.9016 12 134.617 57.5606 834.56 293.935 19.4024 13 135.477 57.0238 934.092 354.621 20.7889 14 136.336 56.5143 1029.19 417.031 22.0579 15 137.09 56.0894 1108.46 472.156 23.0719 16 137.943 55.684 1183.62 526.821 23.9935 17 138.597 55.2974 1253.95 579.998 24.8223 18 139.35 54.9292 1318.78 630.669 25.5581 19 140.104 54.5788 1377AB 677.839 26.2012 20 140.857 54.2457 1429.45 720.562 26.7519 21 141.611 53.9295 1474.16 757.952 27.2104 22 142.364 53.6299 1511.09 789.207 275772 23 143.118 53.3463 1539.75 813.626 27.8526 24 143.871 53.0786 1559.74 830.623 28.0371 25 144.625 52.8264 1570.68 839.752 28.1308 26 145.378 52.5894 1572.29 840.717 28.1338 27 146.132 52.3673 1564.34 833.392 28.0462 28 146.885 52.16 1546.72 817,829 27.8677 29 147.639 51.9672 1519A 794.259 27.5981 30 148.392 51.7887 1482.46 763.1 27.2373 31 149.145 51.6243 1436.1 724.951 26.7849 32 149.899 51.4738 1380.67 680.583 26.2404 33 150.652 51.3372 1316.65 630.925 25.6033 34 151.406 51.2142 1244.64 577.046 24.8736 35 152.159 51.1049 1165.42 520.123 24.051 36 152.913 51.0089 1079.91 461.413 23.1356 37 153.666 50.9264 989.165 402.211 22.1275 38 154.42 50.8571 894.377 343.815 21.0277 39 155.173 50.8011 796.867 287.476 19.8373 40 155.927 50.7582 698.066 234.359 18.5582 41 156.68 50.7285 599.497 185.494 17.1929 42 157.434 50.7119 502.754 141.742 15.7448 43 158.187 50.7084 409.484 103.752 14.218 44 158.941 50.718 321.356 71.9356 12.6177 45 159.694 50.7407 240.04 46.4424 10.9502 46 160.448 50.7765 167.186 27.1457 9.22253 47 161.201 50.8255 104.396 13.6385 7.44308 48 161.955 50.8877 53.2098 5.23684 5,62088 49 162.708 50.9631 15.0895 0.993208 3.76584 50 163,461 51.0518 -8.58997 -0.28324 1.88855 51 164.215 51.154 0 0 0 List Of Coordinates Water Table PondStabil2.slmd 6112/2017, 4:01:46 PM s�.rvcrm�roa� raz+ x Y 0 63 101.8 63 163.499 51A134 168.807 49.4904 176.84 465796 189.8 41.8841 195 40 227 35 External Boundary x Y 0 55 0 53 0 52.1003 0 49.9662 0 0 227 0 227 33 227 35 195 40 168.807 49.4904 144.355 583495 139.8 60 126 65 111 65 88.7n5 60.1547 88 60 75 55 Material Boundary x Y 88.7115 60.1547 144355 58.3495 Material Boundary x Y 0 52.1003 40.6687 51.6228 67.1709 51.31 73.1014 51.2402 76.181 51.204 166.508 49.5329 168.807 49A904 Material Boundary x Y 67.170 551.31 75 55 Material Boundary x Y 166.508 49.5329 194,377 38.026 227 33 SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program: Page 6 of 6 PondStabil2.slmd 6/12/2017, 4:01:46 PM CITY OF Public Works Department 40Ns" Fe d e ra [ Way 2700; Fax 253 83 South Federal Way WA 98003-6325 253-835-2700;Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.co m CITY CENTER CONCURRENCY TEST SUMMARY APPLICATION (NO(S): 16-101142-00-CN Date: June 5, 2015 Project Name Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan Property Address/Location 37600 Pacific Highway S., Federal Way, WA Parcel Number(s) 2188204281, 2188204365, 2188204560, 2188209020, 2188209025 Project Description Cemetery Master Plan with Phasing Based on the traffic distribution, intersections impacted by at least one or more evening peak hour trips were analyzed for meeting concurrency LOS standards (v/c less than 1.1) consistent with the City of Federal Way Transportation Concurrency Management code as described in FWRC 19.90. Table 1 below shows a summary of the LOS analysis for the study intersections within the City Center at the anticipated build -out year. For all other study intersections and detailed LOS calculation, please contact the Public Works Traffic Division. Note: Any changes to the development proiect that require additional review will be billed on an hour]-,' basis. Table 1: City Center Zone Concurrency Level of Service (LOS) Intersection 2022 Background LOS 2022 With Project LOS Conditions Standard Met? Conditions Standard Met? ID Zone !North -South Street ;East-West Street V/C V/C :2549 I CC 114 Av S IS 312 St 0.53 0.53 2550 I CC Pacific Hwy S IS 312 St 0.78 0.78 :2552 I 120 Av S IS 312 St 0.41 _CC :2554_CC 23 Av S IS 312 St 0.45 _0.41 0.45 � 0.38 - - 2652� CC 120 Av S - S 314 St - --- _ -�� 0.38 _ ._._ �_...._. :2654 CC ,_. 123 Av S _ IS 314 St _ - Y------0.24- 0.24 j 2750-- CC Pacific Hvv S 3S 316 St- 0.80 - 0.80 - 2752 _CC _. _- -_-- 20 Av S _ IS 316 St --- 123 0.51 - - 0.51� �0.35 - 1 2754-t_C_C 2855 CC~23_Av Av_S _ _-_ _ _T� 316 St _ _ S i�S 317 St - - 0.35 - 0.64 --�- ---_-0.64--- 3048_CC _ _ _ _ 1p-1�1 PI S - - - --� i S 320 St 0.93 0.93 3050 CC _ __�� _-_ I Pacific H S S 320 St _ _ - 0.85 ~- - _ _ - 0.85 __ .. _ 0.77_ 0.82 13052 I CC 120 Av S S 320 St 0.77 3055 CC 1.23 Av S IS 320 St 0.82 3056 CCGate Blvd S S 320 St 0.72 0.72 3057 CC I [-5 SB Ramp S 320 St 0.66 ------ ��-- 0.66 3255 I CC _ I23rd Ave S S 322nd St _ 0.23 0.23 3348 I CC 11 PIS S 324 St 0.26 -- 0.26 - . _. 3350 CC ..._. ----- ----- :Pacific Hwy S S 324 St ---- - - 0.87 ------- 0.87 CC Average v/c Ratio = 0.59 0.59 All signalized City Center intersections met LOS standards: Test Result: If "Fail', identify intersections and possible mitigation: I'J' 1k::41 1'4i' iif iL Passed: Yes Yes Fail: Concurrency Test performed by: Sarady Long Date L:\DEPT\PW\TRA\Concurrency\2016 CN Projects\16101142_Gethsemane Cemetery\LOS Summary Gethsemane 1/1 CITY OF: �... Federal Way APPLICATION (NO(S): Project Name Property Address/Location Parcel Number(s) Project Description CITYWIDE CONCURRENCY TEST SUMMARY 16-101142-00-CN Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan Public Works Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003-6325 253-835-2700,Z 253-835-2609 www.cityofTederalway.com 37600 Pacific Highway S., Federal Way, WA 2188204281,2188204365,2188204560,2188209020,2188209025 Cemetery Master Plan with Phasing Date: June 5, 2015 Based on the traffic distribution, intersections impacted by at least one or more evening peak hour trips were analyzed for meeting concurrency LOS standards (v/c less than 1.2 for signalized and 1.0 for unsignalized) consistent with the City of Federal Way Transportation Concurrency Management code as described in FWRC 19.90. Table 1 below shows a summary of the LOS analysis for the study intersections with V/C ratio above 0.70 at the anticipated build -out year. Where a performance measure does not apply to the entire intersection, the table shows the measure for the worst movement of the intersection. For all other study intersections and detailed LOS calculation, please contact the Public Works Traffic Division. Note- Any changes to the development Project that require additional review will be billed on an hourly basis. Table 1: Concurrency Level of Service (LOS) Intersection 2022 Background Conditions LOS Standard Met? 2022 With Project Conditions V/C LOS ; Standard Met? ID Zone ;North -South Street East-West Street V/C 1050 f P_acific H_w�S _---------- —IS 288 St _ ---+------ -i- ------------- - 0.88 _ l: 0.88 1 v -- - --i - ------ 1651 I Pacific H S S Dash Point Rd ________.� _ 0.81 ..Y 0.81 ------ ---_:.-.___ 2051 — -- Pacific Hwy j S 304 St - — — — ------- 4050 Pacific HwyS_ �S 336 St 0.72 — 1.04 Y:: >: 0,72 I ]_ _— - _ _ W 4250 = : acifrc Hw�S IS 340 St 0.92 0.90 - 4848_ _ Pacific Hwy S -is 348 St 0.93 :::Y:::: 0.93 - — 7 T 4850 ! 16 Av S ISR 18 1.00 .'• Y; 1.00------------ Y_ — 1 --�- 5050 Enchanted PS !IS 352 St 0.72 R T 0.72 ! _ _ _ 5240 1 Av S ; S 356 St __..�.� 0.91 1 0.91 3 5246 I Pacific H S ; S 356 St_ 0.87 1 0.88 _ 5251 T Enchanted Pkw�SS 356 St W _ 0.83 0.83 1' 6340 T___1Pacific Hwy S 'S 373 St 0.86 �E X 0.93 ..___-_._.— V All intersections met the City of Federal Way LOS standards: Concurrency Test Result: Passed: Fail: If "Fail", identify intersections and possible mitigation: Concurrency Test performed by: Sarad-y Long Date L:\DEPT\PW\TRA\Concurrency\2016 CN Projects\16101142_Gethsemane Cemetery\LOS Summary Gethsemane 1/1 • The professional archaeolo' , Al consultant should coordinate closely witn DAHP and the State Physical Anthropologist, Dr. Guy Tasa. • The interested Tribes should review survey methodology as well prior to survey. Most of the above would be assimilated under the DAHP permit process. This process requires the services of a professional archaeologist and may take up to 60 days for the DAHP permit to be issued after DAHP has received a sufficient permit application. No ground disturbing work including archaeological survey may take place until the DAHP permit has been received. Please call me on Monday if you wish to discuss or need a formal letter. Best, Gretchen Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) Office: 360-586-3088 Cell: 360-628-2755 Gretchen. Kae h ie r@da hP.wa. go v From: Jim Harris fmailto:Jim.HarrisC@gb ofFederalway.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 12:07 PM To: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP) Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Plan Federal Way Gretchen: Any update on your review status? Thanks, Jim Jim Harris Planner Owls 6. _ Federal lI a 33325 8`h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2652 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com Office Hours Mon, Tues, & Thur, 8:00 AM —12:30 PM or by appointment From: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP)[mailto:Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP_.wa.gav] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:55 AM 3 To: Jim Harris Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Plan Federal Way Thanks Jim, I will take a look at this and get back to you next week. Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) Office: 360-586-3088 Cell: 360-628-2755 Gretchen. Kaehler dah .wa, ov From: Jim Harris fmailto:Jim.Harris@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:43 AM To: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP) Subject: Gethsemane Cemetery Plan Federal Way Gretchen : Thanks for the call today. Attached is a Phasing Plan Map, SEPA checklist and project narrative for the proposed Gethsemane Cemetery in Federal Way. As we discussed, The City has not yet issued a SEPA Determination on this proposal, but we are asking for your comments and input at this time. Also remember, contrary to the response in the SEPA checklist, the applicant is not proposing to conduct a Cultural Resources Inventory at this time. Your time and assistance is appreciated. Jim Harris Planner � Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2652 Fax: 253/935-2609 www.cit offederalwa .cam Office Hours Mon, Tues, & Thur, 8:00 AM —12:30 PM or by appointment 4 Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) Office: 360-586-3088 Cell: 360-628-2755 Gretchen.Kaehler dah .wa. ❑v From: Jim Harris fmailto:Jim.Harris@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:55 AM To: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP) Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Plan Federal Way Thanks Gretchen: So is DAHP recommending and/or requiring a Cultural Resources Inventory at this time? If yes, what is the trigger or threshold for the Inventory. And second, are the 4 bullet points in your 6/2/16 email related to and assimilated under the DAHP permit process for conducting a Cultural Resources Inventory? Jim Harris Planner Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2652 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.co Office Hours Mon, Tues, & Thur, 8:00 AM —12:30 PM or by appointment From: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP)[rTiciill_o:Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP:wa.goy] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 2:13 PM To: Jim Harris Cc: Tasa, Guy (DAHP) Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Plan Federal Way Hi Jim, We have the following comments on this: ■ A permit from DAHP will likely be required for subsurface survey in the cemetery under RCW 27.53, RCW 27.44, RCW 68.60, RCW 68.50 prior any subsurface survey work. DAHP would like to review the survey methodology prior to any archaeological survey efforts. Jim Harris From: Stephanie Neil <sneil@squaxin.us> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 1:25 PM To: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP); Jim Harris Cc: Brandon Reynon (brandon.reynon@puyalluptribe.com) Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Plan Federal Way Gretchen, Thank you for including us in your letter to the City of Federal Way. Jim, I do not have all of the details for the Gethsemane Cemetery expansion but wanted to comment based on the limited information we do have. 1 am responding to you on behalf of Rhonda Foster, THPO. We concur with DAHP's recommendations for this project. The Squaxin Island Tribe's THPO says that the property owner must accurately and scientifically demonstrate and prove there are no other burials. Thank You, r Archaeologist, Squaxin Island Tribe 360-432-3998 360-972-6631 sneil@squaxin.us From: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP)[mailto:Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 3:10 PM To: Jim Harris<Jim.Harris@cityoffederalway.com> Cc: Brandon Reynon <brandon.reynon@puyalluptribe.com>; 'laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us' (laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us) <laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us>; wall.jackie@nisqually-nsn.gov; Rhonda Foster <rfoster@squaxin.us>; Stephanie Neil <sneil@squaxin.us> Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Plan Federal Way Hi Jim, Please see attached for this project. We cannot require a DAHP permit at this time and we cannot require surveys however WAC 197-11-100 allows the City to require additional information and/or studies if you do not have sufficient information to issue a DNS so the City may require the studies requested. I would say that there is not sufficient information on this project area given the high potential for project activities to intersect with human burials and archaeology. Also since the proponent is aware of this potential, if a survey is not done prior we would consider it knowing disturbance if archaeology or human remains are found during project activities and take appropriate action. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best, Gretchen Jim Harris - Planner toll Way 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2652 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.c itvoffede ra lway. corn Office Hours Mon, Tues, & Thur, 8:00 AM —12:30 PM or by appointment Ja. brennan 4 assOc la Ies P L L C Landscape Architects & Planners 2701 1s, Ave, Suite 510, Seattle, WA 98121 t. 206.583-0620 www.jabrennan.com Gethsemane Cemetery Buffer Mitigation Monitoring Report To: Jim Harrison, City of Federal Way Date: From: Jim Brennan & Yitong Du Re: Year 2 Monitoring Report (2022) 11-9-2022 Project: Gethsemane Cemetery Phasel Monitori This report provides a year 2 update to the status of Gethsemane Cemetery Phase 1 mitigation planting monitoring, as required by the City of Federal Way. See Previous Related Submittals: • Gethsemane Cemetery Buffer Mitigation Year 1 Monitoring Report, November 1, 2021 • Gethsemane Phasel As -Built Drawing Set, December 22, 2020 • Wetland and Stream and Mitigation Plan by Otak Inc. and August 18, 2017, addendum Monitoring Approach: On September 30, 2022, Jim and Yitong from J. A. Brennan Associates, PLLC (JAB) toured the site for the year 2 buffer mitigation monitoring. JAB walked through the buffer mitigation planting areas and evaluated the vigor and health of the mitigation plantings. Thorough data collection was completed for all 8 monitoring plots. Pictures were taken at each photo station installed by JAB in 2021. Plants were counted at each monitoring plot. JAB identified and flagged the species of the proposed and desirable volunteer native woody species. We also measured the plant coverage in each plot. JAB will continue monitoring this project for the following three growing seasons to determine whether the Performance Standards are being met. General Observation: Overall, the buffer mitigation is doing well for the second year of growth. However, there has been some stress due to the clay soil and irrigation breakdown that happened in the summer of 2021. In the fall of 2021, additional plants were added to the site. Many have survived, but additional replacements are needed to achieve coverage requirements. The plant growth has been better on the north arm, but several plants are stressed on the western side of the north arm buffer. The east area is generally good. And the drainage issues found last year were improved. In several monitoring plots, the percentage of coverage is lower than 20% which is required by the monitoring plan. JAB has reported the issue to the owner and the maintenance contractor team. They agree to make planting replacements and perform maintenance work following the requirements of the adopted mitigation planting maintenance requirements and monitoring plan. Replacements will target those species that tend to do better in the wetter soil even though all the original plan choices were appropriate to the area. The mitigation planting area is expected to meet the requirements of percent coverage once the replacement plants are established. All (8) 7m x7m monitoring plots and (8) photo stations installed by JAB in 2021 are in good shape and will be used throughout the five-year monitoring period. Plans showing the locations are attached. And buffer fencing and signs are in good shape. Vegetation Monitoring Plots: Figure 1. Area 1 Planting Plan w/ 4 Vegetation Monitoring Plots at the North Arm Area it sua4er e• cansr.T� �aie; j i :; �drn rc iraannry 5r a-Alixiei nur: +WETLAND •- •- - _ �� — - — - N I• ��` ( i • lam•'• L.aI+L•.1R Aq.I �LWL'L]LUY[fl ' ' � � e nwncs�� o_ nFc�-[�nr hr[rwLr[na nrii - ei.rtFN,A• snrEcr�a,[rwo rl ADJACENT -nareari nf= l �' OFFSITE y WETLAND .. - i reilX.u1 WI.W - loco 4kM%_ ,,� Figure 2. Area 2 Planting Plan w/ 4 Vegetation Monitoring Plots on the East Side .ar.A.narmnt+�rv+�r�.rrtc � � -�. - .• I 401 } � — .• .• gyxrm I 1 � \4'� frVJ y� : • �e I �� — W44 DJr l `: f • STORMWATER �. p _ POND + / 4 1 l Gethsemane Cemetery Phase 1 J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC Year Monitoring Report 2 of 17 11/8/2022 Plot #1 (Area 1, Plot 1): In general, plot #1 is doing moderately well, but several plants have died in this area and will need to be replaced. Plantings include Myrica, Oregon Ash, Mock Orange, and Red Flowering Currant. Several of the Myrica died and will need to be replaced. It appears that several other plants have died and have been removed. Additional plants should be provided in this plot and surrounding area. Corrective or maintenance action: ■ Weed carefully around each plant Fertilize all plantings • Replace dead plants. See replacement plant list below. Add additional plantings to improve the coverage by year 3 • Check soil PH and add lime as needed to balance PH a Provide maintenance logs during spring, summer, and fall to better achieve interim actions Plot # 1 Vigor of plants: Good No. Installed woody species (including volunteers) Percent of coverage 1 Myrica californica 3.0% 2 Fraxinus latifolia 1.8% 3 Philadelphus lewisii 0.8% 4 Ribes sanguineum 0.3% Total percent of coverage 5.9% No. Non-native & invasive species Percent of coverage 1 Weeds observed on -site 7% y • k .Y Y. 4 y. �k Gethsemane Cemetery Phase 1 J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC Year 2 Monitoring Report 3 of 17 11/8/2022 Plot #2 (Area 1, Plot 2): Plot #2 includes western Red Cedar, Western Hemlock, Myrica, and Thimbleberry. The bark mulch needs to be replenished in this plot. There are several weeds present, including the invasive Himalayan blackberry. Ranunculus and several grasses are also present. Additional plants should be provided in this plot and surrounding area. Corrective or maintenance action: Weed carefully around each plant • Fertilize all plantings • Replace dead plants. See replacement plant list below. Add additional plantings to improve the coverage by year 3 • Check soil PH and add lime as needed to balance PH Y Provide maintenance logs during spring, summer, and fall to better achieve interim actions Plot # 2 Vigor of plants: Fair No Installed woody species (including volunteers) Percent of coverage 1 Rubus parviflorus 1.3% 2 Myrica californica 4.7% 4 Tsuga heterophylla 1.2% 5 Thuja plicata 2.7% Total percent of coverage 8.6% No Non-native & invasive species Percent of coverage 1 Weeds observed on -site 4.3% x m• - 'fir.' _ � _ -.r�s= wy,� . • -4 :-e:p4-� 1e.> F '' ��'::' ' q?f��' .az_,^•; ��i.F y i - . ..:.(?�- _ - 's� � ����"�►. '�.-'� ... Yew _ _ ='��r • Gethsemane Cemetery Phase 1 J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC Year 2 Monitoring Report 4 of 17 11/8/2022 Plot #3 (Area 1, Plot 3): Several plants have died in plot #3. A few plants should be re -planted on the eastern side of this plot. This plot includes several vigorously growing Alder trees, Red Flowering Currant, and Red Twig Dogwoods. The bark mulch serves planting well in this area. Additional plants should be provided in this plot and surrounding area. Volunteer woody species that showed in this plot should be retained. Corrective or maintenance action: ■ Weed carefully around each plant • Fertilize all plantings • Replace dead plants. See replacement plant list below • Add additional plantings to improve the coverage by year 3 • Check soil PH and add lime as needed to balance PH • Provide maintenance logs during spring, summer, and fall to better achieve interim actions Plot # 3 Vigor of plants: Good No. Installed woody species (including volunteers) Percent of coverage 1 Cornus sericea 7.83% 2 Ribes sanguineum 5.21% 3 Alnus rubra 9.14% Total percent of coverage 22.18% No. Non-native & invasive species Percent of coverage 1 Weeds observed on -site 1.2% y �. t- � �a Gethsemane Cemetery Phase 1 J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC Year 2 Monitoring Report 5 of 17 11/8/2022 Plot #4 (Area 1, Plot 4): A few plants have died in plot #4. The bark mulch is in good condition and covers the entire planting area. There are very few weeds. Within this planting area, we have thimbleberry, pacific wax myrtle, cedar, and red flowering current. The non-native weed cover is near zero in this plot. Additional plants should be provided in this plot and surrounding area. We noted that there are small Douglas fir trees recruiting into this plot and the surrounding buffer planting area. These young seedlings should be retained. Corrective or maintenance action: • Weed carefully around each plant • Fertilize all plantings • Replace dead plants. See replacement plant list below Add additional plantings to improve the coverage by year 3 • Check soil PH and add lime as needed to balance PH • Provide maintenance logs during spring, summer, and fall to better achieve interim actions Plot # 4 Vigor of plants: Good No Installed woody species (including volunteers) Percent of coverage 1 Myrica californica 5.64% 2 Rubus parviflorus 5.96% 3 Ribes sanguineum 3.91% 4 Alnus rubra 2.77% 5 Thuja plicata 3.72% Total percent of coverage 22.00% No Non-native & invasive species Percent of coverage 1 Weeds observed on -site 0.4% • firms yar Gethsemane Cemetery Phase 1 J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC Year 2 Monitoring Report 6 of 17 11/8/2022 Plot #5 (Area 2, Plot 1): Several pacific wax myrtles have died, most likely due to the wet soil. This portion of the site is very flat, so water does not drain away easily. Additional wet -soil -tolerant plants should be replaced in this area. Other plants in this zone that are doing well include Alder and Cedar. Additional plants should be provided in this plot and surrounding area. Weeds have grown here in the buffer mitigation area. Weeding is expected fall 2022. Corrective or maintenance action: ■ Weed carefully around each plant • Fertilize all plantings • Replace dead plants. See replacement plant list below • Add additional plantings to improve the coverage by year 3 ■ Check soil PH and add lime as needed to balance PH • Provide maintenance logs during spring, summer, and fall to better achieve interim actions Plot # 5 Vigor of plants: Fair No installed woody species (including volunteers) Percent of coverage 1 Myrica californica 0.9% 2 Alnus rubra 4.83% 3 Thuja plicata 1.48% Total percent of coverage 7.21% No Non-native & invasive species Percent of coverage 1 Weeds observed on -site 14.00% tti 5; i _ -y5 o '?=EZ4 F�-x4� �' .� �,f -r � ��••- ' � �'[ r �:- Try . y - Gethsemane Cemetery Phase 1 J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC Year 2 Monitoring Report 7 of 17 11/8/2022 Plot #6 (Area 2, Plot 2): Survival in plot #6 appears to be 100%. Weedy vegetation is present within the plot, and it includes mostly clover with some grasses. Few weeds are found close to the stem of the shrubs. The weed coverage in this plot is approximately 14%. A large habitat log is located at the edge of this plot. The bark mulch is intact and seems to be adequate. Additional plants should be provided in this plot and surrounding area. Corrective or maintenance action: ■ Weed carefully around each plant • Fertilize all plantings • Replace dead plants. See replacement plant list below Add additional plantings to improve the coverage by year 3 • Check soil PH and add lime as needed to balance PH Provide maintenance logs during spring, summer, and fall to better achieve interim actions Plot # 6 Vigor of plants: Excellent No. Installed woody species (including volunteers) Percent of coverage 1 Corn us sericea 26.00% 2 Philadelphus lewisii 4.70% Total percent of coverage 30.7% No. Non-native & invasive species Percent of coverage 1 Weeds observed on -site 14.00% �Ly to ' IRiE V.T. - .1...-.r .ri{ r� OL Gethsemane Cemetery Phase 1 J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC Year 2 Monitoring Report 8 of 17 11/8/2022 Plot #7 (Area 2, Plot 3): The growth of plot #7 is excellent. Several Habitat logs were placed on the site. Weeds are present within the plot, including grasses and thistles. A fall weeding is recommended for this portion of the buffer. It's approximately 10% of this plot is covered by grass and the occasional weeds. The coverage is over 40% in this area. Corrective or maintenance action: • Weed carefully around each plant • Fertilize all plantings • Replace dead plants • Add additional plantings to improve the coverage by year 3 • Check soil PH and add lime as needed to balance PH • Provide maintenance logs during spring, summer, and fall to better achieve interim actions Vigor.. installed woodv species (including volunteers) Percent of coverage •' Rubus parviflorus 07.30% Populus balsamifera SSP. trichocarpa I Total percent of coverage d: 212 Non-native & invasive species Percent of coverage Weeds • - -observed. Vic... : -Y � !;� •`�`` -r .ti #u =� ,'ice . " �f`]y���r• �.J iq, . . Y.� i Y� . - •i' r* . , •rlri�`+•.fIwl_.-f��YY'FF _ K r ram, � j�rP._- : �'1 - f ♦ ✓ '' - - �i 71 41 Gethsemane Cemetery Phase 1 J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC Year 2 Monitoring Report 9 of 17 11/8/2022 Plot #8 (Area 2, Plot 4): The growth is excellent in plot #8. Plot And it appears all planted material has survived, and there is a few recruitment of Red Alder. Fewer weeds are growing within the area. Weeds include grasses, thistles, and ranunculus. The plants are nicely mulched and generally weed -free within 2 to 3 feet of the stem of each plant. Additional plants should be provided in this plot and surrounding area. Corrective or maintenance action: • Weed carefully around each plant • Fertilize all plantings • Replace dead plants. See replacement plant list below • Add additional plantings to improve the coverage by year 3 • Check soil PH and add lime as needed to balance PH • Provide maintenance logs during spring, summer, and fall to better achieve interim actions woodyinstalled Nootka rose ©Alnus rubra Total• oO'. Weeds observed o "ram:' • ,�5 '.Y •.k� tip. •' ': _ - - - d �'� . ' ^ �irt� •'•�'' . 1 L �,- ' t� •.inn sFr . ��y�M °f!}..: . /;.'1'y 1I'= �.. _ �� � i•- (T �y .,.% .: A 4.- _ r (�±��',4..� 1".1 51 A. •-L;T -., __ y,,i- - '.�. 1.�.i<�=: L•i` '.i. _ems--, _ --•°� ..• .3: - -•.. Gethsemane Cemetery Phase 1 J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC Year 2 Monitoring Report 10 of 17 11/8/2022 Overall Recommendations Provide new plantings per plant list below Weed all plantings fall 2022 Fertilize all planting November 2022 Maintenance Work: Complete weeding and fertilizing of all buffer mitigation and general plantings. Weeding and Mulching: Weed all planting areas within the buffer and all 2020 plantings. Focus weeding on area within 3' of the stem or trunk of each tree or shrub. Weeding must also take place to ensure the proper establishment of plantings. Keep the 36" diameter mulch ring around each tree and shrub free from any weeds. Use weed eater or other weeding devices for mowing other areas to maintain the full buffer mitigation area. Maintenance of a 3-4" layer of mulch will also help prevent weed growth and conserve soil moisture. Mulch is existing and needs to be maintained to the extent possible. Fertilizing and Additives: Apply the following Simplot products for fertilizer and soil amendments. Install per manufacturer recommendations: Apply Simplot Apex slow -release fertilizer on top of mulch, apply Simplot ZeitGeist additive, apply Simplot RHIZOMATE"' Humic Liquid Concentrate, and apply Simplot TruLime 36 Mini. Consider Spring application if November is too rainy. Conclusion: While the plots are a reasonable representation of the entire buffer mitigation area, the corrective actions identified in the plots will also need to be made within the overall buffer mitigation area. General corrective actions will include weeding carefully around each plant, fertilizing all plantings, replacing dead plants, adding additional plantings, checking soil PH, adding lime as needed to balance PH, and providing maintenance logs during spring, summer, and fall to better achieve interim actions. It will also be critical to make sure the irrigation system is functioning for the next 3 years. As the replacement plants become established, the watering times can be cut back. Since the irrigation provided was relatively successful, we could plan on the same amount of watering as was done in the first year minus about five minutes per zone. As noted above the clay soil and hot summer and draught of 2022 stressed the plantings and limited the growth of plants in the past years. With the scheduled plant replacements and the continuation of maintenance, it is anticipated that coverage requirements of the buffer mitigation plantings will be easily met. Catholic Cemeteries should contact JA Brennan Associates in the Spring of 2023 to review the maintenance requirements for the upcoming summer season. JAB will also walk the site with the maintenance contractor in the spring. It will be critical to make sure that maintenance crews are keeping up with the work for each month of the growing season. Cemetery maintenance staff should make inspections during the growing season to protect the. investment in the plantings and to ensure replacement plant survival and that the required coverage of native plantings is met. Gethsemane Cemetery Phase 1 J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC Year 2 Monitoring Report 11 of 17 11/8/2022 Replacement Plant List: CONIFEROUS TREES COUNT SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 9 I. SVGA H_ _N i'I-Y-iLA `N=_, LAN-LVLC(:,C l -�-JJA PAL ATA W=S-ERN RED C=DAR LARGE DECIDUOUS TREES COUNT SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 21. AR AI-VL RLBRA R=R A',r=R FT '0PJ L.S 13AI 9AV FF?A ss'. -R C 10CARr,A r3 AC K CG-TON',vo0r, LARGE SHRUBS COUNT SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME SC COR\LS ,, R..CF^. 1 C VC 6"''?I ^ CA IFORNICA. .... GC I'-IYS0CAR1;US CAPI A US IC. R-T RU3US 'AW-LCRLS 22 1 Si RJR=US SPLCIALi!US 2..- S SA.VIIL.CJS iA(A V::SA ..0 ?R R. ?FS ?F.ACTFCSL��4 SMALL SHRUBS COUNT SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME 9; IV ROSA \.JT,<.W. K [ONIC=RA NVO-UC.RATA LIVE STAKES COUNT SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME 1 7 .A IX ! IOQKF .1"NA COMMON NAME RF', T''Ni G DOGNfOQ AC1=1% WAX V"R-I F I i IfJ?LC3:li'� YALNv!�L3_NhlY S- \K C.IRRAVT COMMON NAME i \('0-KA RC: �F ' COMMON NAME CCK-i'S h I 0';U �F� Tlk'G DOC'P;007 SIZE CONDITION SPACING ' GA_ CORIFdt\cR AS SFGWN ' GA_ CONTAINER IAE SFGWN SIZE CONDITION SPACING 1 GA C0NTA11,=R AS S=OVJN 1.^,A R 4, 4 AS S! 0,01I 1 SIZE CONDITION SPACING 1 GAI CCV-A NFR 6' O.C. 1 CAI CON-?: NFR 5' O.C. I CAL CON AALR 6' O.C, I GAL C CV -A NC ( 4' 0.". GAL CCV A r,IL 1 4' C.C. + CAl CQV A \A q' C.C. I CAI '.2\1-A NF? 4' C.C. SIZE CONDITION SPACING SIZE CONDITION SPACING 13" IVFSTAKF 36" 0,^., 1:9" I'\ FSTAKF 35" Q,C. Gethsemane Cemetery Phase 1 J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC Year 2 Monitoring Report 12 of 17 11/8/2022 Photo Points: We are providing a plan showing photograph locations and direction of view. See below. it sL«wEv e. rciosrAlN ixm.: f ����'1-��_'7 ' :, �n'T H+: �F IISLTdl SYAY<rOIE� j .._7 _ N ; • WETLAND I \ r - - - �� / FCFFFx LLGCC MMY:kY. iLCCCCC LW I LA Fl.1YN[EYFv!— 611MC�C0M hVCfWLRNCC 1M111 bIGVNN0TNtlG 9RlT_CTMYEl% D ORJ. FLFFEA' ADJACEN! OFFSITE �norfar+i N= y - WETLAND OSU 5GttI0t1 I � J � r' --. t.•� _ � _ �.�. �L.1 r1 . � , vh�in nznn e f �A/,A k fA v S► 01 � � d a r 1 p�r v /�A� �� PhQtO station l 1 ; P station 8 • _ `_� TOR WATER Y •� POND I 1' ell l Gethsemane Cemetery Phase 1 J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC Year 2 Monitoring Report 13 of 17 11/8/2022 i,. � r •'rr'�r�`F ti .t S� r++. - 1 •. ty.�t-,t -WA .. . AN A"S'�.. �r - is '•�� ., . ,. � .. - �� •may x�•r �. �'� _ .. _ .� -v . . _ ::{.. �'=;r` :�.�.•-' �-":ate - n`; Gethsemane Cemetery Phase 1 J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC Year 2 Monitoring Report 15 of 17 11/8/2022 Gethsemane Cemetery Phase 1 J.A. Brennan Associates PLLC Year 2 Monitoring Report 16 of 17 11/8/2022 ._�+� :• }' �,•.'WX"y�{�... _ � fir.;. � �=- _ � :' fir• � t. J - �� _ ,`••`xt.: �^ - •: '��+' - . ;yam " r Yr�•. ..: i. _ i..' ., f-.r . ,• -fir; �!, ' is ;'�. � .\ _.�'. _ ... ...-:-'"'• :�• .. - '•Sr �. e-A INADVERTENT DISCOVERY PLAN FOR THE GETHSEMANE CEMETERY PHASED LONG-RANGE MASTER PLAN FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Prepared for The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION — NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION SWCA Environmental Consultants 221 1st Avenue W, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 RESUBMITTED AUG 17 2018 CfrY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNM DEVELOPME` i INTRODUCTION The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle is planning for expansion of the Gethsemane Cemetery following their Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan. The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle hired J.A. Brennan to assist with their long-range planning and SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) to address cultural resources on lands surrounding the existing Gethsemane Cemetery that may be developed incrementally over the next 50 years. The cultural setting of the Gethsemane Cemetery is sensitive because it was built in 1972 at the former location of St. George's Indian School. SWCA recorded one historical foundation feature during subsurface survey of the cemetery grounds, but did not identify any significant cultural resources. SWCA recommended this inadvertent discovery plan (IDP) to guide the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop and Gethsemane Cemetery in case cultural resources are unexpectedly discovered during future phased development. This plan should be implemented during any large-scale, ground -disturbing efforts associated with preparation of the land around the existing cemetery for new burials, as well as after initial construction work is complete and individual burials are placed into the ground. Project Location and Description The Gethsemane Cemetery is at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington (Figure 1). The Gethsemane Cemetery property is 58 acres in total. Master planning, as currently proposed, only includes 14.4 acres west of Hylebos Creek. Future development would be staged in five phases (Figure 2). Each phase incorporates burials, driveways, shrines, and columbaria, and Phase 5 also includes a mausoleum. The project would also involve extensive landscaping to create an aesthetically pleasing, rolling topography. The phased construction approach reflects the ongoing relationship between the Catholic Church, their cemeteries, and the community. Long-term planning allows the organization to create an attractive and sustainable cemetery landscape that will be maintained for decades to come. Regulatory Setting The Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan is subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). SEPA requires project proponents to identify any places or objects listed on or eligible for national, state, or local preservation registers in the vicinity of the project, present evidence for sites of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance in the vicinity of the project, and propose measures to reduce or control impacts to those sites. Other relevant Washington state laws address archaeological sites and Native American burials. The Archaeological Sites and Resources Act (RCW 27.53) prohibits knowingly excavating or disturbing prehistoric and historic archaeological sites on public or private land. The Indian Graves and Records Act (RCW 27.44) prohibits knowingly destroying American Indian graves and provides that inadvertent disturbance through construction or other activities requires re -interment under supervision of the appropriate Indian Tribe. Tribal Coordination Cultural resources representatives of the Puyallup Tribe, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Duwamish Tribe, Nisqually Tribe, Skokomish Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Lummi Nation, Suquamish Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe, Tulalip Tribes, and the Cowlitz Indian Tribe were contacted prior to assessment fieldwork in order to solicit information and concerns about the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan. This correspondence was a technical inquiry only and does not replace government -to - government consultation that may be required for this project under SEPA. SWCA contacted these SWCA Environmental Consultants 1 January 31, 2017 CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION K Inadvertent Discovery Plan for the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan T- ION., I'' •. _ l 1 i r WASHINGTON Ip •' •6 ��i Ail 1 •, , • 1 QUADRANGLE LOCATION 1 �IFjhr< ♦s i r' { �; 11 1 Ir. Jr ��, • 1 Project Arearko ,'' •f-' IG 1 1 l{ �6�- •-1 f� it ,--;�;�',� �,�j �� .�k �: w `• { ` }+}} 1 •[ J�Y--'r FEilt, Yoll ,�•" 7 , •7 .i MI .dill T: inn -; 1C p+meters 5t70 W. , J�� -.feet - 2000 • UTH • �] - Figure 1. Project location. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION Inadvertent Discovery Plan for the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan 3 �— !PAW - W-- ' I PARCELa32'_1"."; 7 i' PARCEL- PARV.SCELkTiR 3._EST110 I 1RK Aui/� A; I 31iOLJTk; A' 1YSDOT;?EA:. ESTATE 1 SOLITI�� �I tiF R•: iC:F �. SW374TNST If SANDRA5 LEGEND: {�� — - _ [ PHASE BOUNDARY Jlj f � 1 — PROPERTY LINE If] fp—EL FARCE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE 163; x73a l I+I --�c ;zoazo / y DRIVE EDGE r HR[ qLy; + CHRIS-IANSOrJ- e¢Trr DETTY SIDEWALK EDGE e WETLAND BUFFER LINE VEGETATED PROPERTY BUFFER ITRADITIONAL BURIAL AREA MAUSOLEUM STRUCTURE d�t"Troix� f _ SHRINE rE-15Tl n1iEJ:+ -�_ PARCEL= jBE:-.yy '+ �_ 1 WETLAND LINE c HRl TIAdr N' ,+ ----- ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE 2 �— F_ T—I �' • �� / NORTH ARM I1 R .E: :moo (DOWNHILL) Ir ANT I.D 1 + ' 1 F SRCEL= '°MRtJ50LEUMSI, 4' la 45'. 7112 NORTH ARM �3Q Alt ' (UPLAND) , 1 r l EXISTING CEMETERY �— 4 a f FOREST ( GLADE 1 X�� OLD clZ. ,'� 1 tit i b,, [ :;R`E;o4 SEDIMENT EROTHER' POfjif D jrI TRUCK 11\� f kEPA,R ZH2P }, RAINIER r I VISTA WETLAND 1 N \�\ J WETLAND — \\ / ! , 'JACN1:T L;,'ID SCALE: 1" = 100' [ 1 ONE IN \ AT FULI SIZE F NOT ONE 1 INCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY 1 1 - Figure 2. Phased Master Plan. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION Inadvertent Discovery Plan for the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan Tribes for this project because students belonging to each of these Tribes attended St. George's School during its years of operation. The Puyallup Tribe, Suquamish Tribe, Nisqually Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe, and Skokomish Tribe responded to the initial inquiry for information and expressed interest in the project. After providing additional information about the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan to these Tribes, the Nisqually Tribe and Skokomish Tribe indicated that the Puyallup Tribe or other nearby Tribes could represent their concerns. However, Nisqually Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Annette Bullchild asked for continued involvement in the project and the Squaxin Island Tribe also requested updates as the project moves forward. The Tulalip Tribes did not provide a written response to SWCA's initial inquiry, but members of the Tulalip Tribes visited Gethsemane Cemetery to better understand the project and the history of nearby burials associated with St. George's Indian School and also requested ongoing updates. Brandon Reynon, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of the Puyallup Tribe, also replied to the initial inquiry stating that the Puyallup Tribe is aware that many Puyallup students attended the school and that they have knowledge about the burial of Puyallup children in the vicinity of the Gethsemane Cemetery. It is likely that most of these burials are in St. George's Cemetery on the east side of Hylebos Creek outside of the Master Plan boundaries. Mr. Jeffrey Thomas with the Puyallup Tribe also sent an email to SWCA stating that the school facility and related cemetery is an important place to the Tribe. Mr. Reynon would like to work with Gethsemane Cemetery as the project moves forward, and the Director of Cemeteries has indicated his willingness to consult with the Tribe. Previously Recorded Resources As a result of 19 previously completed cultural resources investigations and other regional cultural resources inventory efforts, five cultural sites have been identified within one mile of the Gethsemane Cemetery. Site 45KI866 (Gethsemane Cemetery) incorporates the Master Plan area, and 45KI867 (St. George's Cemetery) is across Hylebos Creek to the east but outside project boundaries (Caster 2009; Sundberg 2010a, 2010b; DAHP 2016a, 2016b). Sites 45KI1021 (the Spring Valley Service Station), 45PI1177 (a jasper debitage isolate identified in fill), and 45PI1408 (the Puget Sound Electric Railway Grade) were also recorded within a mile of Gethsemane Cemetery (Boersema 2010a; Earley 2004; McWilliams 2011a, 2011b). Several of the previously completed cultural resources investigations also noted historical structures and non -diagnostic debris in the area, but they did not result in archaeological sites being recorded. The types of cultural materials that have been recorded in and around the project inform on what kinds of cultural materials may be present in undisturbed portions of the cemetery grounds. For example, scattered historical cultural materials may be identified, but most important to the project are the old cemeteries where burials were and may still be present. The closest pre -contact period archaeological sites are south and west of the project area, along Hylebos Creek. Review the cultural resources assessment report completed for the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan by Boswell and Rinck (2017) for additional detailed information about the natural and cultural context of the area. SWCA completed excavation of six test pits and 54 shovel probes at Gethsemane Cemetery. The survey covered all five areas of proposed ground disturbance associated with planned cemetery expansion and no significant cultural materials were encountered. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION Inadvertent Discovery Plan for tht Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan 5 Project Area 0 Shovel Probe ❑ Test Pit Archaeological !,M' # Feature Depr r Concrete O with FFFFFF 0 o 0 P r Foundatiori Fill T' w: 4 o y 0 03 . • r'F41i� O f • . Concrete �.. " 0 footing g r. O .' y �[; AREA OF DEEP FILL �— . 0 JV A ►� ..T-• i - erg 0.1,1 -O 136 ti 0 n ►0j 2 �. fer 0 50 250 • �' "_' 74"' r'L r Figure 3. Shovel probes and test pits excavated during field survey around Gethsemane Cemetery. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION G Inadvertent Discoveiy Plan for the rziethsemane Cemetery Master Plan MEN I Ole C-7- Wfte Modern Elevation, feet (NAVD88) Difference between 40-45 85-90 surface, feet. elevation in 5-foot blocks; datum on 1977 plans is 5 92 feet Figuvo4. Developmentplans from 1S72construction ofGethsemane Cemetery overlain onmLiOAR image of the project area showing the amount of change in elevation that has occurred due to blading and filling during construction. 3N/C4Environmental Consultants January Jt20/7 Inadvertent Discovery Plan for the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan 7 Potential for Archaeological Discovery The surface of the glaciated uplands surrounding the Puget Sound were available to inhabitants of the region beginning in the early Holocene. Upland areas, such as the project vicinity, first supported camps of early hunter -gatherers who moved from location to location with little specialization in settlement type. In the archaeological record, these early camps would be characterized by Olcott or earlier style stone tools and fire -modified rock (FMR) from campfires. Later in the Holocene, the glacial uplands were more often used for special purposes related to procurement of resources, such as cedar, game animals, berries, and other plants, as well as for other purposes unrelated to subsistence, like burials. Specialized use of the uplands in the later Holocene left behind variable artifact assemblages and several site types. But, most pre -contact archaeological sites found on glacial upland landforms are small. Larger -scale development of the upland did not begin until about 100 years ago when Euroamericans cleared the forests and began to settle. There is moderate potential for encountering significant pre -contact cultural resources in the project area because of its natural and cultural setting. The glacial upland as a whole generally exhibits low potential for buried cultural resources; however, specific sub -environments on the glacial upland, such as creek valleys, wetland and lake margins, and overlooks or viewpoints, have heightened archaeological sensitivity. Hylebos Creek is adjacent to the east side of the project and a dependable spring was present to the northwest. Hylebos Creek flows into Puget Sound at Commencement Bay just a few miles downstream from the project area. Although the upland portion of the property was not likely used for long-term habitation, Native Americans almost certainly camped near and passed through the project vicinity on their seasonal rounds or for special purposes. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION Inadvertent Discovery Plan for the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan If pre -contact cultural materials are present in undisturbed portions of the project area, they would likely be identified within the upper 1 m (3 feet) of soil. However, much of the project area has been disturbed by development in the past. A substantial amount of soil removal occurred in the middle of the project area when Gethsemane Cemetery was constructed in 1972. The material that was removed was used as fill to raise the elevation of the areas surrounding the cemetery. As a result, any pre -contact archaeological resources that may have once been present near the middle of the project area have likely been bladed away or heavily disturbed and mixed into the fill. Any pre -contact archaeological resources that may have been present near the surface around the edges of Gethsemane Cemetery were also probably disturbed and may be buried under 1.5 to 6 m (5 to 20 feet) of fill. There are very few locations within the project area where the modern elevation is similar to the pre -contact ground level. If pre -contact archaeological resources are present in these areas, they may include evidence of cooking, short-term camping, or bulk processing of creek or wetland resources. There is also moderate potential for encountering significant ethnographic period and early historical cultural resources in the project area. The property went through several phases of development and use beginning in the 1870s. Most of the settlers in the early homestead period were short-term residents, but likely built some form of residence and possibly cleared and cultivated a few acres and grazed livestock. Construction of the first large school building and numerous outbuildings and other structures by Father DeDecker in the 1880s, 1890s, and early 1900s, improvements to the school and the addition of a large new school building by Father Govaert in the 1920s and 1930s, and then changes to the property by the government in the 1940s all left their mark on the project area. Additional information about the land use history of the property is in Boswell and Rinck (2017). The construction of the current cemetery in 1972 undoubtedly had the greatest impact on the preservation potential of the project area. If historical cultural materials are preserved below the surface in that vicinity, they might include artifacts and features related to the early homesteading period. More likely these cultural materials may relate to the operation of the school; structural foundations and footings of the school buildings, dormitories, recreation structures, barns, and residences; boardwalks; ditches; water features like pipes, tanks, and wells; privies, orchard remnants, or debris dumps. The potential for identifying intact, significant historical cultural resources in the project area is tempered by the past practice of demolishing existing buildings and structures between periods of construction and the large-scale earth moving that occurred for development of Gethsemane Cemetery. Foundations most likely to remain are those related to the second wave of construction in the 1920s, as well as the renovation and construction efforts during WWII. Preservation potential is higher beyond the limits of the Gethsemane Cemetery construction. For example, St. George's Cemetery and the smaller burial ground used by the sisters remain south and east of the current project. Hylebos Creek marks the general extent of extensive disturbance in the project vicinity. Typical markers of pre -contact cultural activity include shells, fire -modified rock, animal bone, flaked or ground stone tools, burned earth, cordage or fiber, charcoal, ash and exotic rocks and minerals. Typical markers of historic activity, dating prior to the 1960s, include milled lumber; masonry features; foundations; in place concrete or flat -lying wood floors; concentrations of glass, ceramic, brick, metal fragments, old bottles, nails, wire or other evidence of early historic occupation; old privies; and burials. Newly discovered archaeological deposits likely to be significant would include resources with intact, stratified deposits or diagnostic artifacts or features that could provide chronological data or information about pre -contact Native American or historic activities. A professional archaeologist should determine the significance of any archaeological materials.. SWCA Environmental Consultants January31, 2017 CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION Inadvertent Discovery Plan for the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan 9 The following sections of this plan are designed to help project personnel decide if notifying an archaeologist is necessary. When in doubt, call an archaeologist to view a potential discovery. Do not allow construction personnel or cemetery employees to dig up or remove potential cultural materials. It is against the law to remove archaeological materials from cultural sites or destroy archaeological sites. Do not allow construction personnel or cemetery employees to take cultural items home or comment about them on social media or to the general public. Examples of potentially significant cultural resources include (Figures 5 and 6): • An area of charcoal or charcoal -stained soil in association with historic -period or prehistoric artifacts, especially if shells are present; • Human remains (see additional protocol); • Clearly prepared surfaces that suggest temporary stability, such as a corduroy road, a flat lying layer of brick, or a plastered surface; • Arrowheads, stone tool, or concentrations of stone chips; • Large concentrations or dumps of historic bottles, cans or other historic material; ■ Old privies; • Buried fire pits or ovens; • Buried foundations or intact walls, especially below about 1 foot depth; ■ Clusters of animal bones, especially if associated with burned rocks and/or stone tools or chips, ■ Industrial tools and/or equipment that is clearly older than 50 years. Examples of cultural materials that are probably not significant include: ■ Posts without attached structural wood materials, ■ Fragments of asphalt and concrete, ■ Loose bricks, ■ Broken glass fragments or scattered pieces of broken ceramics, ■ Concentrations of coal, cinders, lumber, wood debris, or sawdust without associated artifacts. DISCOVERY PROCEDURES The following section describes protocols to be followed for discovery of archaeological resources that include pre -contact Native American, ethnographic, or historical artifacts, features, or structures, and human remains. The following protocol will be implemented if archaeological resources that appear to be older than 50 years of age are encountered during cemetery development. Cultural Resources 1) If a potential cultural resource is discovered, construction work should temporarily stop in the immediate location of the discovery. The potential resource will be left in place and the person who makes the discovery will notify the Cemetery Superintendent or his designee. 2) The Cemetery Superintendent will contact the Project Engineer, Project Manager, and the Director of Cemeteries. The Director of Cemeteries will contact an Archaeologist to view the discovery. The Director of Cemeteries will also contact the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) to seek consultation regarding appropriate treatment. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION 10 Inadvertent Discovery Plan for the Gethsemane Master Plan Al �, Y,., -,� r, o CL 1p T Olt 0. f N '_ 2 fi •;, � �, t� .; • E ► ti. V _W Ol 71 5 N U •. T i L C 1 0. A '6 LI •1?:y } n W r, ► x j f ' � W ', Uj d ca SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION Inadvertent Discovery Plan for the vethsemane Cemetery Master Plan 11 _A a ate' E co N cu � N (0 7 U O N Q U +N� i (p C_ -a O —ti _ O Q ■ • U N `i }, U Q N A! C O O Q U E D) E N Y C O n Q N U O N O IE CUM W N i1, , Cfl 0 a)U - j U L SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION 12 Inadvertent Discovery Plan for the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan 3) The Project Manager and the Project Engineer will coordinate to secure the work site, if determined necessary by the SHPO. The Cemetery Superintendent shall enforce appropriate security measures to prevent vehicles, equipment, or unauthorized personnel to traverse the area of the find and inform all parties that they are not to pick up, touch, or disturb the item(s) in any way. 4) The Cemetery Superintendent will assist the Archaeologist with safely accessing and investigating the discovery. Discovery of a potentially significant archaeological site would require additional work to establish site boundaries, evaluate significance, and arrive at appropriate assessments of adverse effects and treatment measures. Obtaining an emergency Archaeological Excavation Permit from DAHP may be required, depending on the nature and character of the discovery. 5) The Director of Cemeteries will consult with SHPO and the Tribes listed at the end of this IDP, as necessary, to determine appropriate treatment of the find. 6) Construction work may continue away from the discovery if the ground disturbance does not pose a threat to the integrity of the resource and SHPO approves. All work may resume upon notification by SHPO and the Director of Cemeteries. Human Remains Preserved human skeletal material and the material evidence of burials have been identified in the project vicinity in the past. If any construction activity exposes anything that appears to be human remains, either burials or isolated teeth or bones, or other mortuary items, construction in the vicinity of the find will halt immediately in an area sufficient to maintain integrity of the deposit. Suspected human remains will not be handled by anyone other than tribal representatives, archaeologists, or law enforcement. With the exception of archaeological documentation, photographing the remains is prohibited. The protocol listed below follows RCW 68.50.645, RCW 27.44.055, and RCW 68.60.055. In the event that human remains are discovered, the following protocol will be enforced: 1) Ensure that any discovered human remains and artifacts are treated with dignity and respect. All ground disturbing activity within 50 feet (15 meters) of the discovery will be stopped immediately and the site secured from any possible disturbance. The remains will be kept covered with a cloth or tarp (not soil or rock) and they will not be removed from the ground. 2) The Cemetery Superintendent will be contacted immediately. The Cemetery Superintendent will notify the Director of Cemeteries, who will contact the Federal Way Police Department, the King County Medical Examiner, and SHPO and the State Physical Anthropologist at DAHP. 3) The Medical Examiner will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non -forensic. If the Medical Examiner determines that the remains are part of a crime scene (forensic), then the Federal Way Police Department has jurisdiction over the remains. If the Medical Examiner determines that the remains are not part of a crime scene (non -forensic), then the Medical Examiner will notify DAHP, and the SHPO will take over jurisdiction over the remains. The SHPO will notify the Director of Cemeteries and all affected Tribes of the find. 4) If the remains are not part of a crime scene (non -forensic), then the State Physical Anthropologist at DAHP will determine if the remains are of Native American ancestry. If the State Physical Anthropologist determines the remains are of Native American ancestry, then he will report the SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION Inadvertent Discovery Plan for tha Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan 13 findings to the affected Tribes and the Director of Cemeteries. DAHP will be responsible for consultation with the appropriate Tribes, the Director of Cemeteries, and any other involved parties to determine appropriate treatment of the remains. If the State Physical Anthropologist determines the remains are non -Indian, then DAHP will handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains. CONFIDENTIALITY Archaeological properties are of a sensitive nature, and sites where cultural resources are discovered can become targets of vandalism and illegal removal activities. All parties shall keep and maintain as confidential all information regarding any discovered cultural resources, particularly the location of known or suspected archaeological property, and exempt all such information from public disclosure consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and Washington State Law RCW 42.56.300. The Gethsemane Cemetery shall limit access to any project -related cultural resources records to authorized persons with a need to know the information. Cemetery personnel and contractors should especially keep the discovery of any found or suspected human remains confidential, including refraining from contacting the media or sharing information regarding the discovery with the public. References Cited Boersema, Jana 2010a State of Washington Archaeological Isolate Inventory Form, 45P11177. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. 2010b A Cultural Resource Survey of Clerget Industries Highway 99 Parcel Milton, Pierce County, Washington. Prepared for Norlan Corporation, Milton, Washington. Cascadia Archaeology, Seattle, Washington. Boswell, Sharon and Brandy Rinck 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan, Federal Way, King County, Washington. Prepared for the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, Washington, by SWCA Environmental Consultants, Seattle, Washington. Caster, Dick 2009 Father Peter Hylebos, St. George's Indian School and Cemetery. Historical Society of Federal Way, Washington. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) 2016a Cemetery Detail Report, 45KI866, Gethsemane Cemetery. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. 2016b Cemetery Detail Report, 45KI867, St. George's Cemetery. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Earley, Amber 2004 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 451311408, Puget Sound Electric Railway Grade. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. McWilliams, Tyler 2011a State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45K11021, Spring Valley Service Station. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION 14 Inadvertent Discovery Plan for the Vethsemane Cemetery Master Plan 2011b State of Washington Archaeological Site Update Form, 451<11021, Spring Valley Service Station. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Sundberg, C. 2010a Historic Property Inventory Form Details, Gethsemane Cemetery. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. 2010b Historic Property Inventory Form Details, St. George's Indian Mission School Cemetery. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION Inadvertent Discovery Plan for the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan 15 CONTACTS Gethsemane Cemete Richard Peterson, Director of Cemeteries; Archdiocese Representative.... .. ........................... 206-522-0996 John Hempelmann, Project Attorney.......................................................................................206-254-4400 Fred Morley, Gethsemane Cemetery Superintendent ....................................... ...................... 253-927-3350 Construction and En ineerin TBD, Project Engineer.............................................................................................................. XXX-XXX-XXXX TBD, Construction Superintendent.......................................................................................... XXX-XXX-XXXX Government King County Medical Examiner.................................................................................................206-731-3232 King County Sheriff (Non-emergency)......................................................................................206-296-3311 Federal Way Police Department (Non-emergency)..................................................................253-835-2121 Department of ArchaeologV and Historic Preservation Allyson Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer ................................. ................................. 360-586-3066 Rob Whitlam, State Archaeologist............................................................................................360-586-3080 Dr. Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist.............................................................................360-586-3534 Gretchen Kaehler, Local Government Archaeologist...............................................................360-586-3088 Indian Tribes Brandon Reynon, Puyallup Tribal Historic Preservation Officer...............................................253-573-7986 Jeffrey Thomas, TFW Cultural Resources for the Puyallup Tribe..............................................253-405-4778 Dennis Lewarch, Suquamish Tribal Historic Preservation Officer............................................360-394-8529 Annette Bullchild, Nisqually Tribal Historic Preservation Officer ............ ................................. 360-456-5221 Rhonda Foster, Squaxin Island Tribal Historic Preservation Officer.........................................360-432-3850 Richard Young, Cultural Resources for the Tulalip Tribes.........................................................425-239-0182 Archaeology Brandy Rinck, Archaeologist .......................... ................................................. .................... 206-499-5602 SharonBoswell, Historian ......................... ........................................................................ ........ 206-781-1909 SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION CH&[]Q_ CAI RNCROSS&HEMPELMANN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 524 2nd Ave., Suite 500 office 206.587.0700 Seattle, WA 98104 fax 206.587.2308 www.cairncross.com MEMORANDUM TO: Hearing Examiner, City of Federal Way FROM: John W. Hempelmann & Nicole De Leon DATE: December 4, 2017 RE: Vesting of Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan The City of Federal Way (the "City") has the authority under both State and municipal law to permit the 20-year phased development of the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan (the "Master Plan") and to vest the Master Plan for the 20-year life of the project to all municipal land use control ordinances that were in effect as of the date of complete application of the Master Plan, April 4, 2016. The Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner (the "Staff Report") correctly concludes that 20-year phased development of the Master Plan is appropriate for this unique cemetery use, but it mistakenly concludes that the Master Plan does not vest to certain land use control ordinances for the 20-year life of the Master Plan. Gethsemane Cemetery respectfully disagrees because such vesting is mandated by municipal law, and City Staff and Gethsemane Cemetery agreed at the outset that vesting was a critical component of the development of the Cemetery. Vesting to land use control ordinances is the crux of, and essential to, long-term phased development. The Master Plan enables Gethsemane to meet its ethical, legal, and financial long-term obligations to assure future generations have a spiritual resting place by allowing the Cemetery to develop under unique funding and demand constraints. See Exh. W, Memorandum prepared by Cairncross & Hempelmann, dated April 18, 2017 (detailing the doctrinal, ethical, legal, financial, and practical justifications for long-term development of the Cemetery). This development approach is the product of guidance and mutual agreement from City Staff. Gethsemane Cemetery met with senior City Staff, Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager, Larry Frazier, Director of Community Development, and Margaret Clark, Planning Staff, on August 20, 2015, to first review a Master Plan Application. During that meeting, Gethsemane Cemetery proposed that long-term phased development and vesting for the Cemetery could best be achieved through the Development Agreement processes authorized by State law and the City Code. However, City Staff assured the Gethsemane representatives, including the undersigned, that the same result could be achieved by relying on the phased development provisions in Federal Way Revised Code (the "Code" or "FWRC") 19.15.100(2). Based on this guidance, Gethsemane Cemetery expended hundreds of thousands of dollars on extensive studies and design in pursuit of the recommended phased development. The current Staff Report position that limits vesting, except for critical areas, to 5 years is both very surprising and unfortunate. State law allows, and the Code expressly mandates long-term vesting for the Master Plan. 103446135.DOCX;3 } Pursuant to its authority under FWRC 19.15.100(2), City Staff concluded in the Staff Report that "[f]or this unique land use, a 20-year timeframe for building out of a multi -phase expansion is warranted to accommodate the nature of the cemetery use, and its unique operations and sales structures. However, 20 years is not too long a duration to accommodate and address future needs and conditions in the community and cemetery operations." Staff Report, p. 17, § 17. City Staff agreed that, consistent with FWRC 19.15.100(2), the life of the Process IV approval for the long-term phased Master Plan should be 20 years. City Staff then acknowledged, and Gethsemane Cemetery agrees, that the Code at FWRC 19.145.420(7) expressly and specifically vests the Master Plan to the Critical Areas Ordinance regarding wetlands. Id. § 18. However, City Staff further advises that "all new improvements including but not limited to: stormwater treatment, detention and conveyance; building improvements; and traffic and transportation would be subject to review and approval to codes in place at the time of each future phase." Id. This is fundamentally inapposite to the principles and goals of long term vesting. Furthermore, the Code mandates that the Master Plan Application vests to the zoning code and other land use control ordinances in effect at the time a fully completed application is submitted. City Staff appear to have summarily dismissed the fundamental and practical administration of long-term phased development because without vesting to all local land use ordinances, a grant of long- term vesting is plainly frustrated. The Master Plan Application is a Process IV decision pursuant to FWRC 19.195.170. The Code in no uncertain terms states, "A proposed use process I, II, III, or IV application shall vest to and be considered under the zoning code and other land use control ordinances in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application for use process I, II, III, or IV has been submitted to the city." FWRC 19.15.045(4) (emphasis added). This language coupled with the City's authority to permit long-term phased vesting necessarily instructs that a phased Master Plan should vest to local land use control ordinances for the life of the project in order to achieve the requisite goals of phased development. This mandate is also supported by case law regarding vesting, which instructs that vested rights provided by local code are determinative so long as statutory vested rights are not violated. Courts have acknowledged that so long as statutory thresholds for minimum vested rights are not violated "municipalities are free to develop vesting schemes best suited to the needs of a particular locality." See Erickson & Associates, Inc. v. McLerran, 123 Wn.2d 864, 873 (1994); See also Abbey Road Group, LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 167 Wn.2d 242, 252 (2009) (affirming the Erickson decision that a vesting date is valid so long as vesting occurs no later than the statutorily prescribed building permit application stage or earlier under a local ordinance). This is precisely what the City did when it enacted FWRC 19.15.045(4) to expressly provide a vesting scheme for Process IV decisions, including the present Master Plan. Pursuant to the above authority, the Master Plan should vest for the 20-year life of the Master Plan to all local zoning code and other land use control ordinances in effect on April 4, 2016. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Gethsemane Cemetery acknowledges that in the event Federal or State law changes the local zoning code or other land use control ordinances, the Master Plan will be subject to those revised regulations. Gethsemane Cemetery has no intention of putting the City into a difficult position regarding regulatory compliance with Federal or State agencies and regulations. Gethsemane Cemetery simply requests the City follow the vesting mandate of its Code. The Master Plan Application was deemed complete on April 4, 2016. City Staff acknowledges that 20-year phased development is appropriate for this "unique" type of use, yet it denies Gethsemane Cemetery the requisite vesting tools to appropriately achieve this long-term phased development. As a 103446135.DOCX;3 } practical matter, recommending a 20-year Master Plan, but denying that Master Plan appropriate vesting for the life of the Master Plan is inherently contradictory because this lack of adequate vesting effectively thwarts the benefits and goals of long-term phased development. To be clear, Gethsemane Cemetery appreciates City Staff's continued work and dedication to helping Gethsemane Cemetery satisfy its sacred mission to provide future generations with a place of worship and final resting place. Gethsemane Cemetery further appreciates and agrees with City Staff that pursuant to FWRC 19.145.420(7), the Master Plan specifically vests to the Critical Areas Ordinance regarding wetlands. However, Gethsemane Cemetery vigorously disagrees with City Staff's conclusion that the 20-year Master Plan should not vest to the zoning code and other land use control ordinances beyond the standard 5 years and instead for the life of the 20-year Master Plan. This conclusion is contrary to the practical realities and requirements to develop in accordance with long-term phased development. Pursuant to the City's discretionary authority to permit long-term phased development and the vesting scheme articulated in FWRC 19.15.045(4), the Master Plan should vest to the local zoning code and other land use control ordinances in effect on April 4, 2016, including but not limited to, stormwater treatment, detention and conveyance, and traffic and transportation. For all of the reasons above, we respectfully request the City allow Gethsemane Cemetery to develop pursuant to the 20-year Master Plan and to vest the Master Plan for those 20 years to the zoning code and other land use control ordinances in effect on April 4, 2016, except in circumstances where new Federal or State regulations alter those provisions. Long-term phased development is critical to the development of this unique land use, and vesting is critical to assuring this long-term phased development is completed to serve the needs of future generations. {03446135.DOCX;3 } March 4, 2016 RECEIVED MAR 07 2016 J .a_. brennan. associates PLLC CM OF FEDERAL WAY Landscape architects & Planners CDS 100 S. King Street, Suite 200, Seatde, WA 98104 t.206.583-0620 f.206.583.0623 www.jabrennan.com Site Photographs Project Name: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Property Address: 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Applicant: Rich Peterson, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Owner: Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle, A Corporation Sole Permit Application: Master Land Use Application Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) OVERVIEW �T NORTH ARM •' Q i — — — —7 EXISTING BURIALS, ADMIN BLDG & �l! MAINTENANCE FOREST AREA GLADE a i EAST SIDE >...� SEDIMENT POND RAINIER VISTA ; \ _ r f � r N Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 1 of 13 Site Photographs NORTH ARM The North Arm slopes down towards the wetland. WFTLAND NVK I N ARM Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 2 of 13 Site Photographs Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 3 of 13 Site Photographs EXISTING BURIALS, A®MIN BLDG & MAINTENANCE AREA The existing cemetery area is a network of drives, lawns, and walkways. 41 i I i EXISTING BURIALS, ADMIN BLDG & MAINTENANCE JD AREA ll r I tr ; 1 SE Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 4 of 13 Site Photographs � r � ry 4 ;t •• r � .any '�w.r.•, •[�7� i� e" -.-' - _mow' M RAINIER VISTA The Rainer Vista section is a flat plateau bordered by steep slopes to the east. SEDIMENT � RAINIER \ VISTA WERAND Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 6 of 13 Site Photographs NIT ~� • i t" ;'.i+.'1. :: � `• _ YES.' _ ", _ FOREST GLADE The Forest Glade section is a flat plateau bordered by steep slopes to the east. FOREST GLADE SEDIMENT POND Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 8 of 13 Site Photographs Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 9 of 13 Site Photographs SEDIMENT POND The existing sediment pond is a large engineered basin that has been overgrown. SEDIMENT POND WETLAND W x Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 10 of 13 Site Photographs i 4 45 . Y�.s• a .ram. -r � �►�'�e'=`e'•c �� .~ offJL •,r� r ji 7r i.. s� t EAST SIDE The east side of the property is thickly forested and doesn't currently have automobile access. W W V O W y3 — _ _ - S 376TH ST i r y � j, rr EAST SIDE' w eta 4 f Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 12 of 13 Site Photographs X -7W% : ^ - ai T IRS : 4k - fJ 0. I- Y a . •-�= j 7 t ` J • :� r_ 41k CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8'h Avenue South Recomm Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-2607;Fax 253-835-2609 MAR' 0 7 Z016 www.ci!yofiederalway.com CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (OPTED) Checklist Directions Please fill out the checklist to indicate which strategies have been used to implement CPTED principles in your proposed project. Please check all strategies that are applicable to your project for each of the numbered guidelines. You may check more than one strategy for each guideline. Your responses will be evaluated by City Staff, and will be integrated into the Site Plan and/or Building Permit review process. Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy s Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review Section 1.0 Natural Surveillance 1.1 Blind Corners _Conforms Avoid blind corners in pathways and parking lots. _Revise _NA Comments: 09 Pathways should be direct. All barriers along pathways should be permeable (see through) including landscaping, fencing etc. ■ Consider the installation of mirrors to allow users to see ahead of them and around corners. e Other strategy used: GentlTgraded fawn areas allow for excellent visibility across the cemetery 1.2 Site and Building Layout _Conforms Allow natural observation from the street to the use, from the _Revise use to the street, and between uses _NA Comments: Bulletin #022 —January 1, 2011 Page 1 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist Section and ✓ Functional Area Performance Performance Standard Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review Orient the main entrance towards the street or both streets on For Non -Single corners. ■ Family Development ❑ Position habitable rooms with windows at the front of the dwelling. ■ Access to dwellings or other uses above commercial/ retail development should not be from the rear of the building. ■ ❑ Offset windows, doorways and balconies to allow for natural observation while protecting privacy. ■ ❑ Locate main entrances/exits at the front of the site and in view of the street. ■ For Commercial/ Retail/ Industrial If employee entrances must be separated from the main and Community ❑ entrance, they should maximize opportunities for natural Facilities surveillance from the street. ■ ❑ In industrial developments, administration/offices should be located at the front of the building. ■ Avoid large expanses of parking. Where large expanses of For Surface 14 parking are proposed, provide surveillance such as security Parking and cameras. ■ Parking Structures 13 Access to elevators, stairwells and pedestrian pathways should be clearly visible from an adjacent parking area. ■ M Avoid hidden recesses. ■ ® Locate parking areas in locations that can be observed by adjoining uses. M Open spaces shall be clearly designated and situated at For Common/ locations that are easily observed by people. Parks, plazas, Open Space ❑ common areas, and playgrounds should be placed in the front Areas of buildings. Shopping centers and other similar uses should face streets. ■ The cemetery design functions like a large open Other strategy used: park space and tree plantings around the site will be trimmed up to avoid visual obstruction. No new office or employee ZJ entrances are planned. Parking is located next to the main entrance, the staffed admin building, and along the drives across the gently sloped site. Evaluation for Agency Use Only Bulletin #022 — January 1, 2011 Page 2 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review 1.3 Common/Open Space Areas and Public On -Site Open _Conforms Space _Revise Provide natural surveillance for common open space areas. _NA Comments: Position active uses or habitable rooms with windows adjacent ® to main common/open space areas, e.g. playgrounds, swimming pools, etc., and public on -site open space. ■ Design and locate dumpster enclosures in a manner which ❑ screens refuse containers but avoids providing opportunities to hide. ■ Locate waiting areas and external entries to elevators/stairwells ❑ close to areas of active uses to make them visible from the building entry. A ® Locate seating in areas of active uses. e Other strategy used: No new rooms are proposed for this ® proiect but all open areas are outdoors and visible from the main admin buildin . 1.4 Entrances Provide entries that are clearly visible. 14 Design entrances to allow users to see into them before entering. ■ Entrances should be clearly identified (Signs must conform to ® FWRC 19.140.060. Exempt Signs. (Applicable during Certificate of Occupancy Inspection). Other strategy used: No new entrances are proposed for this proiect but all entrances are easily seen and well 14 identified with signs. _Conforms _Revise _NA Comments: 1.5 Fencing _Conforms Fence design should maximize natural surveillance from the Revise street to the building and from the building to the street, and _NA minimize opportunities for intruders to hide. Comments: Bulletin #022 — January 1, 2011 Page 3 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist Section and ✓ Functional Area Performance Performance Standard Standard Strategy 0 Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review Front fences should be predominantly open in design, e.g. pickets or wrought iron, or low in height. e Design high solid front fences in a manner that incorporates 14 open elements to allow visibility above the height of five feet. e If noise insulation is required, install double -glazing at the ❑ front of the building rather than solid fences higher than five feet. 6 Evaluation for Agency Use Only Other strategy used: 1.6 Landscaping _Conforms Avoid landscaping which obstructs natural surveillance and _Revise allows intruders to hide. _NA Comments: ® Trees with dense low growth foliage should be spaced or their crown should be raised to avoid a continuous barrier. is Use low groundcover, shrubs a minimum of 24 inches in ® height, or high -canopied trees (clean trimmed to a height of eight feet) around children's play areas, parking areas, and along pedestrian pathways. ■ ® Avoid vegetation that conceals the building entrance from the street. ■ Other strategy used: 1.7 Exterior Lighting _Conforms Provide exterior lighting that enhances natural surveillance. _Revise (Refer to FVWRC 19.115.050(7)(a) for specific lighting _NA requirements.) Comments: Prepare a lighting plan in accordance with Illuminating Engineering Society of America (IESA) Standards, which ❑ addresses project lighting in a comprehensive manner. Select a lighting approach that is consistent with local conditions and crime problems. ■ Bulletin #022 —January 1, 2011 Page 4 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy N Applicable during Site Plan Review 6 Applicable during Building Permit Review Locate elevated light fixtures (poles, light standards, etc.) in a ® coordinated manner that provides the desired coverage. The useful ground coverage of an elevated light fixture is roughly twice its height. ■ For areas intended to be used at night, ensure that lighting ® supports visibility. Where lighting is placed at a lower height to support visibility for pedestrians, ensure that it is vandal - resistant. e Ensure inset or modulated spaces on a building facade, access/egress routes, and signage is well lit. e ® In areas used by pedestrians, ensure that lighting shines on pedestrian pathways and possible entrapment spaces. e Place lighting to take into account vegetation, in its current and ® mature form, as well as any other element that may have the potential for blocking light. e Avoid lighting of areas not intended for nighttime use to avoid ® giving a false impression of use or safety. If danger spots are usually vacant at night, avoid lighting them and close them off to pedestrians. e ® Select and light "safe routes" so that these become the focus of legitimate pedestrian activity after dark. ■ Avoid climbing opportunities by locating light standards and electrical equipment away from walls or low buildings. e ® Use photoelectric rather than time switches for exterior lighting. e In projects that will be used primarily by older people ® (retirement homes, congregate care facilities, senior and/ or community centers, etc.) provide higher levels of brightness in public/common areas. e Other strategy used: The cemetery is only peen during daylight ® hours. New liahfing along internal driveways will follow the tried- d-tr in attgm in the__ezistinn deye1ppedry. 1.8 Mix of Uses _Conforms In mixed use buildings increase opportunities for natural Revise surveillance, while protecting privacy. _NA Comments: Bulletin #022 —January 1, 2011 Page 5 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist Section and ✓ Functional Area Performance Performance Standard Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review 6 Applicable during Building Permit Review Where allowed by city code, locate shops and businesses on lower floors and residences on upper floors. In this way, ❑ residents can observe the businesses after hours while the residences can be observed by the businesses during business hours. ■ ❑ Include food kiosks, restaurants, etc. within parks and parking structures. ■ Other strategy: used Not applicable to cemetery design. IN 1.9 Security Bars, Shutters, and Doors When used and permitted by building and fire codes, security bars, shutters, and doors should allow observation of the street and be consistent with the architectural style of the building. ❑ Security bars and security doors should be visually permeable (see -through). 6 Other strategy used: Not applicable to cemetery design. Evaluation for Agency Use Only _Conforms _Revise _NA Comments: Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review Section 2.0 Access Control 2.1 Building Identification _Conforms Ensure buildings are clearly identified by street number to _Revise prevent unintended access and to assist persons trying to find _NA the building. Identification signs must conform to FWRC Comments: 19.140.060. Exempt Signs. ® Street numbers should be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. e Bulletin #022 —January 1, 2011 Page 6 of 9 kAHandouts\CPTED Checklist 1 Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review In residential uses, each individual unit should be clearly numbered. In multiple building complexes, each building entry ❑ should clearly state the unit numbers accessed from than entry. In addition, unit numbers should be provided on each level or floor. e 14 Street numbers should be made of durable materials, preferably reflective or luminous, and unobstructed (e.g. by foliage). e For -larger projects, provide location maps (fixed plaque ® format) and directional signage at public entry points and along internal public routes of travel. 8 Other strategy used: The cemetery main entrance is already ® complete with signage and street numbers. The cemetery already uses locaticn maps throughout the site and this will be cantinued into the new sections. 2.2 Entrances _Conforms Avoid confusion in locating building entrances. _Revise _NA Comments: Entrances should be easily recognizable through design Ig features and directional signage. (Signs must conform to FWRC 19.140.060. Exempt Signs. ■ Minimize the number of entry points. ■ Other strategy used: The cemetery has one main ® entrance and does not propose additional entrances. 2.3 Landscaping _Conforms Use vegetation as barriers to deter unauthorized access. Revise ^—NA Comments: ® Consider using thorny plants as an effective barrier. e Other strategy used: The landscape design will be used ® to make visitors and staff comfortable with long vistas (providing safety) and picturesgue views. 2.4 Landscaping Location _Conforms Avoid placement of vegetation that would enable access to a _Revise building or to neighboring buildings. —NA Comments: Bulletin #022 —January 1, 2011 Page 7 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review 9 Applicable during Building Permit Review Avoid placement of large trees, garages, utility structures, ® fences, and gutters next to second story windows or balconies that could provide a means of access. ■ Other strategy used: There are no second story windows or balconies. 2.5 Security _Conforms Reduce opportunities for unauthorized access _Revise _NA Comments: Consider the use of security hardware and/or human measures ® to reduce opportunities for unauthorized access. (Applicable during Certi rcare of Occupancy Inspection). Other strategy used: The cemetery has a secured gate entry system that is closed during off hours. 2.6 Signage _Conforms Insure that signage is clearly visible, easy to read and simple to _Revise understand [Signs must conform to FWRC 19.140.060. Exempt _NA Signs]. Comments: ® Use strong colors, standard symbols, and simple graphics for informational signs. e Upon entering the parking area, provide both pedestrians and For Surface ® drivers with a clear understanding of the direction to stairs, Parking and elevators, and exits. 6 Parking Structures 13 In multi -level parking areas, use creative signage to distinguish between floors to enable users to easily locate their cars. e 13 Advise users of security measures that are in place and where to find them, i.e. security phone or intercom system. e Provide signage in the parking area advising users to lock their cars. 6 Bulletin #022 —January 1, 2011 Page 8 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review ® Where exits are closed after hours, ensure this information is indicated at the parking area entrance. 6 Other strategy used: The cemetery will continue its ® parking and wayfinding signage in the new project areas. Section 3.0 Ownership 3.1 Maintenance Conforms Create a "cared for" image _Revise _NA Comments: Ensure that landscaping is well maintained, as per FWRC ® 19.125.090, in order to give an impression of ownership, care, and security. (Ongoing). Where possible, design multi -unit residential uses such that no ❑ more than six to eight units share a common building entrance. ■ Other strategy used: The cemetery_land5.raping is designed for ® Innn term maintenance that Is -hearty and aesthetically pleasing. ep. Materials _Conforms Use materials, which reduce the opportunityfor vandalism. _Revise _NA Comments: Consider using strong, wear resistant laminate, impervious glazed ceramics, treated masonry products, stainless steel �J materials, anti -graffiti paints, and clear over sprays to reduce opportunities for vandalism. Avoid flat or porous finishes in areas where graffiti is likely to be a problem. e ® Where large walls are unavoidable, refer to FWRC 19.125.040(21) regarding the use of vegetative screens. e Common area and/or street furniture shall be made of long ® wearing vandal resistant materials and secured by sturdy anchor points, or removed after hours. e Long lasting materials are a critical Other strategy used: requirement for cemeteries and are an ® excellent example of the type of sustainable design criteria that align between the Church's mission and the City's policies and goals. Bulletin #022 —January 1, 2011 Page 9 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist AEI -- MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION CITY OF MAR 0 7 2016 DEPARTMENT OFCommuNITYDEVELOPMENT SERVICES l Way, 8`� Avenue South Federal WaWYOF FEt7ERAL WAY Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 CDS 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com APPLICATION NO(S) 16 - 1(:)( 1_qC]_0(3 OPN/ Date 3/2/2016 Project Name Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Property Address/Location 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA 98003_ Parcel Number(s) 2188204281 2188204365. 2188204560 249k'69026 2188209025 Project Description Cemetery Master Plan with Phasing per FWMC 19.15.100 PLEASE PRINT Type of Permit Required Annexation Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment Comp Plan/Rezone Land Surface Modification Lot Line Elimination Preapplication Conference Process I (Director's Approval) Process li (Site Plan Review) Process III (Project Approval) X Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) Process V (Quasi -Judicial Rezone) Process VI X SEPA w/Project SEPA Only Shoreline: Variance/Conditional Use Short Subdivision Subdivision Variance: Commercial/Residential Required Information SE Zoning Designation SF-LD Comprehensive Plan Designation $1,025,000 Value of Existing Improvements _ $12,000,000_ Value of Proposed Improvements International Building Code (IBC): Existing A-3 Occupancy Type Existing Masonry _ Construction Type Applicant Name: Richard Peterson, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Address: 710 9th Avenue City/State: Seattle, WA Zip: 98104 Phone: (206) 524-1451 Fax: (206) 525-9628 Email: riche@mycatholiccemetery.org Signature: dS t.L� Agent (if different than Applicant) Name: Address: City/State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Email: Signature: Owner Name: Address: City/State Zip: Phone: Fax: Email: Signature: Frank Feeman, Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle, a Corporation Sole 710 9th Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 382-4588 n/a frank.feemag@seaUlearch.org Bulletin #003 — January 1, 2011 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Master Land Use Application w� W March 2, 2016 DIVE i. a. brenn.an _ MAR- 07 2016 associates rirc Landscape Architects & Planners CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 100 S. King Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98104 CAS t.206.583-0620 f.206.583.0623 www.jabrennan.com SEPA Environmental Checklist Project Name: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Property Address: 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Applicant: Rich Peterson, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Owner: Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle, A Corporation Sole Permit Application: Master Land Use Application Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimisation, or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts, or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies and/or reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process, as well as later in the decision -making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal, and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first, but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: [help] For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans, and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B, plus the SUPPLEM ENITA L SHEET FOR NONPR07ECT Ac-rroNs art D . Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for nonprojects) questions in Part B (Environmental Elements) that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 1 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist A.BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project. Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Z Name of applicant. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, Corporation Sole 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Edward Foster, Director of Property and Construction Services 710 9t' Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 382-2064, EdFASeattleArch.org Contact Person: Richard Peterson, Director of Cemeteries 710 9'h Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 524-1451, rich(r,niycatlieliceemetery.org 4. Date checklist prepared: 03/02/2015 5. Agency requesting checklist. City of Federal Way 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction will occur between 2016 and 2066. The 50-year phased master plan is divided into five (5) 10-year phases. Please see the Justification for Long -Term Master Plan included in the Process IV Application. The timing and exact details of the phases will be determined by future circumstances. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This project is proposes cemetery expansion into 20.8 additional acres over 50 years. The existing cemetery development is about 8.2 acres. The total cemetery size after 50 years is 29 acres. The Archdiocese owns approximately 58 acres but this project proposes changes to the west side of the site. The project proposes 5 phases of incremental construction over 50 years. Please see Project Narrative for more detailed information about the phases. The timing and exact details of the phases will be determined by future circumstances. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. • Level One Downstream storm drainage analysis • Preliminary technical information report addressing relevance of the 8 Core and 5 Special Requirements of the King County Stormwater Design Manual (KCSWDM) • Trip generation analysis • Geotechnical report • Wetland delineation • Stream delineation Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 3 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. There are no known applications pending for governmentt approvals of other proposals related to Gethsemane Phased Master Plan. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Federal Way Use Process IV (Hearing Examiner Approval) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. (There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page.) The Gethsemane Cemetery long-range, phased master plan is intended to guide cemetery construction incrementally over the next 50 years, and is focused on planning the area of the property to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The phased construction approach typical of cemeteries reflects the long term relationship between the Catholic Church, their cemeteries, and the community. Long term planning allows the organization to thoughtfully create an attractive and sustainable cemetery landscape that will be maintained for hundreds of years. The Gethsemane Cemetery property is approximately 58 acres in total but this proposal only extends to five phases on the west side of West Hylebos Creek: Phase 1: 3.83 AC Phase 4: 4.66 AC Phase 2: 3.68 AC Phase 5: 1.28 AC Phase 3: 7.58 AC Each preliminary phase includes burials, driveways, shrines, and columbarium. Phase 5 also includes a mausoleum. Please see the Project Narrative for the detailed phasing description. The timing and exact details of the phases will be determined by future circumstances. 12. Location of the proposal. (While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.) Project Address: 37600 Pac Hwy S, Federal Way 98003 Parcel Numbers: 322104-9025, -9020, 4560, -4365, 4281 Please see the Site Plan, Vicinity Map, and Topographic Plan included in the Process IV Application. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General descri tion of the site circle one): Flat roffing, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous other...: Generally flat/rolling with areas of steep slopes. See survey plans for existing conditions. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 50% slope. The current cemetery area is generally flat or gently rolling. The proposed project area would convert the steep man-made slopes on the site interior into more gently rolling hills. Total elevation change is Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Process IV Master Land Use Application 4 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist approximately 60 feet rising from West Hylebos Creek to the top of the cemetery hills and back down to Pacific Highway S (Hwy 99). c. What general types of soils are _found _on the site (for examl2le clay, sand, -gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification_ of agrr_culturaf stills, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Soils are generally clay and hold water. The soils listed on the county survey include: (listed from most to least area on site) KpB — Kitsap silt loam Bh — Bellingham silt loam Sk — Seattle muck AgD — Alderwood gravelly sandy loam KpD — Kitsap silt loam No — Norma sandy loam d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There are no surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity. The Geotechnical analysis of site soils indicates low risk of erosion or liquefaction and no evidence of soil movement or instability is visible or documented. e. Describe the purpose, fype, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation and wading proposed. Indicate source of fill. When developed in 1975, the Gethsemane Cemetery site graded the land into a flat area for the existing cemetery and a berm to the east of unneeded soils. This master plan proposes a naturalization of the berm to change the site from its steep hillside current condition to a rolling hill landscape. The rolling landscape will allow more of the site to be used for future burials while making the site more aesthetically pleasing. Fill or grading could occur in association with specific phases. Fill type and/or amount of grading required would be determined at time of building and grading permits. See the Detailed Phasing Description document attached to the application for more specific information on Rrading expectations for each phase. Source of fill will be determined prior to phase construction and is expected to include reuse of site soils and offsite import. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? if so, generally describe. The project area does not contain any designated Erosion Hazard Areas. Potential erosion during construction could occur, but will be mitigated with Temporary Erosion and Sediment controls according to Federal, State and local (FWMC Chapter 18) regulations. Therefore, no significant environmental impacts are anticipated. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction for example, asphalt or buildings)? The proposed master plan includes 1.7 AC of new impervious surfaces and 2.9 acres of existing impervious surface. The cemetery is currently 8.2 acres but phased development over 50 years proposes an expansion to 29 total acres. At that point, 15.86% of the project area would be covered with impervious buildings, roads, and paths, which includes existing impervious area that covers approximately 10% of the site. The cemetery also owns 29 additional acres at this location which are proposed to remain pervious throughout this project development. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion or other im acts to the earth if an Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Process IV Master Land Use Application 5 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist First, the project is designed to fit the natural topography, soils, and drainage patterns of the site. Clearing and construction planned over 5 phases allows vegetation in each phase of the site to grow and establish before beginning the next phase. During construction, erosion control measures will be utilized such as covering disturbed soils and controlling surface runoff. Steep slopes and sensitive wetland areas will be further protected from erosion using erosion and sediment. control BMPs such as silt fences and straw wattles as described in the KCSWDM. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the ro osal during construction o eration and maintenance when the gCoLect is completed? If any, generallydescribe and give approximate uantities if known. Construction equipment will be typical of large construction sites and would include hand-held power tools, gasoline and diesel -powered compressors and generators, and gasoline and diesel -powered vehicles to remove existing roadway infrastructure and build the new roadway improvements. These tools would generate greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) due to the combustion of gasoline and diesel fuels, such as oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, particulate matter and smoke, uncombusted hydrocarbons, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and water vapor. Other emissions during construction would include dust and exhaust from construction vehicles. These effects are expected to be localized, temporary and minimised. The project would produce GHGs in three ways: embodied energy in materials to be installed on the project; energy expended through construction activity (especially as described above); and energy expended during regular operation, maintenance, and monitoring activities throughout the anticipated lifespan of the cemetery. b. Are there any off site sources of emissions or odor that may affect our ro osal? If so enerall describe. No off -site sources of emissions or odors are known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if an During construction, impacts to air quality would be reduced and controlled through implementation of federal, state, and local emission control criteria and construction practices. These would include requiring contractors to use best management practices for construction methods, proper vehicle maintenance, and minimising vehicle and equipment idling. 3. Water a. Surface Water 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The project area is located in the Hylebos Creek Basin and West Hylebos Creek bisects the site. West Hylebos Creek flows south and meets East Hylebos Creek in northeast Tacoma, becoming Hylebos Creek, which is a tributary to Puget Sound at Commencement Bay. There are also wetlands located on and adjacent to the project site. Please see the wetland report for more information. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, the project design includes work within 200 feet of the creek and wetlands. In the upland areas outside the City's buffer, grading and clearing and vegetation will be completed as shown on the Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 6 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist plans for use as cemetery burials. Within the buffers, a pedestrian footpath and natural burials will be completed as described in the plans. �f:l 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from byj k ) surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No fill or dredging will occur within the wetlands or creek areas. In the wetland buffers, expected construction activities include grading, stormwater management facility modification, natural burials, and walking trails. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain? If so, note the location on the site plan. No portion of the project area is located in a 100 year floodplain. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 53033CI250 F (Revised May 16, 1995), the project area is located entirely within Other Areas, Zone X, which has been determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. This project is not expected to result in the discharge of waste materials to surface waters. b. Ground Water 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses, and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. This project is not expected to withdraw from or discharge to groundwater. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. This project is not expected to result in the discharge of waste materials into the ground. c. Water Runoff 1including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The project area consists mostly of pervious surfaces, primarily lawn, with some impervious areas of asphalt roads and concrete sidewalk paths. The entire area has proposed landscape planting for aesthetic and habitat value. Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 7of19 Process IV Master Land Use Application SEPA Environmental Checklist Adjacent parcels consist of a mix of impervious (i.e., roofs, driveways, patios), with pervious areas covered by lawn, landscaping, and trees. Currently, stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces is collected via inlets and conveyed, via storm drain to discharge into buffers, grasses and soils adjacent to the drives and paths. The project would prepare and implement a CESC plan. BMPs (as identified in the King County Stormwater Manual ) would be used to manage stormwater runoff, construction disturbance, and erosion as needed during construction. The completed project would be re-covered with lawn and vegetation and would not need to manage additional stormwater runoff beyond currently existing conditions. Stormwater would follow newly design pathways but would discharge into the same grasses and soils adjacent to drives and paths as existing conditions. Stormwater runoff volume and durations will meet Level 2 Flow Control per the KCSWDM. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. During construction, it is possible that erosion from the construction site could enter surface waters. However, a CESC plan using appropriate BMPs would be developed and implemented to avoid or minimize this risk. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. The completed project does not propose to affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site. Stormwater runoff is not expected beyond currently existing conditions and will follow similar pathways. The current volume, timing, and duration of these stormwater flows are not known. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface round and runoff wafer and drain@ e ,pattern imacts, if any: Based on the characteristics of the project area, it is anticipated that impact to water can be avoided or reasonable mitigated. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Typical construction methods are anticipated and no adverse impacts to surface or ground waters are expected. BMPs, as identified in the King County Stormwater Manual would be used to control erosion and sedimentation during construction. The project would develop and implement an erosion and sediment control plan. 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X Shrubs X Grass _ Pasture Crop or grain Orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops X Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Tenn Master Plan 8 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist The project would limit plant removal, pruning, and other disturbance to that required for project construction. Construction limits would be clearly and physically delineated by protective construction fencing to prevent unauthorized trespass and collateral damage to nearby vegetation. 438 trees (765 tree units) would need to be removed to accommodate construction across the entire 50-year project area. 1397 tree units are required to be on site at the end of construction however this project goes above -and -beyond the requirement by prole°iding 2024 total tree units. 48% of proposed plantings are expected to be drought -tolerant even though only 25% is required. Installation of stomiwater management devices would typically disturb pervious surfaces such as lawns and landscape beds. While the exact locations of these installations have not yet been identified, the project would restore disturbed soils and cultivated vegetation. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. No known threatened or endangered plant species are known to be on or near the project area. d. Pronosed landscaping, use of nativejolants, or other measures to reserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any, Approximately 800 new trees are proposed and of those planted, approximately 500 will be native, drought tolerant species. 500 are proposed in the wetlands, buffer and natural -burial areas, while 300 are in the traditional cemetery burial areas. The proposed landscape planting, as shown on the Landscape Plan has been designed for maximum aesthetic and habitat value. The site is required to provide a 10' wide perimeter landscape Type III buffer along all property lines. The buffer will be a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees interspersed with large shrubs and ground cover. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Blackberry grows in the understory of the forested hillsides and into the open lawn/meadow areas of the cemetery. A review of the King County Noxious Weeds GIS map on 1/13/2016 identifies 2,500 sq ft of Goatsrue in the North Arm of the site, just east of Pacific Highway S (Hwy 99). 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the ske—or are k_nown to be on or near the site. Birds such as hawks, heron, eagles, songbirds, crows and pigeons have been seen on site. Mammals such as deer, possum, raccoon, deer mouse, little brown rat, and squirrels have been seen on site. West Hylebos Creek is a known salmon -bearing waterway. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. According to a review of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife SalmonScape mapping software on 1/13/2016, West Hylebos Creek is accessible to the following threatened salmon species: • Documented Presence: Fall Chinook, Winter Steelhead • Documented Spawning: Coho, Fall Chum ■ Presumed Presence: Pink Salmon (odd year) Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 9 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Service's lPaC Trust Resource Report lists the following species as endangered or threatened near the project area: Birds: Marbled Murrelet (threatened) critical habitat Streaked Homed Lark (threatened) critical habitat Yellow -billed Cuckoo (threatened) critical habitat (proposed) Fish: Bull Trout (Threatened) critical habitat Mammals: Canada Lynx (Threatened) critical habitat Migratory Birds- c. Is the site ioart of a mi ration route? If so explain. Bald Eagle (year round) Black Swift (breeding season) Caspian Tern (breeding season) Fox Sparrow (year round) Olive -sided Flycatcher (breeding season) Peregrine Falcon (breeding season) Purple Finch (year round) Rufous Hummingbird (breeding season) Short -eared Owl (year round) Vesper Sparrow (breeding season) Western Grebe (wintering season) Willow Flycatcher (breeding season) Federal Way is located within the migratory route of many birds and other animal species and is part of the Pacific Flyway, a major north -south route of travel for migratory birds in the Americas extending from Alaska to Patagonia. West Hylebos Creek and its wetlands run through the site and is an important migration route for many animal species. Bald eagles and salmon are occasionally observed on the site. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. The project will preserve wildlife by mitigating and minimizing modifications to critical area buffers. Replacing degraded vegetated areas overgrown by blackberry with native trees and shrubs will further enhance wildlife habitat. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. No invasive animal species are known to be present on or near the project site. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of ever electric natural gas, oil wood stove solar will be used to meet the completed miect's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturina etc. The cemetery is expected to use electricity for street lighting and irrigation when the project is complete. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adiacent properties? If so, generally describe. The proposed project does not involve building structures or planting vegetation that would block access to the solar energy for adjacent properties. c. What kinds ofenerov conservation features are included -in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control evergy imipacts, if an . Streetlights and irrigation systems will be installed with low impact development in mind. They will be controlled with a timer system that considers and adapts to environmental factors such as the weather and hours of daylight. Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 10 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist Contractors will be required to operate equipment in compliance with King County and City of Federal Way energy codes, at a minimum. Energy impacts are expected to be minor. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including_ exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this p gposal? If so. describe. Small amounts of materials likely to be present during construction include gasoline and diesel fuels, hydraulic fluids, oils, lubricants, solvents, paints, and other chemical products. A spill of one of these chemicals could potentially occur during construction as a result of either equipment failure or worker error. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. Contamimtion is not expected to be found at the site. Before it was a cemetery, the property was a school and the project location has no known past use as an industrial or commercial site. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. There are no known hazardous chemicals or conditions that might affect project development and design. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. No toxic or hazardous chemicals would be stored, used, or produced during the project's construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. It is not anticipated that any special emergency services would be required during construction or operation of the project. Possible fire or medic services could be required during project construction, as well as possibly during maintenance of the completed project or for visitors of the cemetery. However, the completed project would not demand higher levels of special emergency services than already exist at the project location. Typical emergency services required for medical emergencies are provided by the Federal Way Fire Department. Typical security services are provided by the Federal Way Police Department. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. The construction contractor would be required to develop and implement a spill control plan to control and manage spills during construction. During construction, the contractor would use standard operating procedures and BMPs, as identified in the City of Federal Way Stormwater Code, to reduce or control any possible environmental health hazards. A contingency.plan for potential spillage of fuel or contaminated material will be developed prior to initiating earth work on the site. Measures will be implemented to control upland releases and aquatic area spills. Any spill to the aquatic environment would be reported to the US Coast Guard and cleanup actions would be conducted in accordance with Coast Guard regulations. The property Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Process IV Master Land Use Application 11 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist owner would be responsible for documenting any environmental impacts resulting from an accidental spill. During construction, it will be the responsibility of contractors to provide for the safety of their workers, including proper training and personal protective gear, if necessary. Contractors will comply with current Washington Department of Labor and Industries requirements. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noises that exist in the area (vehicular traffic on I-5 and Pacific Highway S) would not affect the project. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise levels in the vicinity of construction would temporarily increase during construction. Short- term noise from construction equipment would be limited to the allowable maximum levels of City of Federal Way's Noise Control Ordinance [FWRC Chapter 7.10.020—Public Disturbance Noise]. Within the allowable maximum levels, FWRC permits noise from construction equipment between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. weekdays, and 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. weekends. It is expected that the majority of construction would take place from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays. However, there may be a need for construction to implement a 7-day/week and 11-12 hour/day work schedule. These longer days and/or work hours would be necessary to reduce the duration of work that negatively impacts local businesses or residences. The decision to allow longer days and/or hours would be based on minimising such impacts to affected parties. The completed project would generate occasional and periodic noise from equipment used for cemetery operation, maintenance, and monitoring but it is not anticipated to be an increase from current levels. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. Construction equipment would be muffled in accordance with the applicable laws. Limits to noise and construction activities would be enforced while the project is being constructed and during operations, except for emergencies. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and ad'acent properties? Will the oroposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The site is currently used for cemetery visitation and worship services. Adjacent property uses (from most to least frequent) include: vacant single family lots, single family residential use, cemetery, church, and warehouse properties. The project proposed is not expected to affect current land use on nearby or adjacent properties. b. Has the reject site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial si nificance will be converted to other uses as a result of the ro osal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or non -forest use? The project site has not been used for agricultural purposes. Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 12 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how. The proposed project would neither be affected by nor affect surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations. c. Describe any structures on the site. The existing developed cemetery area is approximately 8.2 acres and includes a 9,552 sq ft masonry structure for administrative, worship, and maintenance operations. Three mausoleum structures are approximately 1,135 sq ft each but do not allow access to any interior spaces.,No changes are proposed to the existing section of the cemetery. d. AN any structures be demolished? If so. what? The project would not demolish any structures. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? SE f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single family, low density g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site ? The project area has no Shorelines of the State that are regulated under the City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? if so, specify, City of Federal Way's Critical Areas Map identifies two erosion hazard areas, three wetlands, and a stream system on the site, including West Hylebos Creek. King County's map of Environmentally Sensitive Areas identifies West Hylebos Creek as a Chinook Distribution area and depicts the same two erosion hazard areas. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the com leted pLoject? Approximately 6 employees work at the cemetery and this is not expected to change over time. One additional cemetery employee could be added to staff in the first five years and up to a total of 3 or 4 additional staff could be added over the 50-year term of the master plan. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? The project would not displace any people. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts,_ if any. There would be no displacement impacts. Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 13 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist Proposed measures to ensure the ro osal is compatible with existing and Proiected land uses and plans, if any. The project would be compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans. m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby _ ricultural and forest lands of lon -term commercial sr nifrcance if any. The project would be compatible with any agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle or low- income housing. The proposed project would not construct any housing units. b. Approximately how many units if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether NO, middle or low-income housing, The proposed project would not eliminate any housing units. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. No measures are proposed because there would be no housing impacts. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest heLqht of any pnoposed structures not including antennas: what is the principal exterior building materials) proposed? The only structures proposed for the project are three new mausoleums. These mausoleums are proposed for a later phase of the 50 year master plan but they are expected to be designed similarly to the three existing mausoleums which were built in 1972. The height of these buildings is 16'-10 1/2". The exterior materials would be smooth and rough concrete with score lines, granite or marble shutters, and wood trellis. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The structures are proposed near Pacific Highway S (Hwy 99) to obstruct views and noise from vehicular traffic for cemetery visitors. Street trees planted in the right-of-way could partially obscure neighborhood and territorial views when they attain full height and maturity. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. The aesthetic condition of the site will be significantly improved over its present appearance. Trees and structures in proposed areas will eventually partially obstruct (or add interest to) views across the site toward the highway. 11. Light and Glare a. What We of liaht or glare will the or000sal produce? What time of.day would it mainly occur? The constructed project would install new street lights along the proposed drives. They will be illuminated at night but will not produce glare for neighbors. During construction, if an emergency situation calls for Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 14 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist after -dark work, the construction contractor may deploy portable lights that temporarily produce light and glare. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? The light from finished streetlights is not expected to create a safety hazard or interfere with views. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? There are no existing off -site sources of light and glare that would affect the proposal. The suburban estate properties surrounding the cemetery have little -to -no development and/or light pollution. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if and No measures are needed to reduce or control light and glare impacts because no impacts would occur. If an emergency requires after -dark work during construction, portable lighting would be adjusted as feasible to minimize glare. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are no parks or other designated recreational opportunities in the immediate vicinity. However, West Hylebos Wetlands Park is 2.5 miles to the north and it provides parking, picnic areas, restrooms, and walking trails in a natural setting. b. Would the ❑roposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so. describe. The project would not displace any existing recreational uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. The project will not have any adverse impacts on recreation opportunities on the site. The proposal does include increased recreation opportunities by creating low -impact trails through the wetland buffers and possibly down to West Hylebos Creek. These trails would be open to the public and would be designed to follow City of Federal Way wetland buffer trail requirements. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 Years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. There are no buildings, structures or sites located on or near the site that are over 45 years old. There are no places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site. Review of the Washington Heritage Register and National Register of Historic Places's WISAARD database (Iittp://www.dalip.wa.gov/learn-and-researcii/find-a-historic-place) on 1/14/2016 showed reports for Gethsemane Cemetery and St.George's Indian Mission School Cemetery but there are no recorded places or objects formally listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers on or adjacent to the project location. No architectural inventory is required for this project because no structures would be demolished or altered. Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 15 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist b. Are there any landmarks features or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occu ation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence artifacts or areas of cultural im ortance on or near the site? Please list anz.,grofessional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. St. George's Indian Mission Cemetery is located to the southeast of the property and access easement was granted through the east side of the property in 1992. Gethsemane Cemetery, is a place of cultural importance for the Catholic Community but there is no material evidence, artifacts or areas of historic cultural importance on or near the site that would be affected by the proposed project. The construction work done in 1972 tore down the old school, graded approximately 22.5 acres of land, and built the existing network of internal drives, burial areas and buildings. Impact to cultural and historic resources at that time was not recorded. No professional studies have been conducted. Gethsemane Cemetery Cultural Timeline* Year Event Comment 1888 St, George's The governmentoperated The Cushman Indian School on Industrial School for the reservation which could only handle 80 students so the Muckleshoot there was a need for additional students and the Roman Indians was founded Catholics also wanted to provide a school for teaching at the location of the religious principles. Father Hylebos, then operating out of present Gethsemane Tacoma, obtained financial support from Miss Katherine Cemetery located just Drexel, a wealthy Catholic of Torresdale, Pennsylvania, north of the Pierce who offered to finance the school. The school was closed in County line. 1936. The remains of the school were tom down in 1971. 1889 The first organized Both Indians and whites were buried here. (See 1888 for cemetery in the opening of St. George's Industrial School at this location.) Federal Way area, The cemetery shared the 142 acres owned by St. St. George's George's School. (Currently Gethsemane Cemetery Cemetery, received occupies the land originally occupied by the school at its first burials. South 377th St. and Highway 99.) St. George's Cemetery was located near/on the bank to the east of the present cemetery. The last burials were in the 1920s. (See 1888 for opening of school and 1971 for the 1936 St. George's Indian School was closed. remaining buildings being tom down for use by Gethsemane Cemetery.) 1971 The Catholic Church ` (See 1888 for start of school.) plotted the 142-acre site of the former St. George's Indian School for Gethsemane r omatary 1980 Catholic Church donated the land that they owned, which covered the original St. George's Cemetery, to the Puyallup Tribe. Source Dick Caster, Father Hylebos, St George's Indian School and St. Claire's Mission Church, 8 June 2004, p. 7, wwwfederalwayhistory.org/adicles, and Henry Sicade, The Cushman Indian School, A Brief History (unknown publication source:1927), pp. 26-28, Compiled from a thesis Submitted by Elizabeth Shackleford, The Cushman Indian School, A Brief History (Tacoma: College of Puget Sound,1918), page number not known and Federal Way News, 10 October 1979, p. A-3. Dick Caster, Father Hylebos, St George's Indian School and St. Claire's Mission Church, 8 June 2004, pp.15, 16, www.federalwayhistory.org/articles, and Nathalie Weber, "A Century of history, "Federal Way News, 10 October 1979, p. A- 3. Patricia Slettvet Noel, Muckleshoot Indian History (Auburn: Auburn School District No. 408, 1980, revised 1985), p. 70. Nathalie Weber, "A century of history, Federal Way News, 10 October 1979, p. A-3. " I am delighted to be able to offer to you and your Indian Dick Caster, "Father Peter Hylebos, St. brothers and sisters on behalf of the Church of Western George's Indian School and Cemetery" Washington, a gift of property of approximately 17 acres Prepared for the Historical Society of abutting your original reservation, including a portion of Federal Way, Revised July 9, 2009. Hylebos Creek and all of St. George's Cemetery." Raymond G. Hunthausen, Archbishop "Being able to make a gift, knowing the deep historical of Seattle, letter to Puyallup Indian significance of the property to your tribe, gives all of us in Nation, June 24,1980, p. 1., in the files Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Process IV Master Land Use Application 16 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist the Catholic Church a special pleasure. We, too, have of the Historical Society of Federal much of our history associated with this land. We will Way. welcome you as neighbors knowing your plans to pursue projects utilizing the land in an environmentally sensitive and meaningful manner.... [it] is our intention to encourage your use of the portion of Hylebos Creek located on the other part of our Gethsemane property. The Catholic Church is totally in accord with your desire to maintain the creek in its natural state and to establish fishery enhancement projects whereverpossible." *Source: Historical Society of Federal Way Time Line, Revised November 23, 2007, Historical Society of Federal Way, Dick Caster Compiler. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the proiect site. Exam les include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data etc. As owner of the cemetery, the Catholic Church is very familiar with and sensitive to potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. The church considers the cemetery to be one of these important cultural resources but as a working cemetery, the need for access to additional areas of the property necessitates new vehicular and pedestrian networks. Cemetery operators will consult Church archivists and historians, tribal outreach resources, and historic maps, surveys, and reports to avoid or minimise impacts to cultural resources on or near the project area. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to,. and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be reguired. The project will conduct a cultural resources inventory to determine probability of prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic Native American cultural resources in previously undisturbed areas below the ground surface. If identified, the project will commit to having a professional archaeologist monitor construction in previously undisturbed soils and soil sediments. The professional archaeologist would prepare a Monitoring and Inadvertcnt Discovery Plan (MIDP). Should evidence of cultural remains, either historic or prehistoric, be encountered during construction, work in the immediate area would be suspended and the find would be examined and documented by the archaeologist as per procedures identified in the MIDP. Decisions regarding appropriate mitigation and further action would be made at that time. 14. Transportation a. identify nublic streets and hiahways servina the site or affected geographic area and describe Dronosed access to the existino street system. Show on site plans. if anv. The project would occur on Gethsemane Cemetery property which is currently accessed by two driveways to the east of Pacific Highway S (Hwy 99). One is the paved boulevard and formal entrance to the cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South. The other is a gravel maintenance drive marked by a 19 ft. wide gate in the chain link fence. A future vehicular access point is proposed at the comer of S 376'h St and 87'b Avenue S. These two arterials are residential streets. The exact location of the east -side property access has not yet been identified. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? Jf so. -generally describe. if not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Pierce Transit route 500 serves the project location and travel on Pacific Highway S (Hwy 99). The completed project would not affect routing of any bus routes. Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 17 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal have? How many would the Project or proposal eliminate? The project proposal would add approximately 2,350 linear feet of internal drives. The internal drives are expected to add approximately 115 parking spaces to the site that would be occasionally used in different amounts during funerals. A few of those parking spaces would be used during visitation to grave sites. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally_ describe Cindicate whether public or Private). The project would not require new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities. All project areas are internal to the private property. e. Will the proiect or proposal use or occur in the immediate vicinity o water, rail or air transportation? If so, generallZ describe. The proposed project would not use or occur near water, rail, or air transportation. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed proiect or ro osal? If known indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks such as commercial and non- asses er vehicles . What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? For each of the 5 phases, project construction would generate approximately 650 vehicle round -trips due to workers and materials being transported to and from the site during the estimated total 100-workday construction period. Most of those trips would occur during business hours (between 7 am and 6 pm) on weekdays (Mondays through Fridays) but trips may occur at other times including weekend days. The cemetery could generate a net increase of up to 13 PM peak hour trips (increasing from 5 to 18 trips) over the proposed long term 50-year period of the Master Plan. Please refer to the Trip Generation Analysis performed by Heffron Transportation, Inc. (2016). g. Will the goro osal interfere with affect or be affected b the movement of a ricultural and (ores# products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. The proposal would not interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any, All work will be completed on private property, limiting any transportation impacts on Pacific Highway S (Hwy 99). Contractors would be required to use off-street areas for construction staging. 15. Public services a. Would the ro"ect result in an increased need for public services for example: fire Protec#ion Rice protection, public transit health care schools other? If so, generally describe. The proposed project would not create increased need for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if am. No mitigation is being proposed because there would be no impacts on public services. 16. Utilities Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 18 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist c. Underline%ircle utilities current) available at the site: Electrici , natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other d. Describe the utilities that are DMosed for theproeeci: the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities an the site or in the immediate vicini which mi ht be needed. The completed project would include new electric streetlights and irrigation systems. Gethsemane Cemetery is serviced by Puget Sound Energy for electricity and Lakehaven Utility District for water. The project does not propose to expand the telephone, refuse or sewer systems. No interruptions to regular utility services are expected during construction. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: �- Printed Name of Signee: Richard Peterson Position and Agency/Organization: Director of Cemeleries, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Date Submitted: 03/0212016 Gethsemane Cemetery Process IV Master Land Use Application Phased Long Term Master Plan 19 of 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist A CITY OF Federal Way CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE FEDERAL WAY H EARING EXAMINER Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101140-UP, Related File No.16-101141-SE PUBLIC HEARING — December 4, 2017 2:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Federal Way City Hall — 33325 8'h Avenue South Report Prepared by: Senior Planner Jim Harris 253-835-2652 / jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I. Description of Proposal.............................................................................................................4 II. Background & Application........................................................................................................4 III. Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Basis for Approval .........................................................4 IV. General Information.................................................................................................................. 5 V. Environmental Threshold Determination.................................................................................. 5 VI. Consulted Departments and Agencies, and Public Notice ........................................................6 VII. Natural Environment....................................................... ......................................................... 6 VIII. Neighborhood Characteristics................................................................................................... 6 IX. Cultural Resources.................................................................................................................... 7 X. Transportation........................................................................................................................... 7 XI. Public Services and Utilities...................................................................................................... 8 XII. Analysis of Zoning Regulations................................................................................................9 XIII. Critical Areas — Wetlands and Stream ...................................... ............................................... 10 XIV. Wetland Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Request.............:............................................. 11 XV. Analysis of Process IV Decision Criteria................................................................................12 XVI. Findings of Fact and Conclusion...................................................................•---...................... 15 XVII. Recommendation .............................................................................................................------18 Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 2 Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101140-UP & 16-101141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 EXHIBITS A. Master Land Use Application B. Vicinity Map C. Site Plans, Preliminary Drainage Plans, Preliminary Landscape Plan, J.A. Brennan Associates, pages 0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 4.5 dated revised January 23, 2017, and sheets 4.2, 4.3 and 7.1 dated March 4, 2016 D. Project Narrative by J. A. Brennan dated March 3, 2016 D-1. Hempelmann Memo dated April 18, 2017 D-2. Hempelmann E-mail dated September 7, 2017 E. FWRC Zone Use Chart 19.195.170, "Cemetery" F. Notice of Application, April 15, 2016 G. Environmental Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS), issued October 6, 2017 H. Environmental Checklist, signed by Richard Peterson, March 2, 2016 I. Final Staff Evaluation for SEPA Checklist, October 5, 2017 J. SEPA Comments from October 20, 2017 letter from Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP); October 20, 2017 email from Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Tribe; October 19, 2017 email from Tamela Smart, Lummi Nation; October 18, 2017 email from Kris Miller, Skokomish Tribe; October 11, 2017 email from James Gordon, Cowlitz Tribe; October 5, 2017 email from Diana Noble-Guilliford. K. Letter and attachments from Diana Noble-Gulliford dated May 4, 2016 L. Letter from Bryan Graham, dated May 10, 2016 M. Zoning Map N. Cultural Resources Assessment for Gethsemane Cemetery, January 31, 2017 O. Transportation Concurrency Capacity Reserve Certificate, July 14, 2016 P. Blank Q. Trip Generation Analysis by Heffron, February 25, 2016 R. Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Mitigation Plan by Otak Inc, January 27, 2017 S. Addendum to Wetland and Stream Deleneation Report by Otak Inc, August 18, 2017 T. Perteet Wetland Review, March 24, 2017 U. Perteet Wetland Review, September 26, 2017 V. Critical Area Exemption for Repair and Maintenance, November 15, 2017 (Note: Technical reports and information listed above may not be enclosed with all copies of this report. Copies of exhibits and other information contained in the project file may be reviewed and/or obtained by contacting the Department of Community Development, 33325 8"' Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003, or 253-835-7000.) Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 3 Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101140-UP & 16-101141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The applicant has applied for a Process IV Hearing Examiner approval to expand the existing cemetery by approximately 20.8 additional acres. The existing cemetery development is about 8.2 acres in size. The Archdiocese owns approximately 58 acres total, but this project proposes changes only to that 29-acre portion of the site that is west of Hylebos Creek. The project proposes five phases of incremental construction. The proposal is to further develop and expand the existing cemetery with new burial sites, driveways, shrines, columbaria, landscaping, stormwater and utility improvements, and other associated improvements. The site contains several wetlands and Hylebos Creek. Vehicular access to the cemetery is from Pacific Highway South. (Exhibit A, Master Land Use Application), (Exhibit B, Vicinity Map), (Exhibit C, Site Plans), (Exhibit D, J.A. Brennan Project Narrative dated March 3, 2016) II. BACKGROUND & APPLICATION A cemetery within the SE zoning district is a permitted land use subject to a "Process IV" Hearing Examiner's decision pursuant to FWRC 19.195.170 (Exhibit E) as well as environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The Gethsemane Cemetery expansion application was submitted to the city on March 7, 2016. The land use application was deemed complete on April 4, 2016 (ExhibitF, Notice of Application). The applicant is proposing a multi -phase expansion of the cemetery over several years. The cemetery use is a unique land use with unique circumstances in regard to long-term site usage and development conditions. Unlike most typical land uses, there are no buildings proposed with the cemetery expansion. The future improvements are primarily gravesites and the like as well as infrastructure improvements which do not require building permits. Interior roadways and drive aisles will require compliance with adopted stormwater regulations. The project proponent in the Project Narrative (Exhibit D) states on page 5: "... it is imperative that Gethsemane develop pursuant to at least a 50-year phased master plan that is vested to current regulations." John Hempelmann, the applicant's representative has stated the applicant supports a 20-year vesting provision for the multi -phase expansion (Exhibit D-1 Hempelmann memo dated April 18, 2017 and Exhibit D-2 Hempelmann email dated September 7, 2017). In general, vesting of the phased project to current regulations is not permissible under state and local land use regulations. In this report and recommendation, city staff is reviewing the proposal for compliance with current zoning regulations. Regulations regarding stormwater and transportation will be implemented in accord with code requirements at the time of each future phase of the cemetery. Future phases will be subject to all codes in place at the time of application. Further analysis in regard to applicable regulations is addressed in various sections below throughout this report. III. FEDERAL WAYREVISED CODE (FWRC) BASIS FOR APPROVAL Pursuant to FWRC 19.195.170, a cemetery is a permitted use in the Suburban Estate (SE) zoning district, subject to Process IV Review, "Hearing Examiner's Decision" (FWRC 19.70). Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan Page 4 File No. 16-101140-UP & 16-101 141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 IV. GENERAL INFORMATION Location: The subject property is comprised of five existing parcels at 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA; King County Tax Parcel Numbers 322204- 9020, 322204-9025, 218820-4281, 218820-4365, and 218820-4560 (Exhibit B, Vicinity Map) S-T-R: NW and SW '/4 of Section 32, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M., King County, WA Acreage: The existing cemetery development is approximately 8.2 acres in size. The Archdiocese owns approximately 58 acres total, but this project proposes changes only to that 29-acre portion of the site that is west of Hylebos Creek. Applicant Agent: Jim Brennan J.A. Brennan Associates 100 South King Street, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 (206)583-0620 Owners: Richard Peterson, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Site Zoning: SE Suburban Estate (1 Dwelling Unit per 5 acres) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family — Low Density (SFLD) Site Access: Vehicular and pedestrian access is provided from Pacific Highway South (SR-99) Utility District: Lakehaven Utility District Fire District: South King Fire and Rescue V. ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Under SEPA, an Environmental Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued for the proposed action on October 6, 2017 (Exhibit G). This determination was based on review of information in the project file, including the environmental checklist (Exhibit H) and the "Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist" (Exhibit 1), resulting in the conclusion that the proposal would not result in probable significant adverse impacts on the environment provided the mitigation measures are met. The MDNS contains mitigation measures pertaining to wetland buffer mitigation resulting from the proposed stormwater facility maintenance, and a requirement for preparation and approval of an inadvertent discovery plan (IDP) for cultural resources. In accordance with SEPA and FWRC Title 14, "Environmental Protection," all property owners within 300 feet of the site, and all affected agencies and tribes, were notified of the proposed action and the city's environmental determination. In addition, the site was posted and notice placed in the newspaper and on the city's official notice boards. Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 5 Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101140-UP & 16-101141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 The city received written comments on the SEPA determination as follows: October 20, 2017 letter from Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP); October 20, 2017 email from Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Tribe; October 19, 2017 email from Tamela Smart, Lummi Nation; October 18, 2017 email from Kris Miller, Skokomish Tribe; October 11, 2017 email from James Gordon, Cowlitz Tribe; October 5, 2017 email from Diana Noble-Guilliford. (Exhibit J). No appeals were filed by the MDNS appeal deadline of November 10, 2017, and no changes or corrections were made to the city's initial environmental determination. VI. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, AND PUBLIC NOTICE The following departments, agencies, and individuals were advised of this application. A. The Federal Way Community Development Review Committee (CDRC) consisting of the Federal Way Community Development Planning and Building Divisions; Public Works Engineering and Traffic Divisions; Federal Way Police Department; South King Fire and Rescue; and Lakehaven Utility District. CDRC comments have been incorporated into this report where applicable. B. All property owners within 300 feet of the site were mailed the April 14, 2016, Notice of Application (NOA) and notice of the December 4, 2017, Hearing Examiner public hearing. The notices were posted on the site, published in the newspaper, and posted on the city's official notice boards, in accordance with the city's public notice requirements. The city received written comments on the notice of application as follows: May 2, 2016 letter and attachments from Diana Noble-Guilliford (Exhibit K); and email dated. May 4, 2016 and letter dated May 10, 2016 from Bryan Graham (Exhibit L). VII. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT A. Topography — Topography at the Gethsemane Cemetery site is relatively flat in the existing developed cemetery area, and the topography rises mildly to the east and south. B. Vegetation — In addition to the existing building, gravesites, driveways and improvements on the site, the property contains a mix of mature firs, deciduous trees, along with landscape areas throughout the cemetery. Site development will result in removal of some existing trees and vegetation. However, the applicant is required to meet perimeter landscape buffer requirements and the FWRC tree and vegetation retention standards in FWRC 19.120.130. Final review and approval of the tree removal and replacement plan will occur in conjunction with grading and/or engineering plan review. VIII. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS The property is located in a relatively low density suburban neighborhood, with a surrounding mix of primarily single-family residences (Exhibit M— Zoning Map). Current uses of the site and surrounding area are: Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 6 Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101 140-UP & 16-101141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 Direction Zoning Comprehensive Plan Existing Land Use Site SE Suburban Estate Cemetery North SE Suburban Estate Wetland Mitigation Site & (Karileen) RS 35.0 S-F Medium Density Single Family Residences & various unauthorized land uses South RS 35.0 S-F Medium Density Single Family Residences East SE S-F Low Density Family Additional Cemetery Property & I-5 West RS 35.0 SF — Medium Density SF Residential IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES As an element of the SEPA review, the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) requested that a professional archeologist conduct an archeological assessment of the site. In response, the applicant prepared a Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Range Master Plan, dated January 31, 2017 (Exhibit N). In summary, the report and assessment was conducted and provides background and assessment of the potential discovery of significant archeological resources or human remains within the project boundaries. Several Tribes were consulted while preparing the cultural resources assessment. The Cultural Assessment concludes that no significant archeological materials are present in areas where development is proposed. The report recommends continued coordination with the Tribes. The report also includes a recommendation that future ground disturbing activity follow a plan for inadvertent discovery in case cultural resources are unexpectedly discovered. A SEPA mitigation measure includes a condition requiring an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP). The Washington State DAHP has already approved the IDP in a letter dated October 20, 2017 (Exhibit J—pg 1). X. TRANSPORTATION Site access, circulation, and street access have been reviewed by city staff and the fire department, and determined to be at the location and configuration for safe and effective traffic circulation. A. Concurrency and Traffic Generation — The applicant's concurrency application for 20.8 acres of additional cemetery area was approved by the city on July 14, 2016. A Transportation Concurrency Capacity Reserve Certificate was issued by the City dated July 14, 2016 (Exhibit O, Capacity Reserve Certificate). The city's concurrency report found that the proposed cemetery expansion will generate 13 PM peak hour trips and will not degrade intersection operations below the concurrency level of service standard. Traffic Impact Fee may be required based on FWRC standards. Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 7 Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101 140-UP & 16-101 141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 B. Vehicular Access and Circulation —Vehicular and pedestrian access to the project is provided by a driveway from Pacific Highway South. All interior access roadways and sidewalks will be privately owned and maintained. C. Street and Right -of -Way Improvements —The development is not expected to meet the 25 percent threshold criteria for requiring street improvements as identified in the FWRC 19.135.030. As such, no frontage improvements will be required on SR 99. The proposed internal roadways have been reviewed by South King Fire and Rescue and found to meet the department's standards for emergency vehicle access and circulation. D. Parking — Pursuant to FWRC 19.195.170, the required parking rate for a cemetery use is determined on a case by case basis. As there is no increase in the size of the buildings, and the February 25, 2016 Trip Generation Analysis by Heffron (Exhibit Q) indicates there will be a net increase of up to 13 PM peak hour trips over the 50-year phased plan, no additional parking stalls are warranted. On -site parking is currently available in the parking area near the existing cemetery administration building, and parking is available along the on -site driveways throughout the cemetery. Additional parking will be available for future phases along any additional constructed driveways, and this additional area should be adequate. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES A. Utilities — The site is in the Lakehaven Water and Sewer District service area. Lakehaven provides water to the site currently. There are no sewer facilities in the area of the cemetery. The applicant will be required to secure a developer extension agreement if any additional water facilities are required as part of the proposal. B. Storm drainage facilities are privately owned and maintained, as are the interior roads. The project is subject to the requirements of a Full Drainage Review as outlined in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and City Addendum. The project site lies within the Conservation Flow Control and Enhanced Basic Water Quality areas of the City. As outlined in the KCSWDM and approved by the City, the applicant proposes to utilize the `exception' criterion that allows the development to provide water quality treatment under the `Basic' water quality standard. Preliminary storm drainage information for the Gethsemane Cemetery expansion was provided in the applicant's March 2016 and April 2017 (revised) preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR). The TIR was reviewed and approved by the city's Public Works Department for the initial phase(s) of expansion. Stormwater requirements for future phases of development including, but not limited to, treatment, detention and conveyance, shall be designed to comply with the adopted City of Federal Way Stormwater requirements at the time of application for permits. C. Police and Fire Protection —South King Fire and Rescue and the Federal Way Police Department currently provide services to the site. The Fire Department reviewed the project for compliance with requirements for emergency access, hydrant locations, and fire flow, and did not have any comments or requirements for the proposal. The Police Department did not provide any comments on the proposal. Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 8 Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101 140-UP & 16-101 141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 XII. ANALYSIS OF ZONING REGULATIONS The application was reviewed under FWRC Use Zone Chart 19.195.170, "Cemetery." Following is a staff analysis of the proposal under applicable regulations listed in FWRC 19.195.170, "Special Regulations and Notes." Note 1. The City may permit this use only if it meets the following criteria: a. It will not unreasonably interfere with any nearby residential uses. Staff Response: The cemetery expansion will not unreasonably interfere with any nearby residential uses. The cemetery is an existing land use at the subject location, and the city has no history of complaints or land use violations at the cemetery. A cemetery is by nature a passive land use, providing ample open space and landscaping. The future burial plots in phase 3 expansion area along the south side of the site would be no closer than 40 feet from the property line, and the perimeter of the cemetery site would be planted with a minimum width of 10 feet of type III landscape buffer. There are no other existing residential uses along the site perimeter in the proposed expansion area. b. The streets and utilities serving the subject property can support the traffic and demand generated by the proposed use and activity. Staff Response: As a component of the Process IV application, the applicant was required to undergo traffic concurrency analysis pursuant to the state Growth Management Act; goals and policies of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan; and FWRC Chapter 19.90, "Transportation Concurrency Management." A traffic study was submitted and reviewed by the Public Works Traffic Division. Based on the submitted report, the development is expected to generate approximately 13 trips during the Weekday PM peak period. Concurrency analysis of the vehicular trips generated by the project shows that no intersection will be degraded below the city's adopted level of service standard. A Capacity Reserve Certificate (CRC) was issued by the Public Works Department on July 14, 2016. A transportation impact fee is required pursuant to FWRC Chapter 19.91, "Transportation Impact Fees." The development is not expected to meet the 25 percent threshold criteria for requiring street improvements as identified in the FWRC 19.135.030. As such, no frontage improvements will be required on SR 99. c. Any undesirable effects of impacts from this use are clearly outweighed by its benefits. Staff Response: The proposed cemetery expansion meets this special regulation. The existing cemetery use and proposed expansion provide significant benefits to the public as documented in the applicant's project narrative (Exhibit D). No significant adverse environmental impacts from the proposal are expected, provided conditions of the SEPA determination and recommended condition of Process IV approval are implemented. As previously stated, a cemetery is a somewhat passive land use with Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 9 Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101140-UP & 16-101141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 significant open spaces. Compliance with applicable local, state and federal regulations will ensure the proposal adequately mitigates potential impacts. d. The city may impose limitations to reduce or eliminate any undesirable effects or impacts of this proposed development. This may include but is not limited to limiting the hours of operation of the uses and facilities on the subject property. Staff Response: No limitations on operation procedures are warranted, as stated in the applicant's narrative (Exhibit D), hours of operation and visitation hours are not expected to change from current practices. XIII. CRITICAL AREAS — WETLANDS & STREAM The application materials include a Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan dated January 27, 2017 by Otak Inc. (Exhibit R), and an August 18, 2017 Addendum to Wetland and Stream report by Otak (Exhibit S). Perteet, working as the City's wetland consultant, provided written reviews of the wetland report in letters dated March 24, 2017 (Exhibit T) and September 26, 2017 (Exhibit U). The subject property has several wetlands on site, and Hylebos Creek runs north -south through the property. In summary, the proposed development meets the required buffer widths for all of the wetlands and stream on site with the exception of wetland number 1, where the applicant is requesting a 25 percent wetland buffer reduction with enhancement. 1. Wetland number 1 at the north side of the property is discussed in section XIV below. The applicant is requesting a 25 percent wetland buffer reduction with buffer enhancement for this wetland. 2. Wetland number 2 is along the west property limits. Wetland number 2 is two small (connected) wetlands and are not regulated by FWRC as they are below the minimum size for regulation. 3. Wetland number 3 is at the southwest corner of the site and is a category III wetland with a 60-foot minimum required buffer. The site plan shows compliance with the minimum 60-foot buffer requirement for this wetland. 4. Wetlands numbers 4, 5, and 7-13 are all associated with Hylebos Creek and all have a 165- foot buffer under FWRC requirements. The site plan shows compliance with the minimum 165-foot buffer requirement for all of these wetlands, and the minimum 100-foot buffer from Hylebos Creek. 5. Wetland number 6 is near the southeast portion of the site and is a category II wetland with a 165-foot buffer. The site plan shows compliance with the minimum 165-foot buffer requirement for new improvements for this wetland. There is an existing cemetery storm drainage facility within the outer portion of wetland number 6 buffer and it was constructed in approximately 1972. The applicant is proposing some repurposing, repair and maintenance of this existing storm drainage facility. The Director of Community Development issued a critical area exemption approval on November 15, 2017, for the repair and maintenance of the storm drainage facility (Exhibit V). 6. Wetland number 14 is near the southeast corner of the site and is a category III wetland with a 60-foot minimum required buffer. The site plan shows compliance with the minimum 60- foot buffer requirement for this wetland. Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 10 Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101140-UP & 16-101141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 XIV. WETLAND BUFFER REDUCTION WITH ENHANCEMENT REQUEST The applicant has requested to reduce the width of wetland buffer of wetland number 1 by 25 percent (41-foot reduction) and enhance a portion of the wetland buffer number 1. The proposed wetland buffer reduction is permitted subject to Process III Director Review pursuant to FWRC 19.145.440(6). The 25 percent wetland buffer reduction results in a wetland buffer width of 124 feet, reduced from 165 feet. FWRC 19.70.010 states in part: "If the development, use or activity that requires approval through process II or III is part of a proposal that also requires approval through process IV, the entire proposal will be decided upon using process IV, if the director determines that will result in more efficient decision making." Therefore, pursuant to FWRC 19.70.010, the proposed 25 percent wetland buffer reduction with buffer enhancement request is being reviewed and decided upon as an element of this Process IV application and review. The applicant has provided responses to the decisional criteria of FWRC 19.145.440(6) in their January 27, 2017 report. The City's consulting wetland biologist Perteet, reviewed the proposed Otak Inc. wetland buffer reduction with buffer enhancement, and in a memo dated March 24, 2017 Perteet (Exhibit T) concluded the proposed buffer reduction with enhancement meets FWRC 19.145.440(6). FWRC 19.145.440(6) Buffer reduction with enhancement. Buffers may be reduced by up to 25 percent on a case -by -case basis if the project includes a buffer enhancement plan that clearly substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve and provide additional protection of wetland functions and values. Buffer reductions may not be used in combination with buffer averaging.. 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. The city will review and decide upon buffer reductions using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; Staff Response: The proposed 25 percent buffer reduction with buffer enhancement will not adversely affect water quality as discussed in the January 27, 2017, Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan by Otak Inc. section 4.2.2. (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland or buffer wildlife habitat; Staff Response: The proposed 25 percent buffer reduction with buffer enhancement will not adversely affect wildlife habitat as discussed in the January 27, 2017, Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan by Otak Inc. section 4.2.2. Retention of 124 feet of buffer, coupled with enhancement in the form of native plant species planting and non-native invasive removal, is expected to improve wildlife habitat. (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; Staff Response: The proposed 25 percent buffer reduction with buffer enhancement will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention as discussed in the January 27, 2017, Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan by Otak Inc. section 4.2.2. In Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 1 1 Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101140-UP & 16-101 141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 summary, existing drainage patterns are not anticipated to be significantly or adversely altered as a result of the proposed wetland buffer reduction and mitigation enhancement. (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; Staff Response: The proposed 25 percent buffer reduction with buffer enhancement will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create erosion hazards as discussed in the January 27, 2017, Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan by Otak Inc. section 4.2.2. In summary, the portion of the existing buffer proposed for reduction will eventually be utilized for future grave and internment sites, and the remaining buffer will be enhanced. Erosion control measures will be required in accordance with the King County Surface Water Manual standards as adopted by the City and in accord with Best Management Practices. (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property or the city as a whole; and Staff Response: The proposed 25 percent buffer reduction with buffer enhancement will not be detrimental to any other property or the city as a whole as discussed in the January 27, 2017, Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan by Otak Inc. section 4.2.2. The existing buffer in this vicinity is currently degraded, and therefore qualifies for potential 25 percent reduction with enhancement. The resulting buffer will be 124 feet in width and will be enhanced. Reduction of the buffer in this location and circumstance will not be detrimental to any other property or the city as a whole. ()9 All exposed areas are stabilized with native vegetation, as appropriate. Staff Response: Native vegetation will be installed for all exposed areas, per the final mitigation plan and planting plan associated with the cemetery master plan. Review and approval of the final mitigation plan will be required by the City in conjunction with site development and grading and infrastructure permit review. XV. ANALYSIS OF PROCESS IV DECISION CRITERIA Pursuant to FWRC 19.70.150, the Hearing Examiner shall issue a written decision after considering all of the information and comments submitted on the application; shall use the criteria listed in the provision of this chapter describing the requested decision in deciding upon the application; and may approve the application only if it meets the Process IV decision criteria listed in FWRC 19.70.150(3)(a) through (f). Following are the Process IV decision criteria and staff responses. a) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff Response: The proposed cemetery use is by nature a low intensity land use with significant open spaces and landscaping. As proposed and conditioned, the application is consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) designation of Single Family - Low Density Residential and associated land uses, and is consistent with the following specific goals and policies of the FWCP: LUP 14 Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses. Staff Comment: The proposed expansion will not adversely impact nearby residences, as the site will be buffered by landscaping and/or wetland and wetland buffers. Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 12 Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101140-UP & 16-101141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 LUP 68 Zoning should be compatible with and conducive to continued preservation of historic neighborhoods and properties. Staff Comment: The cemetery use is a low intensity land use, and the project has been evaluated for cultural and archeological resources. An inadvertent discovery plan will be implemented in regard to the discovery of any archeological or cultural resources. NEP1 Protect and restore environmental quality through implementation of land use plans, surface water management plans and programs, comprehensive park plans, and development review. Staff Comment: The process IV and full engineering plan review, and wetland plan review will ensure conformance with all applicable codes and regulations in regard to wetlands, streams and stormwater runoff. NEP3 Plant suitable native trees and vegetation within degraded stream, wetlands, lake buffers, and steep slopes. Staff Comment: The proposed wetland buffer reduction also requires enhancement of the remaining wetland buffer. The enhanced buffer will require planting of appropriate trees, shrubs and groundcover. NEP6 Mitigation sequencing steps, which begin with avoiding impacts altogether by not taking certain action or parts of an action, should be applied to all projects where impacts to environmentally critical areas are proposed. Staff Comment: Mitigation sequencing has been implemented and the applicant has avoided wetland impacts, and minimized buffer impacts. Only one wetland buffer will be reduced, and this buffer reduction will include enhancement of the remaining disturbed wetland buffer area. NEG2 Balance the protection of environmentally critical areas with the rights of property owners. Staff Comment: The development expands the primary cemetery use, and provides protection of critical areas. NEP46 Impacts to wetlands should be limited. All efforts should be made to use the following mitigation sequencing approach: avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce over time, compensate, and monitor. Staff Comment: Mitigation sequencing has been implemented and the applicant has avoided wetland impacts, and minimized buffer impacts. Only one wetland buffer will be reduced, and this buffer reduction will include enhancement of the remaining disturbed wetland buffer area. Monitoring of wetland mitigation areas is required by FWRC and will be implemented in the final wetland plan. b) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title and all other applicable laws. Staff Response: Development of the subject property is required to comply with all applicable provisions of FWRC Title 19, "Zoning"; Title 16, "Surface and Stormwater Management"; Title 14, "Environmental Policy"; and all other applicable codes, policies, and regulations, and previous SEPA Determination issued by the Director of Community Development. The city's Community Development Review Committee (CDRC) has reviewed the proposal and found it to be in compliance with applicable codes, policies, and Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 13 Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101 140-UP & 16-101141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 regulations. Development of the site in accordance with these requirements and the recommended conditions of approval will ensure compliance with all applicable codes, policies, and regulations. c) It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff Response: This criterion has been met. Development of the project as proposed and as conditioned, in accordance with all applicable codes, policies, and regulations, will ensure protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. d) The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand for the proposal. Staff Response: This criterion has been met. Urban services are available to the site, and the site has direct access to Pacific Highway South. All interior driveways and drive aisles are private. e) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration. Staff Response: This criterion has been met. Vehicular access to the site is provided via an existing private access driveway off SR 99 (Pacific Highway South). The Federal Way Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the location of the existing access location and it meets applicable sight distance and spacing requirements. Access points have been determined to be at the optimal location and configuration based on city staff review considering applicable code requirements, and by South King Fire and Rescue considering emergency access requirements. f) Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and offsite, are adequately mitigated. Staff Response: This criterion has been met. As a component of the Process IV application, the applicant was required to undergo traffic concurrency analysis pursuant to the state Growth Management Act; goals and policies of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan; and FWRC Chapter 19.90, "Transportation Concurrency Management." A traffic study was submitted and reviewed by the Public Works Traffic Division. Based on the submitted report, the development is expected to generate approximately 13 trips during the Weekday PM peak period. Concurrency analysis of the vehicular trips generated by the project shows that no intersection will be degraded below the city's adopted level of service standard. A Capacity Reserve Certificate (CRC) was issued by the Public Works Department on July 14, 2016. A transportation impact fee is required pursuant to FWRC Chapter 19.91, "Transportation Impact Fees." The development is not expected to meet the 25 percent threshold criteria for requiring street improvements as identified in FWRC 19.135.030. As such, no frontage improvements will be required on SR 99. Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 14 Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101140-UP & 16-101141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 XVI. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION A. Findings of Fact Based on an analysis of the proposal, the environmental record, and related decision criteria, the Department of Community Development finds that: 1) The Process IV application for Gethsemane Cemetery Expansion requests Hearing Examiner approval for a 20.8-acre expansion of the cemetery to be built and implemented over five phases of incremental construction. The proposal is to further develop and expand the existing cemetery with new burial sites, driveways, shrines, columbaria, landscaping, stormwater and utility improvements, and other associated improvements. The site contains several wetlands and Hylebos Creek. 2) The land use application was deemed complete on April 4, 2016. 3) The site is located within the Low Density Residential designation of the FWCP and is zoned Suburban Estate (SE) with a minimum lot size of five acres. The proposed cemetery use is consistent with the FWCP and associated applicable policies. FWRC 19.195.10 allows a cemetery use within the SE zoning district subject to Process IV approval by the Hearing Examiner, following a public hearing. 4) All appropriate public notices were delivered in accordance with the requirements of the FWRC. Two public comments on the Notice of Application were received by the city. 5) Pursuant to SEPA, RCW 43.21C, the Director of Community Development issued an Environmental Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on October 6, 2017. Affected agencies, tribes, and the public were offered the opportunity to comment on and/or appeal the determination. Six parties commented on the MDNS to the City. No appeals of the SEPA determination were submitted by the appeal deadline of November 10, 2017. 6) The subject property contains several regulated wetlands and Hylebos Creek runs through the property in a north — south direction. Perteet, working as the City's wetland consultant provided written reviews of the applicant's wetland reports in letters dated March 24, 2017 (Exhibit T) and September 26, 2017 (Exhibit U). Recommendations for compliance with FWRC requirements in the Perteet reviews shall be implemented in the final wetland mitigation plans. 7) The Director of Community Development issued a critical area exemption approval on November 15, 2017, for the repair and maintenance of the existing storm drainage facility that is located within the outer portion of the buffer of wetland number 6 in accord with FWRC 19.145.110(2). 8) The proposal meets the criteria in FWRC 19.145.40(6) for 25 percent wetland buffer reduction with buffer enhancement for wetland number 1, as detailed in section XIV above. 9) With the exception of the reduced wetland buffer with buffer enhancement for wetland number 1, the improvements shown on the site plan meet all the minimum wetland and stream buffer width requirements of the FWRC. City review and approval of the final Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 15 Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101140-UP & 16-101141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 wetland mitigation plan in accordance with FWRC requirements shall be conducted in conjunction with review and approval of a grading permit and/or engineering plan for the first phase of site improvements. 10) Overall site design retains and incorporates trees within wetlands, buffers and perimeter landscape areas. Additional trees and landscaping will be installed to complement the existing vegetation, and to meet applicable FWRC regulations on tree retention and replacement, and landscaping requirements of the FWRC. Final review and approval of a landscape plan will occur in conjunction with review of a grading and/or engineering permit. 11) Preliminary storm drainage information for the Gethsemane Cemetery expansion was provided in the applicant's March 2016 and April 2017 (revised) preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR). The TIR was reviewed and approved by the city's Public Works Department for the initial phase(s) of expansion. Storm drainage facilities are privately owned and maintained, as are the interior roads. The project is subject to the requirements of a Full Drainage Review as outlined in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and City Addendum. The project site lies within the Conservation Flow Control and Enhanced Basic Water Quality areas of the City. As outlined in the KCSWDM and approved by the City, the applicant proposes to utilize the `exception' criterion that allows the development to provide water quality treatment under the `Basic' water quality standard. Stormwater requirements for future phases of development, including but not limited to treatment, detention and conveyance, shall be designed to comply with the adopted City of Federal Way Stormwater requirements at the time of application for construction permits. 12) Access to the site is provided from Pacific Highway South at an existing driveway. The City Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the existing access location. All interior roads and driveways will be privately owned and maintained. The development is not expected to meet the 25 percent threshold criteria for requiring street improvements as identified in the FWRC 19.135.030. As such, no frontage improvements will be required on SR 99. 13) The applicant's transportation concurrency application for a 20.8-acre expansion of the cemetery was approved by the Federal Way Public Works Department on July 14, 2016. The city's concurrency report found that the proposed cemetery expansion will generate 13 new PM peak hour trips and will not degrade intersection operations below the concurrency level of service standard. Based on the trip generation in the Capacity Reserve Certificate, the proposal is subject to a traffic impact fee at the time the applicable grading and/or engineering permits are issued as required by the FWRC. 14) Public services and utilities, including police and fire protection, and water service, are available and are provided to the site. Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 16 Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101140-UP & 16-101141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 15) The project embodies good design principles that will be compatible with the surrounding area. As proposed and as conditioned, the project is consistent with the existing cemetery site design and is harmonious with the surrounding area and environment. 16) The applicant in their March 3, 2016, Project Narrative requested 50-year project vesting. The applicant representative, John Hempelmann provided an April 18, 2017, memo (Exhibit W) regarding Long Term Phased Development and Vesting. Mr. Hempelmann also provided a September 7, 2017, e-mail to the City (Exhibit X) identifying that the applicant supports a 20-year vesting for the multiple phases of the cemetery master plan. 17) A cemetery is a unique land use and has specific needs and requirements for future planning and expansion. In regard to the duration of a Process IV approval, FWRC 19.15.100 states: Lapse gal'erpproiwl — Generally. (2) Use process II, III, and IV. The applicant must substantially complete construction for the development activity, use of land, or other actions approved and complete the applicable conditions listed in the use process II, III, and IV decision within five years after the final decision of the city on the matter, or the decision becomes void. If a land use petition is filed under Chapter 36.70C. RCW in King County superior court, the time limits of this section are automatically extended by the length of time between the commencement and final termination of that litigation. If the development activity, use of land, or other action approved under this chapter includes phased construction, the time limits of this section may be extended in the decision on the application, to allow for completion of subsequent phases. For this unique land use, a 20-year timeframe for building out of a multi -phase expansion is warranted to accommodate the nature of the cemetery use, and its unique operations and sales structures. However, 20 years is not too long a duration to accommodate and address future needs and conditions in the community and cemetery operations. 18) A 20-year timeframe for the build out of the site plan under the Process IV application does not vest the future phased improvements to current codes. The Process IV site plan would approve the general layout and spatial improvements of the cemetery facility shown on the approved site plan through the 20-year phased improvement program. Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.420.(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. As individual phases are constructed, all new improvements including but not limited to: stormwater treatment, detention and conveyance; building improvements; and traffic and transportation would be subject to review and approval to codes in place at the time of each future phase. 19) The proposal is consistent with the Cemetery land use zone chart special regulations and notes in FWRC 19.195.170 as detailed in section XII above. Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 17 Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101140-UP & 16-101141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 20) Development of the site as proposed and conditioned and subject to all applicable development codes and regulations during engineering plan review, will ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are protected. 21) The proposal is consistent with Hearing Examiner Process IV decisional criteria required under FWRC 19.70.150 as detailed in section XV above. B. Conclusion The proposed Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan expansion will comply with all applicable regulations of the FWRC, and with the goals and objectives of the FWCP, provided that all recommended conditions of approval are met. XVII. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the application be approved as proposed, subject to the following condition: • The Process IV site plan shall be valid for a period of up to twenty years from the date of approval per FWRC 19.15.100, with five phases of incremental development. Transmitted to the parties listed hereafter: Federal Way Hearing Examiner Richard Peterson Jim Brennan, JA Brennan John Hempelmann, Cairncross & Hempelmann Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 18 Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan File No. 16-101140-UP & 16-101141-SE/Doc. I.D. 76909 MEMORANDUM CITY OF Federal Way Community Development Department CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL DATE: -1, TO: Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer FROM: Jim Harris, Planning FILE NUMBER(s): 16-101140-00-UP & 16-101141-00-SE PROJECT NAME: GETHSEMANE CEMETERY PROJECT ADDRESS: 37500 PACIFIC HWY S PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Cemetery Master Plan with Phasing LAND USE PERMITS: Use Process IV, SEPA PROJECT CONTACT: CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF SEATTLE RICHARD PETERSON 710 9TH AVE SEATTLE, WA 98104 MATERIALS SUBMITTED: Revised Plan Set and Wetland and Stream Delineation report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan, dated received Feb 1, 2017. I think an update on storm water consultant, and response to your April 2016 comments will be coming in the future (hopefully soon) from applicant. Kevin: Take a look at plans and the wetland report... The section I tagged about the hole / storm pond that is in the wetland buffer. We are going to need to get our arms around this component of the proposal. How much grading - modification of the hole /pond will be occurring? Does PW consider that a legal pond? I forwarded you a copy of the 1972 King County approved plans for the pond.... But what does this all mean? Obviously it doesn't comply with current standards, and our consultant will be noting that it really is currently being used as stormwater, and it has not been maintained for many years. cca�ia scar cca =.L-• �aci maw m cUa N U L m C C N •O �O U C >> E a0i L m O Oa U d L O a> C O L aE c�av X n m.= ai � a 2 g o ccc R+L+ p>Er i c o a E C C O acD .L-- Q --a? E r O C i� apJ .-- =1N w N E ` O y +�+O 6) C �N _, c 2-9 EQa _ a� ua o w a> o coo O z - E-L oar—.o c¢ c o _o c o c c�z E a� a ca a> c� c in p ':E E w — �co U a�� w aE'a w = ate' -0 a ca ENUcm +U+ O tca L d Q C Q C' > 43 C E w � O c tca �' d U m L C U d U m ^m - z oa ca � c�a p' =O y a� _c> > _ o 0o H co awiti o o E j a o -' o=W� N EL c a p�LL' r — �"' -O to _ L O N a.— a E�Eco co o>o 0o a ia0+ o�a�o wma� o°J E 00pcL� a� c� ��c=EaaciQc. } c�c•Aoo=�--� p c `a CDLa'-, c f'a.- �.—c'rt cc.5Q aim �"'� w 3r a� c c °J a a� o0 Ea O c �a E�co 13 -O r� E��'— E= a ot� occQa�w�p'Ec>O �Qc`a+=>�>`a��c�a yE�EoccN c�ca�•�ca=�-Ea� oc»> a c=asc oc�E—o`ca>?T a� a> w� c+ w w a� wLL a > a>� E �Qa O, H a] � N d U— .a " C-0 a;s ca LL3 co N N pJ +-' w C L� C C L $ O C N w w pJ O L i C pwj O) L C � ca O _ ca .-+ H C Z c6 ao H tCo w = a» -- �Lw •cQa Ocai CE dcaaai my c E- cricV oca LOUEU w c3WU W c .E I ¢ HU O N O ¢O `COCL 7 Q N E w> O O >vw c ClEU r- > c N cl O u• a C O 3 L 3 � y ca L c y Y O - E faa >, pJ L pJ _O -' R1 L iJ R7 N U V O C O W Q U Td EFz a O EaO pp O w w U O E Eca E 7 LLLn ZZ aaaao +-r Z•OU N>i�E xO :� d O c Oa E U> P > O_ A N a� y C a> E U Z m-o> a»,_R H lL O .°- - `o ti L a w L O a.-wcE-c� O a. w X -- .— (0 p, v W LL C w ¢ Na ca E c co •� O�a"i oo�E �E,- co C W U • V E E °� m i ca ti >.p V C[ a.— C V• U> N O C W U , C 2 .— O` 5v8"~Lc> p�,33a�i°JCQm�o L a +-1 a C ai -0 •— O N C� U O. m ._ E W m of W Q U> Co .— E CL y 0 Mn w d` O uoi > O UJ V O fo EO i+ X C X w d O .- 6J w R w a O J UJ c J Cp - b O Orb y Chip 'C 0 O O cn 00 Cd � ... s. a) O �+ 0 cn Pro u � a) OOc�.DC' p^cl I., u 4- Q LZo ° aoct an w� W� w �•0�.� O O O Z cC O N b � . V- O 0 N 4- cd V¢ 0 N 0 cn� 4-4 � G� z .� 4 a O U b�Jp O 4° b 4� 0 o \p U O � U O O � O N N 6r3 4-4 ¢, cN O H cn /Vn rrr � �\t;ems• •n• '�f�fJ • n C[j bA 'd 0 � � O .� o 64 >I o N � U O C O }, a/ O bA z --- ,> to 4 n]IOU 9 aa� L H3: > a ti c c a" n� Cw o m E me c O o- R.-- pa > L E.o ac°o mCOLXmy�c'>,ic coU�L �`° > c > do0'[ coo 3� x� W - W c`a�yw d aam�Lw E� Z r--:L U2CcEcm m a O y O d zOoCT-U c -oi_ >3wn Ccm`a O Nc0Cj n C 2 c O y E U Da m O to wv V mN mot °'� E E m `° Eo °' � E °�" to ` c Et L m� cm w ce :c nEc>>m.-�oca�mm ` E N O) T cC0 •E y C C O m O m N Q d N to - E X` >� E nm>mm> _nW �> x� d C °' E'-= cna.-.¢ cw� m E c m o �� C G>i >;-:tt O"cO ,nw _0 aE c aE c� O Oap � °c•' m m 2 j ca- E - O cc H d O� c m m" m - o w m >, a m o m_ W m Y E io T� •o .`° c c - E 3 Y `> >_ O :o � n:=. 0 CO O o d O s f0 C O +--� O` LO U cC c0 "y C O_ +-� to _= M c i C) O m Ot d- N Z d= m O n m E _ y y ca _ o c y ca` m m a¢ 12 w c o oo > o M 3� QL � o aii� E waoo c c oL� c- o cc'o c m c arm ca <nr o m� m m Em m O E�'ia E o 0 'cc c v � E a O o moi� C, c E c `m a � m c W:F E E c ->.a` E a�i cN V l tO N N p y-0 >._ L r_ C >, 2 Q U y c C o"> ER E LL 10 is � «. E o, 3 ,L.., o ff 'w- m ca p ca c° 2� n-- OJ 2 m 0 m� O cV a > MCD c U m -o E'E a�0"mL E ca' w on Lr O C lL fO C Y E U�J C 3 OI GL >� TL .E U` tC m E O N O C C O_ m t0 LL m t0 C C C N L }, n= n m ?i m •_-+ L N O> Y GJ L.L L O C (n C C Cd p C, - U y� EN�m m cr..e� coi a Umm aim-c OTC c`d.� aiO Oar +m. oQO y �•�.+" cmi�Qa cz E c `m =m:.� m E Eia�H > min R�,r-• cp m N N a w w to - w' w m � m .� -W m m m c v n E� E L y a E n` u E E N c> Z m c`o w ca 0 X O+� m �' cm.� _ E cc3 c m E O c ca E y m >_ n m N= - o- m Q O L.L L d m •a-+O- O n rmn ++'~ y p� C E: ¢ C N O "QN of C 2 rCo o•`� o E ca off-- ca on«: w n•nL'= a>Co c� Ec000¢r •E V nr? =cUQoo ycQ on o.x ti'0Q2 -0 d N+�•�-aEa�U Jwdovn �2.naoE3: GEL U � �� a Mti ara ap >. O m .a T= O n O _ `n� m caa � U O °O L a¢ N JL d �.' O U~ •-+ m fC d Ol C m lfJ 0-0 L C N 0 0 0 j a>i U `n 0^ p 3 ca c 2 h Cn N V 7 O m N}N, O .L-L N U c`v O` w Q.- E U }, U y ` E C C c a �V c-p_E �Lw =o. _owmig m C- ro OEw 14j Z N iD m 'd n'- E .-. n m x w +. rn 3 •� d c`a c 'a. -- c a C., ^> 3 v2LL E m` dQ mF y °�- ti ca �a� 2 m j E O V .c w E o >c E�'�-•`-' cnmLa<cYoc�'cL�o L v au, -� w~ - G O a� LLa• ac» a.- a Uf rn am>- o a Q� y E a`� v c a Q o _ v awz w coEN >, UOJ fE0 O m ai «o N�j n� cRi p w 2 v m c OC CL Q=vJU V N t x cd m m !=� is O aci a c M '• am., O O¢ ,nor c� � aci ~ 01 .y c a`yi ` a O d d c_i CDca cd c O Q COO •� � O N y r r r Z m e `> v c m •- U o a� U c ai O r, V w V -- U' C OJ Q .Q Q m t0 >�= C L C N V >: a� Y a a Y Q Y r r . om Od o �xLmaoc.«..wt'=.a°'--pt° a,� �, o_ao v cb�nco z2�waoF2mF-�an000+ 3�Ecnw�¢ov ¢QZoC3rrr i,•i b cdF-4 O cn cad _ w O cn Q.QwoCJ Z a a� aon cd cd cd O N U 'd �0-4 -C�.��o�o��� 'dU 0 POO cdbb -�0Q,C3 ED V � O 64 O 04 o ° 0 ���on A.4.dao4-4 Z� � (Aa, (1,r°a 404 0 �°� w� Wcn W E-� 0-4 1=14 p ew •d U ��0� ��o 3.�4, o 'Cl �.� o m U 0 Uw SH ,-b W Cj I 0 >'z w 0 b� w� B � N 0 ° •fib :o � buo.n Kati Jim Harris From: Mark Orthmann Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 12:51 PM To: 'jhempelmann@cairncross.com' Cc: Jim Harris; Robert Hansen; 'Nicole De Leon' Subject: Gethsemane Cemetery Follow Up Good Afternoon John, City staff discussed the issues raised during our phone call yesterday and the city maintains the position set forth in the staff report. Due to the cemetery's needs, the city supports a 20-year timeframe for building out the different phases of the project; however, the Process IV approval will not vest the application beyond the standard five-year period under FWRC 19.15.100 (and as allowed by state law). As mentioned in the staff report, the city also supports the general layout and spatial improvements shown on the site plan for the 20-year timeframe, and all wetland and wetland buffer boundaries will be honored per FWRC 19.145.420(7). I recognize that this came as a surprise to you and understand your frustration. See you next week. Best, Mark D. Orthmann Deputy City Attorney City of Federal Way (253) 835-2571 mark.orthmann@citvofFederalway.com CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL DATE: 3-8-16 TO: E.J. Walsh, Development Services Manager Peter Lawrence, Plans Examiner Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District Vince Faranda, South King Fire & Rescue Lindsey Sperry, Public Safety Officer Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer FROM: Stacey Welsh, Planning FOR DRC MTG. ON: 3-24-16 FILE NUMBER(s): 16-101140-00-UP & 16-101141-00-SE RELATED FILE NOS.: 15-103536-00-PC, 15-104794-00-AD, 16-101142-00-CN PROJECT NAME: GETHSEMANE CEMETERY PROJECT ADDRESS: 37500 PACIFIC HWY S ZONING DISTRICT: SE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Cemetery Master Plan with Phasing LAND USE PERMITS: Use Process IV, SEPA PROJECT CONTACT: CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF SEATTLE RICHARD PETERSON 710 9T11 AVE SEATTLE, WA 98104 MATERIALS SUBMITTED: Master Land Use Application Project Narrative Title Report Site Photos SEPA Checklist Plans: site plan, civil, landscaping, elevation TIR Trip Generation Analysis Critical Areas Report Geotechnical Report Wetland & Stream Report CPTED Checklist Design Narrative CD w/ all docs and reports in color CIT Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: fA Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use'Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Pelmit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was 0 mailed 0 faxed f(e-mailed and/or 0 posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2015. Project Name �� Ct M File Number(s) . _ �(�) b �) y Signature Date V - / Y --/ 6 K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Lost printed 1 /8/2015 10:07:00 AM Tamara Fix From: Jennifer Anderson <jnderson@fedwaymirror.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:39 AM To: Tamara Fix Subject: Re: Gethsemane Legal Notice Got it, thanks! Jennifer Anderson Advertising Sales Consultant Direct: 253-946-2890 Internal: 35602 Fax: 253-925-5750 31919 1st Ave S, Ste 101, Federal Way, WA 98003 [Rl- Sound Publishing Map Print Rates Online Rates Media" Sound Info On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Tamara Fix <T'amara.Fixt cityoffederalway.com> wrote: Please publish the following legal notice (Gethsemane NOA, 16-101141) in Friday's (4-15-16) issue. Please confirm and issue an affidavit of publication. Thanks! CITY or Aky Federal Way NOTICE OF MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION I Project Name: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Project Description: Proposed cemetery expansion into 20.8 additional acres over 50 years. The existing cemetery development is about 8.2 acres. The total cemetery size after 50 years would be approximately 28 acres. The Archdiocese owns approximately 58 acres, but this project proposes changes only to the west portion of the (58-acre) site. The project proposes five phases of incremental construction over 50 years. The timing and exact details of the phases will be determined by future circumstances. Applicant: Richard Peterson, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Project Location: 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA Date Application Received: March 7, 2016 Date Determined Complete: April 4, 2016 Date of Notice of Application: April 15, 2016 Comment Due Date: May 2, 2016 Requested Decision and Other Permits Included with this Application: Use Process IV (File 16-101140- UP); Environmental Determination (File 16-101141-SE); and Transportation Concurrency (File 16-101142- CN). The city will use Process IV `Hearing Examiner's Decision' to review and decide upon the Cemetery use and Master Plan. Required Studies: Preliminary Stormwater Technical Information Report, Environmentally Critical Area Report - Stream and Wetland Delineations. Development Regulations Used for Project Mitigation: Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, "Environmental Policy," Title 16 "Surface Water Management," and Title 19 "Zoning and Development Code." Public Comments & Appeals: The initial public comment and notice period ends May 2, 2016. However, any person may submit written comments to the Hearing Examiner by delivering these comments to the Department of Community Development prior to the public hearing date (which has yet to be determined) or by giving these directly to the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing. Only the applicant, persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner, or persons who specifically request a copy of the written decision may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. Details of appeal procedures for the requested land use decision will be included with the written decision. Availability of File: The official project file and environmental documents are available for public review during normal business hours at the Department of Community Development (33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003). City Staff Contact: Jim Harris — Planner; jim.harris(a cityoffederalway.coni, or 253-835-2652; between 8:00 AM - 1:00 PM on Mon, Tues, & Thur. Call and leave a message or email to arrange to discuss proposal at other times. Published in the Federal Way Mirror April 15, 2016. Tamara Fix Administrative Assistant Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2602 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.cityoffedera way.com 1�k CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Project Description: Proposed cemetery expansion into 20.8 additional acres over 50 years. The existing cemetery development is about 8.2 acres. The total cemetery size after 50 years would be approximately 28 acres. The Archdiocese owns approximately 58 acres, but this project proposes changes only to the west portion of the (58-acre) site. The project proposes five phases of incremental construction over 50 years. The timing and exact details of the phases will be determined by future circumstances. Applicant: Richard Peterson, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Project Location: 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA Date Application Received: March 7, 2016 Date Determined Complete: April 4, 2016 Date of Notice of Application: April 15, 2016 Comment Due Date: May 2, 2016 Requested Decision and Other Permits Included with this Application: Use Process IV (File 16- 101 140-UP); Environmental Determination (File 16-101 141-SE); and Transportation Concurrency (File 16-101142-CN). The city will use Process IV `Hearing Examiner's Decision' to review and decide upon the Cemetery use and Master Plan. Required Studies: Preliminary Stormwater Technical Infonnation Report, Environmentally Critical Area Report - Stream and Wetland Delineations. Development Regulations Used for Project Mitigation: Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, "Environmental Policy," Title 16 "Surface Water Management," and Title 19 "Zoning and Development Code." Public Comments & Appeals: The initial public comment and notice period ends May 2, 2016. However, any person may submit written comments to the Hearing Examiner by delivering these comments to the Department of Community Development prior to the public hearing date (which has yet to be determined) or by giving these directly to the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing. Only the applicant, persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner, or persons who specifically request a copy of the written decision may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. Details of appeal procedures for the requested land use decision will be included with the written decision. Availability of File: The official project file and environmental documents are available for public review during normal business hours at the Department of Community Development (33325 8t" Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003). City Staff Contact: Jim Harris — Planner; jim.harrss)cityoffederalway.cofti, or 253-835-2652; between 8:00 AM - 1:00 PM on Mon, Tues, & Thur. Call and leave a message or email to arrange to discuss proposal at other times. Published in the Federal Way Mirror April 15, 2016. Doc I D TIM 2016 City of Gethsemane Cemetary -Master Plan Map Date ApdI Way City of Federal Way 33325 BIh Ave S 37600 Pacific Hwy S. Federal Way 0098003 Federal Way www cityofiederalway corn 7 f S 3 T� S S 3ifi ST Gethsemane Cemetary I S 38 S ck4 i r � { (JOHNSON RD NE) i` CD cri f i Puget - — Federal CH Si BIRCH ST � Way Z> Legend CITY OF Way Subject Site � -•�•-y 0 " 250 500 1,000 Federal -® -A Federal Way City Limits Feet This map is intended For use as a graphical fepreserxarlon onh, The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. LS%6m� OF Vkft%%050� Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South RECEIVED BY Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC 253-8352607; Fax 253-835-2609 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT wwwcityoffederalwayxoin APR 14 2016 SIGN INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE Project Name: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Project File No: 16 101141 00—SE and 1 6-1 01 1 40—IJP Installed By: emet ry Staff Date of Installation: April 14, 2016 Location of Installation: sin #I-- North side of Cemetery entrance #2 - Corner of S. 376th St and 8th Ave. S I hereby testify that the sign installed fully complies with the installation standards of the Department of Community Development Service's "Instructions for Obtaining & Posting Public Notification Signs" and that the sign will be maintained until a final decision is issued on the land use action. I understand that failure to return this certificate within five days of posting may result in delays, notice of corrections, and re -mailings at the applicant's expense. Richard Peterson Installer's Name Installer's Signature April 14, 2016 Date 206-524-1451 Phone Bulletin #036 —January 1, 2011 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Sign Installation Certificate 1 A�k CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Project Description: Proposed cemetery expansion into 20.8 additional acres over 50 years. The existing cemetery development is about 8.2 acres. The total cemetery size after 50 years would be approximately 28 acres. The Archdiocese owns approximately 58 acres, but this project proposes changes only to the west portion of the (58-acre) site. The project proposes five phases of incremental construction over 50 years. The timing and exact details of the phases will be determined by future circumstances. Applicant: Richard Peterson, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Project Location: 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA Date Application Received: March 7, 2016 Date Determined Complete: April 4, 2016 Date of Notice of Application: April 15, 2016 Comment Due Date: May 2, 2016 Requested Decision and Other Permits Included with this Application: Use Process IV (File 16- 101 140-UP); Environmental Determination (File 16-101141-SE); and Transportation Concurrency (File 16-101142-CN). The city will use Process IV `Hearing Examiner's Decision' to review and decide upon the Cemetery use and Master Plan. Required Studies: Preliminary Stormwater Technical Infonnation Report, Environmentally Critical Area Report - Stream and Wetland Delineations. Development Regulations Used for Project Mitigation: Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, "Environmental Policy," Title 16 "Surface Water Management," and Title 19 "Zoning and Development Code." Public Comments & Appeals: The initial public comment and notice period ends May 2, 2016. However, any person may submit written comments to the Hearing Examiner by delivering these comments to the Department of Community Development prior to the public hearing date (which has yet to be determined) or by giving these directly to the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing. Only the applicant, persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner, or persons who specifically request a copy of the written decision may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. Details of appeal procedures for the requested land use decision will be included with the written decision. Availability of File: The official project file and environmental documents are available for public review during normal business hours at the Department of Community Development (33325 8`" Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003). City Staff Contact: Jim Harris — Planner; jim.liarris cit oPfedet-alway.coiii, or 253-835-2652; between 8:00 AM - 1:00 PM on Mon, Tues, & Thur. Call and leave a message or email to arrange to discuss proposal at other times. Published in the Federal Way Mirror April 15, 2016. Doc I D 73082 City of Gethsemane Cemetary - Master Plan Map Dale ApdS- City of Federal Way 33326 61h Ave S. Federal Way 37600 Pacific Hwy S. (206)- 236 Fede—tWay 7000 We 96003 206) - www.cilyoffederalway com �39 Gethsemane Cemetary t -- � I � l ,z SMQS (JOHON RD NE) Puget' Sound. Federal Si Way a � a '1 ❑ U) U Legend � Federal Wa Subject Site N y 0 250 500 1,000 Federal WayCity Limits Feet This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. y The City of Federal Way makes no warfanly as to its accuracy. CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.c i tyof f ed era Tway, corn DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significarce (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretatbn ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was ;f mailed ❑ faxed 0 e-mailed and/or 0 posted to or at each of the attached addresses on r, 1 2016 Project Name File Number(s) Signature )6-100116 Date K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distdbution.doc/Last printed 1 /8/2015 10:07:00 AM CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF MASTER LANs] USE APPLICATION Project Name: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Project Description: Proposed cemetery expansion into 20.8 additional acres over-50 years. The existing_ cemetery development is about 8.2 acres. The total cemetery size after 50 years would be approximately 28 acres. The Archdiocese owns approximately 58 acres, but this project proposes changes only to the west portion of the (58-acre) site. The project proposes five phases of incremental construction over 50 years. The timing and exact details of the phases will be determined by future circumstances. Applicant: Richard Peterson, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Project Location: 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA Date Application Received: March 7, 2016 Date Determined Complete: April 4, 2016 Date of Notice of Application: April 15, 20106 Comment Due Date: May 2, 2016 Requested Decision and Other Permits Included with this Application: Use Process IV (File 16- 10 1 140-UP); Environmental Determination (File 16-101141-SE); and Transportation Concurrency (File 16-101142-CN). The city will use Process IV `Hearing Examiner's Decision' to review and decide upon the Cemetery use and Master Plan, Required Studies: Preliminary Stormwater Technical Infonnation Report, Environmentally Critical Area Report - Stream and Wetland Delineations. Development Regulations Used for Project Mitigation: Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, "Environmental Policy," Title 16 "Surface Water Management," and Title 19 "Zoning and Development Code." Public Comments & Appeals: The initial public comment and notice period ends May 2, 2016. However, any person may submit written comments to the Hearing Examiner by delivering these comments to the Deparrnent of Community Development prior to the public hearing date (which has yet to be determined) or by giving these directly to the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing. Only the applicant, persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner, or persons who specifically request a copy of the written decision may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. Details of appeal procedures for the requested land use decision will be included with the written decision. Availability of h'ile: The Official project file and environmental documents are available for public review during nonnal business hours at the Department of Community Development (33325 8"' Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003). City Staff Contact: Jim Harris — Planner; �Lm.harris ,cityofFederalway_com, or 253-835-2652; between 8:00 AM - 1:00 PM on Mon, Tues, & Thur. Call and leave a message or email to arrange to discuss proposal at other times. Published in the Federal Way Mirror April 15, 2016. Doc. LD 73082 City of Federal Way I MINE ■ins (J O Map Date: April 2016 vethsemane Cemetary - Ma Aer Plan 33325 Federal Way 3326 Bth Ave S. 37600 Pacific Hwy S. Federal Way 96003 (206) - 636 - 70 00 www.cityoffederalal way.cam RD NE) ST Gethsemane Cemetary MW Puget j . Soundt r,. � I f Federal t „ ST c6 . _—. Way Legend A 0TY OF Subject Site N Federal Way ffi e 0 250 500 1,000 e Federal Way City Limits Feet This map is intended For use s graphical representation only. y y The City of Federal Way makes n s no warranty as to its accuracy. 4125 4132 4127 V E 124 r Nll cps 20--A Ir LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY 300'OFFSET PARCELS INCLUDED IN PUBLIC NOTIFICATION UN fj 37knd Ln o Ch ch Cj 157 c re ).b r; GETHSEMANE CEMETERY PUBLIC NOTICE MAP Public Notice - Neighboring Parcels (within 300') Project Name: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Property Address: 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Applicant: Rich Peterson, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Owner: Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle, A Corporation Sole Permit Application: Master Land Use Application Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) j.a. brennan , Landscape Architects & Planners 100 S. King St, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98104 t 206.583-0620 F. 206.583,0623 wa iabrennan.com Parcel number Taxpayer name Parcel address Mailing address 2188203335 COOPER ALAN N/A C/O STROM ANITA FEDERAL WAY 1227 58TH AVE NE TACOMA WA 98422 2188203365 RAPACZ SARAH J 112 SW 374TH ST 112 SW 374TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 2188204205 CHRISTIANSON BETTY 37405 PACIFIC HWY S C/O SHIKINA CINDY L FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 1868 SW MAPLE OAK LN #B77 BEAVERTON OR 97003 2188204325 CHRISTIANSON BETTY 37405 PACIFIC HWY S C/O SHIKINA CINDY L FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 18668 SW MAPLE OAK LN #1377 BEAVERTON OR 97003 2188204245 CHRISTIANSON BETTY 37405 PACIFIC HWY S C/O SHIKINA CINDY L FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 18668 SW MAPLE OAK LN #1377 BEAVERTON OR 97003 2188204285 CHRISTIANSON BETTY N/A C/O SHIKINA CINDY L FEDERAL WAY 18668 SW MAPLE OAK LN #1377 BEAVERTON OR 97003 2188204330 CHRISTIANSON BETTY N/A C/O SHIKINA CINDY L FEDERAL WAY 18668 SW MAPLE OAK LN #B77 BEAVERTON OR 97003 2188204455 LOONEY WILLIAM A N/A PO BOX 1435 FEDERAL WAY TACOMA WA 98401 2188204480 LOONEY WILLIAM A N/A PO BOX 1435 FEDERAL WAY TACOMA WA 98401 2188204490 MARCHAND CHRIS P N/A 24408 118TH CT SE FEDERAL WAY KENT WA 98030 2188204520 LOONEY WILLIAM A N/A 7115 PACIFIC HWY E FEDERAL WAY MILTON WA 98354 3221049019 SOUTH SANDRA S 233 S 373RD ST 233 S 373RD ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 3221049021 KARILEEN LLC N/A PO BOX 847 FEDERAL WAY CARLSBAD CA 92018 3221049024 HOWES BEVERLY (AS OF 3/4/2016) 516 S 376TH ST 12523 47TH AVE E CAMPBELL NORMAN (AS OF 2/15/2016) FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 TACOMA WA 98446 3221049032 IVERSON CLARA M 7005 JOHNSON RD NE 4323 S 188TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 SEATAC WA 98188 3221049033 PARKE WAYNE LEROY JR N/A 8408 234TH AVE E FEDERAL WAY BUCKLEY WA 98321 3221049046 PARK MIN H+DEAREASA 37305 PACIFIC HWY S 7115 PACIFIC HWY E FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 MILTON WA 98354 3221049057 MORRISON LEONARD+RICHARD N/A 11804 110TH AVE E FEDERAL WAY PUYALLUP WA 98374 3221049059 HOWES BEVERLY (AS OF 31412016) 610 S 376TH ST 12523 47TH AVE E CAMPBELL NORMAN (AS OF 2/1512016) FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 TACOMA WA 98446 3221049065 HENRICHSEN NEIL C 6927 JOHNSON RD NE 6927 JOHNSON RD NE FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 TACOMA WA 98422 3221049069 CHURCHILL SYLVIA N/A 3136 SW 902ND PL FEDERAL WAY FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 3221049070 OAKMAN COREY C 37540 8TH AVE S 37540 8TH AV S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 3221049087 CLARK ALTA M 215 S 373RD ST 215 S 373RD ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 3221049091 KOREAN-AMERICAN CALVARY 37515 8TH AVE S BAPTJST CHURCH FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 PO BOX 23238 FEDERAL WAY WA 98093 3221049101 CARVALHO JEFFREY P 700 S 376TH ST 700 S 376TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 3221049106 OAKMAN COREY C N/A 37540 8TH AV S FEDERAL WAY FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 3221049109 BRENEMAN HEATH+MARIA N/A 7001 JOHNSON RD NE FEDERAL WAY TACOMA WA 98422 3221049110 WSOOT/REAL ESTATE SERVICES N/A PO BOX 47440 FEDERAL WAY OLYMPIA WA 98003 3221049134 UNITED STATES 400 S 376TH ST PUYALLUP TRIBE TRUST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 TACOMA WA 98404 LIAR 07 Z016 I/ Gethsemane Cemetery C� 1 ! OF FMERAL WAY Neighboring Parcel Report Phased Long Term Master Plan 1 of 1 CDS Process IV Master Land Use Application PAGE 2 Public Notice - Neighboring Parcels (within 300') Project Name: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Tenn Master Plan Property Address: 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Applicant: Rich Peterson, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Owner: Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle, A Corporation Sole Permit Application: Master Land Use Application Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) j.a. brennan .1 ) S U l 1 .1 ( C f P I t( Imid—pe -Architects & Platmm 100 S. Bing Sr, S(ute 200, Seattle, V'A 98104 t 206 583-0620 f. 206 583.0623 — jab—.- com Parcel number Taxpayer name Parcel address Mailing address King County 2188203395 KING JAMES VINCENT 37234 1ST AVE SW 37234 1ST AVE SW FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 2188204105 ZEMEK MARIE E N/A 27409 220TH PL SE MAPLE VALLEY WA 98178 2188204580 COUNTY LINE EQUIPMENT N/A 8507 PACIFIC HWY E COMPANY INC TACOMA WA 98422 Pierce County 421311002 COUNTY LINE EQUIPMENT 6601 XXX 7TH STCT NE 8507 PACIFIC HWY E COMPANY INC TACOMA WA 98422 421314022 COUNTY LINE EQUIPMENT 8507 PACIFIC HWY E 8507 PACIFIC HWY E COMPANY INC TACOMA WA 98422 421314030 CEDARS RV COURT LLC 8425 PACIFIC HWY E 1118 NW 130TH ST SEATTLE WA 981774113 421314108 CAHILL PARTNERS LP 8410 PACIFIC HWY E 12527 23RD STREET CT E EDGEWOOD WA 98372 421314125 X-RAY LLC 8411 PACIFIC HWY E MICHAEL THOMPSON 321 WILLOW ST PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368 421314132 CAHILL MICHAEL J 8( MONICA J 8410 PACIFIC HWY E 12527 23RD STREET CT E EDGEWOOD WA 98372 421314127 BONDAR VASILIY 8324 PACIFIC HWY E 8324 PACIFIC HWY E TACOMA WA 98422 421314025 HENRICHSEN NEIL C 8t BARBARA X)X PACIFIC HWY E PO BOX 459 A MILTON WA 98354 421314124 HENRICHSEN NEIL & BARBARA 6921 JOHNSON RD NE 6927 JOHNSON RD NE TACOMA WA 98422 Gethsemane Cemetery Neighboring Parcel Report Phased Long Term Master Plan 1 of 1 Process IV Master Land Use Application Public Notice - Neighboring Parcels (within 300') Project Name: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Property Address: 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Applicant: Rich Peterson, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Owner: Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle, A Corporation Sole Permit Application: Master Land Use Application Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) j. a. Brennan associates Pitt Landscape Architects & Planners 100 S, King St, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98104 t, 206.583-0620 F. 206.583.0623 un—,jabrennan,com Parcel number Taxpayer name Parcel address Mailing address 2188203335 COOPER ALAN N/A C/O STROM ANITA FEDERAL WAY 1227 58TH AVE NE TACOMA WA 98422 2188203365 RAPACZ SARAH J 112 SW 374TH ST 112 SW 374TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 2188204205 CHRISTIANSON BETTY 37405 PACIFIC HWY S C/O SHIKINA CINDY L FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 1868 SW MAPLE OAK LN #1377 BEAVERTON OR 97003 2188204325 CHRISTIANSON BETTY 37405 PACIFIC HWY S C/O SHIKINA CINDY L FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 18668 SW MAPLE OAK LN #1377 BEAVERTON OR 97003 2188204245 CHRISTIANSON BETTY 37405 PACIFIC HWY S C/O SHIKINA CINDY L FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 18668 SW MAPLE OAK LN #877 BEAVERTON OR 97003 2188204285 CHRISTIANSON BETTY N/A C/O SHIKINA CINDY L FEDERAL WAY 18668 SW MAPLE OAK LN #B77 BEAVERTON OR 97003 2188204330 CHRISTIANSON BETTY N/A C/O SHIKINA CINDY L FEDERAL WAY 18668 SW MAPLE OAK LN #B77 BEAVERTON OR 97003 2188204455 LOONEY WILLIAM A N/A PO BOX 1435 FEDERAL WAY TACOMA WA 98401 2188204480 LOONEY WILLIAM A N/A PO BOX 1435 FEDERAL WAY TACOMA WA 98401 2188204490 MARCHAND CHRIS P N/A 24408118TH CT SE FEDERAL WAY KENT WA 98030 2188204520 LOONEY WILLIAM A N/A 7115 PACIFIC HWY E FEDERAL WAY MILTON WA 98354 3221049019 SOUTH SANDRA S 233 S 373RD ST 233 S 373RD ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 3221049021 KARILEEN LLC N/A PO BOX 847 FEDERAL WAY CARLSBAD CA 92018 3221049024 HOWES BEVERLY (AS OF 31412016) 516 S 376TH ST 1252347TH AVE E CAMPBELL NORMAN (AS OF 2/15/2016) FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 TACOMA WA 98446 3221049032 IVERSON CLARA M 7005 JOHNSON RD NE 4323 S 188TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 SEATAC WA 98188 3221049033 PARKE WAYNE LEROY JR N/A 8408 234TH AVE E FEDERAL WAY BUCKLEY WA 98321 3221049046 PARK MIN H+DEAREASA 37305 PACIFIC HWY S 7115 PACIFIC HWY E FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 MILTON WA 98354 3221049057 MORRISON LEONARD+RICHARD N/A 11804 110TH AVE E FEDERAL WAY PUYALLUP WA 98374 3221049059 HOWES BEVERLY (AS OF 3/412016) 610 S 376TH ST 12523 47TH AVE E CAMPBELL NORMAN (AS OF 2/15/2016) FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 TACOMA WA 98446 3221049065 HENRICHSEN NEIL C 6927 JOHNSON RD NE 6927 JOHNSON RD NE FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 TACOMA WA 98422 3221049069 CHURCHILL SYLVIA N/A 3136 SW 302ND PL FEDERAL WAY FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 3221049070 OAKMAN COREY C 37540 8TH AVE S 37540 8TH AV S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 3221049087 CLARK ALTA M 215 S 373RD ST 215 S 373RD ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 96003 3221049091 KOREAN-AMERICAN CALVARY 37515 8TH AVE S BAPTIST CHURCH FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 PO BOX 23238 FEDERAL WAY WA 98093 3221049101 CARVALHO JEFFREY P 700 S 376TH ST 700 S 376TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 3221049106 OAKMAN COREY C N/A 37540 8TH AV S FEDERAL WAY FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 3221049109 BRENEMAN HEATH+MARIA N/A 7001 JOHN" RD NE FEDERAL WAY TACOMA WA 98422 3221049110 WSDOT/REAL ESTATE SERVICES N/A PO BOX 47440 FEDERAL WAY OLYMPIA WA 98003 3221049134 UNITED STATES 400 S 376TH ST PUYALLUP TRIBE TRUST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 TACOMA WA 98404 Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan MAR 07 Z0116 OF FP-DT:--P.AL WAY Neighboring Parcel Report 1 of 1 CDS Process IV Master Land Use Application i I I/ PAGE 2 u iic - o ice - Nei-hUaring Pa ced(wi hin 300')- Project Name: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Property Address: 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Applicant: Rich Peterson, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Owner: Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle, A Corporation Sole Permit Application: Master Land Use Application Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) Jao brennan � ASS0113te5 I'L LI Land—pe rchitem & »,it- 100 S. Bing St. Siute 200, Settle, W -A 98104 c 206.583-0630 f 206.583.0623 o4 jpbmILttansotn Parcel number TgNLayer name Parcel address Mailin address Kina Countv -21R8203395 KING JAMES-VINCENT 37234 1 ST AVE SW 37234 1 STAVE SW FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 2188204105 ZEMEK MARIE E N/A 27409 220TH PL SE MAPLE VALLEY WA 98178 2188204580 COUNTY LINE EQUIPMENT NIA 8507 PACIFIC HWY E COMPANY INC TACOMA WA 98422 Pierce County 421311002 COUNTY LINE EQUIPMENT 6601 XXX 7TH STCT NE 8507 PACIFIC HWY E COMPANY INC TACOMA WA 98422 421314022 COUNTY LINE EQUIPMENT g507 PACIFIC HWY E 8507 PACIFIC HWY E COMPANY INC TACOMA WA 98422 421314030 CEDARS RV COURT LLC 8425 PACIFIC HWY E 1118 NW 130TH ST SEATTLE WA 98177-4113 421314108 CAHILL PARTNERS LP 8410 PACIFIC HWY E 12527 23RD STREET CT E EDGEWOOD WA 98372 421314125 X-RAY LLC 8411 PACIFIC HWY E MICHAEL THOMPSON 321 WILLOW ST PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368 421314132 CAHILL MICHAEL J & MONICA J 8410 PACIFIC HWY E 12527 23RD STREET CT E EDGEWOOD WA 98372 421314127 BONDAR VASILIY 8324 PACIFIC HWY E 8324 PACIFIC HWY E TACOMA WA 98422 421314025 HENRICHSEN NEIL C BE BARBARA XXX PACIFIC HWY E PO BOX 459 A MILTON WA 98354 421314124 HENRICHSEN NEIL & BARBARA 6921 JOHNSON RD NE 6927 JOHNSON RD NE TACOMA WA 98422 J Gethsemane Cemetery Neighboring Parcel Report Phased Long Term Master Plan 1 of 1 Process IV Master Land Use Application N2 00 in N 0 4127 124 4127 124 Fen P,I� e C-,,�to 1 7 pomwa---) 20 A LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY 300'OFFSET PARCELS INCLUDED IN PUBLIC NOTIFICATION -1 - " 5 371nd S�7" U) 9129 3co71rd cl ki Ln T" 0 C9 ch ly. 9052 0471 1'102 ulo"f -150 012,100 4 9146 9 137 nzi GETHSEMANE CEMETERY PUBLIC NOTICE MAP K, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A�k Federal Avenue South Federall Way WA 98003 CITY OF 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 Fe d e loci Way www.citvaffederaiway.cam DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: '.Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was ❑ mailed ❑ faxed ❑ e-mailed and/or Xposted to or at each of the attached addresses on 4 k l 2016. Project Name 9<nJ I c-, File Number(s) U 6 r U p - Q I L(1 - Signature Date W K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Disiribution.doc/Last printed 4/21 /2016 9:01:00 AM Posted Sites: Federal Way City Hall: 33325 8th Ave South Federal Way Library: 34200 1 It Way South V Federal Way 320th Library: 848 S. 320th St 6) K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 4/21 /2016 9:01:00 AM RECEIVED BY . EOMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 3191915t Ave S, Suite 101 1 Federal. Way. WA 98M3 253.925.5565 1 253.925.575�DA 2 0 2016 Affidavit of Publication Rudi Alcott, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is the Publisher of The Federal Way Mirror, a weekly newspaper. That said newspaper is published in the English language continually as a weekly newspaper in Federal Way, King County, Washington, and is now and during all of said time has been printed in an office maintained by the aforementioned place of publication of said newspaper. That the annexed is a true copy of a legal advertisement placed by City of Federal Way - Community Development as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form) of said newspaper once each week for a period of one consecutive week(s), commencing on the 15th day of April 2016, and ending on the 15th day of April 2016 , both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its readers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of 1$ 22.57, which amount has been paid in full, or billed at the legal rate according to RCW 65.16.020. Subscribed to and sworn before me this 2nd day of June 2016. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, Residing at Buckley �rl /' .•�F�� ANp {f, NOTARY z =_ = L01 PUBLIC 'F' Iiy1'• Federal Way NOTICE OF MASTER LAND USE APPL ICATION Project Name; Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Project Description: Proposed Cemetery expansion into 20.8 additional acres over 50 years. The exist- Ing cemetery development is about 8.2 acres, The total cemetery size attar 50 years would he approx- imately 28 acres. The Archdiocese owns approxi- mately 58 acres, but this project proposes changes only to the west portion of the (58-acre) site, The project prOpases live phases of Incremental con• structlon over 50 years. The timing and exact de- tails of the phases will be dalcrmined by Iulure dr- cumslannes. Applicant: Richard Peterson, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Project Location: 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA Date Application Received: March 7, 2016 Date Determined Cbmplate: AIMI4, 2016 Date of Notice of Application: April 15. 2016 Comment Due Date: May 2, 2016 Requested 00tis€on and Other Permits Included with this Application: Llse Process IV (File 46•10114G-UP); Environrrwtal Oelerminallon (File 16-101141,5E); and Transportalioa Cancurrency (File 16.101142-CN). The city will use Process IV 'Hearing Examinerls Dacislan' to review and decade upon the Cemelery use and Master Plan. Required Studies: Preliminary Stormwater Technl- C41 Information Report, Environmentally Critical Area Report - Stream and Wetland Oeiineations. Development Regulations Used for Project Mitiga- tion: Federal Way Revised Coda(FWRC) Title 14. 'Environmental Policy," Title 18 "Surface Water Management; and Title 19 "Zoning and Develop- ment Code." Public Comments 8 Appeals: The irflial public commnnl and notice period endsMay 2, 2016. However, any person may submit written com- ments to the Hearing Examiner by delimring these comments to the Department of Community Devel- opment prior to She public bearing date (which has Yet to he determined) or by giving these directy to the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing. only The applicant, persons Who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner, or persons who specifically request a copy of the written deci- sion may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. Details of appeal procedures for IN requested land use decision will be included with the written decl- lion. Avallablily of File: The Official project file and env' ronmenlal documents are available for public re- view during normal business hours at the Depart- ment of Community Development (33325 81h AM. nue South, Federal Way, WA 9W03). City Staff Contact: Jim Harris — Planner, jlm.harrfs�eltyoffederalway.Oom, or 253-835.2652: between 8:00 AM - 1:00 PM on Mon. Tues. d Thor, Call and leave a message or email to arrange to discuss proposal at other times. Published in the Federal Way Mirror April 15, 2016. FWM 2339 CITY or 4A Federal Allay NOTICE OF MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Project Description: Proposed cemetery expansion into 20.8 additional acres over 50 years. The existing cemetery development is about 8.2 acres. The total cemetery size after 50 years would be approximately 28 acres. The Archdiocese owns approximately 58 acres, but this project proposes changes only to the west portion of the (58-acre) site. The project proposes five phases of incremental construction over 50 years. The timing and exact details of the phases will be determined by future circumstances. Applicant: Richard Peterson, Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle Project Location: 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA Date Application Received: March 7, 2016 Date Determined Complete: April 4, 2016 Date of Notice of Application: April 15, 2016 Comment Due Date: May 2, 2016 Requested Decision and Other Permits Included with this Application: Use Process IV (File 16- 10 1 140-UP); Environmental Determination (File 16-101141-SE); and Transportation Concurrency (File 16-101142-CN). The city will use Process IV `Hearing Examiner's Decision' to review and decide upon the Cemetery use and Master Plan. Required Studies: Preliminary Stormwater Technical Information Report, Environmentally Critical Area Report - Stream and Wetland Delineations. Development Regulations Used for Project Mitigation: Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, "Environmental Policy," Title 16 "Surface Water Management," and Title 19 "Zoning and Development Code." Public Comments & Appeals: The initial public comment and notice period ends May 2, 2016. However, any person may submit written comments to the Hearing Examiner by delivering these comments to the Department of Community Development prior to the public hearing date (which has yet to be determined) or by giving these directly to the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing. Only the applicant, persons who submit written or oral comments to the Hearing Examiner, or persons who specifically request a copy of the written decision may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. Details of appeal procedures for the requested land use decision will be included with the written decision. Availability of File: The official project file and environmental documents are available for public review during normal business hours at the Department of Community Development (33325 8t' Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003). City Staff Contact: Jim Harris — Planner; jim.harris@�ityoffederalway.corn, or 253-835-2652; between 8:00 AM - 1:00 PM on Mon, Tues, & Thur. Call and leave a message or email to arrange to discuss proposal at other times. Published in the Federal Way Mirror April 15, 2016. Doc. LD. 73082 Allyson Brooks Ph.D., Director State Historic Preservation Officer October 20, 2017 Mr. Jim Harris Contract Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 In future correspondence please refer to: Project Tracking Code: 2016-06-03926 Property: City of Federal Way Gethsemane Cemetery Expansion, CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE GETHSEMAAE CEMETERY PHASED LONG-RANGE MASTER PLAN FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, INADVERTENT DISCOVERY PLAN FOR THE GETHSEMANE CEMETERY PHASED LONG-RANGE MASTER PLAN FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Re: Archaeology - Concur with Survey and Inadvertent Discovery Plan, Site 451U1866 Determined not Eligible Dear Mr. Harris: Thank you for contacting the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) with documentation regarding the above referenced project. We have reviewed the above cultural resources survey. We have the following comments and concurrences: We concur with the recommendation that the historic foundation designated as 45KII866 is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the Washington Heritage Register (WHR) and requires no further documentation or protections. • We request that plans for future construction beyond Phases 1 through 5 as they are currently proposed in the Master Plan be reviewed by a professional archaeologist prior to completion of the undertaking. All future plans should also continue to avoid St. George's Cemetery east of Hylebos Creek. • We also concur with the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP). The IDP should be kept onsite at all times during in ground disturbing work in the Cemetery Expansion Area. The IDP Contact List may need to be updated periodically as staff and contact information are subject to change. 1,01 -1:� State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 www.dahp.wo.gov Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments (360) 586-3088 gretchen.kaehler(7d ahp. wa. gov cc. Laura Murphy, Archaeologist, Muckleshoot Tribe Brandon Reynon, Cultural Resources, Puyallup Tribe Jackie Wall, Cultural Resources, Nisqually Tribe Rhonda Foster, THPO, Squaxin Island Tribe Stephanie Neil,. Archaeologist, Squaxin Island Tribe_ Amber Early, Principal, SWCA IT PAGE. .. 2 Jim Harris From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 10:22 AM To: Jim Harris Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery MDNS Jim, Thanks for sending us the site plans for the Gethsemane cemetery project. We have reviewed this information and have no further questions. Best regards, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program Phillip Starr Buitding 39015-A 1724Ave-SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Jim Harris fmailto:.Tim.Harris@c[tyaffederalway.com] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 9:58 AM To: Karen Walter Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery MDNS Karen The preliminary site plans for the Cemetery Expansion proposal are attached. Let me know if you have any additional questions. Jim Harris Senior Planner orr w Federal Way 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2652 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.cityoffederaIway.com Office Hours Mon - Thur, 8:00 AM — 4:30 PM or by appointment From: Karen Walter fmailto:KWalter(cbmuckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 9:43 AM To: Jim Harris Subject: FW: Gethsemane Cemetery MDNS Jim, 1 PAGE �►a WP rPf PivP_f1 thlC IVI NS for the Gethsemane (Cemetery expansion prnjcnt referenced ub.^.r'e —A need. additional --inforriatioii. -s there a 61te 01a1 FavaiIabIb fcr this pgP0—saf%We wouFd iike%reView-Itbwr-ing the envir-0nmefitai -Fe vFew process. We•prefer electronic copies if available. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program Phillip &arr Building 39015-A 172r'c Ave 5E Auburn, WA 96092 253-876-3116 From: Tamara Fix[mailto:Tamara:Fx@cibMffederalway.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 9:25 AM To:'suzanne.l.anderson@usace.army.mil'; 'separegister@ecy.wa.gov'; 'ramin.pazooki@wsdot.wa.gov'; 'gretchen.kaehler@dahp.wa.gov'; 'laura.arber@dfw.wa.gov'; Karen Walter; 'wfwoctap@fws.goy'; 'reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov; 'sepadesk@dfw.wa.gov'; 'Fisher, Larry D (DFW); Laura Murphy; 'sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov';'bra ndon.reynon@puyalluptribe.com'; dlewarch@suquamish.nsn.us; 'epa-seattle@epa.gov'; Chris Cahan; 'rflynn@ci.tacoma.wa.us'; irfo@earthcorps.org; 'basbury@lakehaven.org'; 'Shirley.schultz@ci.tacoma.wa.us'; sdmm(acityofrniiton.net, cityhall cityofedg_ewood.ortr; 'sfriddle@cityoffife.org' Subject: Gethsemane Cemetery MDNS Attached is an MDNS and SEPA checklist for the above -mentioned project in Federal Way.- The Senior Planner for the project, Jim Harris_ can be reached at iim.NrrisC city, ffed.eralway.co or 2�3-Q35-26 2 Tamara Fix Administrative Assistant A Federal Way 33325 8`h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2602 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com GIAI IT PAGE-�L_O F-�.7 Jim Harris From: Tamela S. Smart <TamelaS@lummi-nsn.gov> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 2:54 PM To: Jim Harris Cc: Gretchen Kaehler (Gretchen.Kaehler@dahp.wa.gov) Subject: Gethsemane Cemetery Expansion Project (File No: 16-101141-00-SE) Dear Jim Harris, The Lummi Nation has received the Notice of Environmental Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the Gethsemane Cemetery Expansion Project located at 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, Washington. The Lummi Nation is responding as an affected tribe. The Lummi Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office (LNTHPO) has facilitated a review of the above listed document as well as other records on file at our office. Based on our review, it is clear that this location has the potential for inadvertent discoveries. We recommend that the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and tribes within closer proximity to the development area be consulted with. These comments are based on the information available at the time of the review. The LNTHPO should review any changes related to the proposed project. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 360-312-2253 or via email at tamelas(a-)Jummi-nsn.jzov. Sincerely, Tamela S. Smart, M.A. Deputy THPO/Compliance Officer Culture Department, Lummi Nation 2665 Kwina Road, Bellingham, WA 98226 Direct Line: 360-312-2253 Email: TamelaS(W) urnmi-nsn.gov LNTHPO would like to contribute to the conservation of oar planet's natural resources and kindly requests that all correspondence and documents be sent electronically, T EXP I I IT PAGE OF Jim Harris From: Miller, Kris <kmiller@skokomish.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 2:14 PM To: Jim Harris Subject: Gethsemane Cemetery Expansion Mr Harris, The Skokomish THPO (Tribal Historic Preservation Office) received notification of the proposed expansion of the Gethsemane Cemetery. We do not have any comments for this proposed action, but suggest you contact other local tribes in the project area for consultation. If you have any questions, please contact me at Shlanayl@skokomish.org. Sincerely, Kris Miller Skokomish THPO Kris Miller Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 80 N Tribal Center Road Skokomish, WA 98584 slzlanavl a7rkokomish.ors i XIIT- PAGE OF_ Jim Harris From: James Gordon <jgordo n @cowl itz.org > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 2:11 PM To: Jim Harris; Gretchen.Kaehler@dahp.wa.gov Subject: File # 16-101141-00-5E - Cowlitz Indian Tribe response. Attachments: Cowlitz Indian Tribe Inadvertent Discovery Language.pdf, 150428 Cultural Resource Protection Laws.pdf Mr. Harris, Given that the above -referenced projects are within the Cowlitz Tribe's area of concern, the Cultural Resources Department (CRD) of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe would like to state its interest. The CRD recommends an Inadvertent Discovery Plan be attached to the permit; we have included language for your consideration. In addition, we recommend Consultation with additional interested Tribes. Contact information may be found via httpjZgoia-wa.gov� This determination is based on all currently available knowledge, and is subject to revision should new information arise. Please contact us with any questions or concerns you may have. We look forward to working with you on this undertaking. Thank you for your time and attention. Nathan Reynolds Interim Cultural Resources Manager Cowlitz Indian Tribe PO Box 2547 Longview, WA 98632 360-575-6226 Office 360-577-6207 Fax Eire am o Id s @ cowl itz.o rg James Gordon .Cultural -Resources Technician, Cowlitz Indian Tribe PO Box 2547 Longview, WA 98632 360.577.5680 office 360.957.3004 cell 360.577.6207 fax The confidentiality of this message is protected by federal law, Tribal code, and other stuff, Nothing in this message constitutes a waiver of the Tribe's Sovereign Immunity. cowlitz.org EXH— MIT COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE INADVERTENT DISCOVERY LANGUAGE In the event any archaeological or historic materials are encountered during project activity, work in the immediate area (initially allowing for a 100' buffer; this number may vary by circumstance) must stop and the following actions taken: 1. Implement reasonable measures to protect the discovery site, including any appropriate stabilization or covering; and 2. Take reasonable steps to ensure the confidentiality of the discovery site; and, 3. Take reasonable steps to restrict access to the site of discovery. The project proponent will notify the concerned Tribes and all appropriate county, state, and federal agencies, including the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. The agencies and Tribe(s) will discuss possible measures to remove or avoid cultural material, and will reach an agreement with the project proponent regarding actions to be taken and disposition of material. If human remains are uncovered, appropriate law enforcement agencies shall be notified first, and the above steps followed. If the remains are determined to be Native, consultation with the affected Tribes will take place in order to mitigate the final disposition of said remains. See the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 27.53, "Archaeological Sites and Resources," for applicable state laws and statutes. See also Washington State, Executive Order 05-05, "Archaeological and Cultural Resources." Additional state and federal law(s) may also apply. It is strongly encouraged copies of inadvertent discovery lanouaoelnlan ore retained on -site while project octivity is jinderway. Contact information: Nathan Reynolds Interim Cultural Resources Manager Cowlitz Indian Tribe PO Box 2547 Longview, WA 98632 360-575-6226 Office 360-577-6207 Fax nreynolds @ cowl itz_orr Revised 19 September 2017 EXV 9 R IT-'S RAGE) I__0F (�_ CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION LAWS NOTE: This list is not all-inclusive, and does not take place of consultation. Not all laws will apply in all situations. Federal Laws National Historic Protection Act (NHPA) 36 CFR 60 l:tits://►vww.acbR..goyldorslnhpa�/o202008-final pdf Native American Graves ProtectionandRepatriation Act (NAGPRA) 43 CFR 10 htty://eeir.gpoaccm.p-ov/cgi/t/texlltekt- idx?type--simvle:c=ecfr;cc== sid=abefc428407c7g4.d6 3fe17l637939827;id»o -43:rggion=DIV1:a1=NATIVE°/aZ OAMi;RICAN%20GRAVE S%20PROTECTION%20AN DII/a29REPATRI&TION: rp--diyS. A e►r-tex to o_da-431/0 Al.l.i_1.10 orhtt://tin l.coml c4sx?o Executive Order 13175— Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments http.11wur+v.em.doe,goy/odWMEMO%2OTribal_°/`2OCons uitation°/a2Oand°/a2OExerutile&/u2OOrdcr°/a2013175.udf or http:1ltin2url.c_om141ngxr�h�c Washington State Laws Archaeological Sites and Resources 27.53 RCW ]ttip.11apns.leg wa ,uov/RCWldcfault_amx?cite=27.53 Executive Order 05-05 http:/lwww, overner.wa. ovlexecordersleo 05-05. f Notice of Forest Practices to Affected Indian Tribes WAC 222-20-120 lttt ;Jla s.le .wa. ov/WACJdefault.as x?cit�-'222-2q- 120 Oregon State Laws Indian Graves and Protection ORS 97.740-S _http:Jlwww.lep.state.or.us/ors/097.htmI Objects 97.760 Archaeological Objects and ORS 358.905 - httn:ifw%v►y.Iegstate.or us/ors/350tm1 Sites 358.955 E)YU-4 17, I Jim Harris From: Diana Noble-Gulliford <diana@gulliford.com> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 11:31 AM To: Jim Harris Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Understood. One of the aerial photos that has been redacted (1936) 1 would think would be from the King County imap website and that would be public information. Does the city question the rationale for redaction when such a document has been submitted for this type of action? Sorry to get into the details Jim. It is how I learn for future reference. Thanks, Diana From: Jim Harris[mailto:Jim.Harris@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 11:11 AM To:'Diana Noble-Gulliford' <diana@gulliford.com> Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Diana; I will need to discuss this with the City Attorney office and will get back to you later with responses. Jim Harris Planner Ne erai Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2652 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com Office Hours Mon - Thur, 8:00 AM —4:30 PM or by appointment From: Diana Noble-Gulliford [rnalltwdiahacagullifnrd.aorrrl Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 9:31 AM To: Jim Harris Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Thank you Jim. Looks very interesting. I have forwarded the publication to Dick Caster, a writer and historian on Father Hylebos and the St. George's Cemetery. Will the redacted photos and text ever be redacted? Not sure why it is redacted since it has been over 50-100 years since the historical part of this property was developed. Was this requested by relatives? the church? Tribal elders? Is there a rule or law that dictates that this is public policy? Thank you for keeping me updated on this. Diana EAK PAGE { S RM t, I V. m'i<<f Harris_ [mailto:lirn.Harr€s&,titY-of_feder_alwa_y.corra_1 Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 9:03 AM To:'Diana Noble-Gulliford' <dianaieulliford.com> Cc: Robert Hansen - ,Robert.Hansen@cityoffederalway.com>; Tina Piety<Tna..Piety@cityoffederaiway.com> Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Diana: Here is the link to the Cultural Resources Assessment Report ftp:1/ftn.cityoffederalway.cbm10 utboxlGethsemanel This report is redacted as the full SWCA Report includes information about burial sites and other cultural resources protected from disclosure. Click on this link then it is the only file in the Gethsemane folder.. Contact myself or Tina Piety at 253 835-2601 if you need help getting to the document in the City's FTP site. The Cemetery project review is making some progress. We had to work through some engineering and wetland issues that are now resolved with the applicant and their design team. We are looking to get the project to public hearing with the Hearing Examiner in mid November. A copy of if e City s SEPP% deterr-nination -will be fifaifed to you buy-Loi-nor row. Let me know if you have any further comments or questions. Jim Harris Planner w,w Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federa! bra„ WA98003-6325 Y, Phone:253/835-2652 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.citvofedera1way.com Office Hours Mon - Thur, 8:00 AM — 4:30 PM or by appointment From: Diana Noble-Gulliford rmailtxdiarua@-qullifbrd.co Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 8:23 AM To: Jim Harris Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Thank you Jim for the update. I would like to come,in to City Hall .to review the file. I can download the cultural assessment if I have a link. My main concern is the St George's Cemetery as you know. I am interested in any input you may be received from the Puyallup Tribe. Thanks again. I was wondering what was going on with this application. Diana ..r E� PA. G E << 0� From: Jim Harris [maiito:Jim.Harris ci ofFederalwa .com Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 10:45 AM To: Diana Noble-Gulliford (diana ,_gulli€ord.com) <diana@gulliford.com> Subject: Gethsemane Cemetery Diana: I just wanted to give you a heads up that the City will be issuing an environmental determination on the Cemetery expansion this coming Friday. The City has also received a Cultural Assessment Report for the property. I can let you review a copy of the Cultural Report at the permit center. Alternatively, I will have a copy of the report on the City's FTP site available for public viewing in the next couple of days. I do not have any extra printed copies of the report, but I could get one made if you prefer. Let me know if you have any questions. Jim Harris Planner Federal Way 33325 8t' Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2652 Fax: 253/835-2609 www_cit offederalwa .com Office Hours Mon - Thur, 8:00 AM — 4:30 PM or by appointment Virus -free. www.avast.com May 2, 2016 To- Jim Harris, Planner Department of Community Development From: Diana Noble-Gulliford RECEY1iI!D MAY; 0 2 2016 Cam' OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Re: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Term Master Plan Proposal File#: 16-0114-UP, 16401141-SE, 16-01142-CN Dear Jim Harris: I want to respond to the above proposal about my concerns this proposal has for the subject property and adjacent properties. I am requesting that DAHP (Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation) be involved in this process from beginning to end. This project definitely falls"within their realm and concerns due to the current and future impacts on this historic cemetery and land. I am also requesting than an inventory be done for the cemetery in order to document what gravesites are currently there and also the gravesites that were there and moved to other locations. I am hoping that this work will be accomplished by working closely with the Puyallup Indian Tribe officials. I am also requesting that a detailed survey be done on the Gethsemane property for other Indian and cultural artifacts. From the paperwork I have read, no archaeological survey of any kind was done when St. George's Indian School was torn down and the new cemetery building and surrounding grounds were disrupted. St. George's Cemetery is adjacent to the subject property. It is a historic settler and Indian cemetery of about 17 acres. It has been in existence since the late 1800's. According to the Puyallup Indian Tribe's historic preservation office, there are still active gravesites there. The Tribe wants to use St. George's Cemetery for future use as well. The Gethsemane Cemetery is the location for the historic St. George's School, which was founded by Father Peter Hylebos and was a school and farm for many years for regional Indian tribes under the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854. St. George's School was managed by the Catholic Church. The building has since been torn down and the Gethsemane Cemetery office was built in its place on about the same location. The access to St. George's Cemetery is limited at best due to overgrown vegetation and. I am not sure if there is a maintenance agreement between the Puyallup Indian Tribe and the Gethsemane Cemetery so that the Puyallup Indian Tribe and the public can have year-round access for maintenance, burials and also historic significance of St. George's Cemetery. I believe that in a letter to the Puyallup Indian Tribe from the Catholic Archdiocese regarding the transferring the ownership of the St. Georg , ggn�etterg,�itt _ J it 1 1 1• 1 1• help L 1 ' was stated that the Catholic Archudiocese was to help maintain the -cemetery: As parr-cn trie-50=year - development plan, I am requesting that a permanent access be made to the St. George's Cemetery for the public to have access to as well as for access for maintenance for the Puyallup Indian Tribe so they can continue to maintain the cemetery they own and also the. cemetery can continue to serve the Tribe in the future for future burials. Due to present and future wetland protection laws, the access should be located so that it would not be impacted by future wetland restrictions. Protection of the Hylebos-Creek is'ver-y-.importantto-me but-I-am-al-so-c-onc-er-ned-about�ny-e.rG-Sion or -- impact the creek may have on St. George's Cemetery and the surrounding.area. At one time, the Tribe and the Church were considering a fish hatchery in the general vicinity. The Historical Society of Federal Way has a few records of such a proposal. When the cemetery was a settler cemetery, not much was done to adhere to specific boundaries of the cemetery. There could be burial sites surrounding the current cemetery's legal description and site. This area could overlap into the proposal of the 50-year master plan for the Gethsemane Cemetery. The 1-5 Corridor could be an identifiable route for the proposed Sound Transit to Tacoma route. Sound Transit would want to determine this route once the ST3-proposal is approved by -the voters. This would impact the Gethsemane Cemetery, St. George's Cemetery and also the land on the east side of 1-5 that the Puyallup Indian Tribe currently owns and intends to use for future burials. Access to this property is via a dedicated, unimproved. road owned by the City of Federal Way. The last time I visited this -property it was blocked by a fence that an adjacent- neighbor had built. I am attaching a few documents for your information that are part of this letter. I would also like this letter and the attached documents to be part of the official record that is sent to the hearing examiner, once a hearing date has been set. I may also add more information at the time of the hearing as well. Thank you for your time. You can reach me at 206-412-5545 if you have questions. Best wishes, �� fie� Diana Noble-Gulliford 2754 SW 314th. St. Federal Way, WA 98023 CEMETERY DETAIL REPORT Record ID: 579 Name on demel ery sign, ifany:j GETHSEMANE CEMETERY Archy Site ID: KI00866 C awnlConlmun ty: Federal Way ❑Vicinity Info Source: Other Zip Code: 980 3 County: KI Other KnownNames: GETHSEMANECATHOUCCEME7ERY Directions from nearest community: Non-DAHP #: Field site No. 2988 TownshiptRa a/Section Qu Idrangle Parcel/Lot #: 322104-9025, 322104-9020 218820-4365, 218820-4281 Listing Status: I iistoi is Property Sean ID: Inventory References Parcel Notes: 1989 Cemetery Centennial: USGen b-" thsemane:Cem to "Associated Catholic Ceme ries - Seatt€e Archdio ese Find -A -Grave hoto documentation - November 5 2004 ` Iso a St. Geo e's t ernete ; Kin Coun Plats - ` Gethsemane Cemete 2" - Vol. 93 . 98-160 filed October 29 1971 "Gethem ne Cemete 3" - Vol 138 . 9-14 flied Jul 201987• Kin r'ni rnfv rpmetFiry Survev 2010 - Finiell Site No. 2988: "Mary M. Boenke" Pierce Site Description Owner/Contact Cemetery O ership Type: Church Is the cemetery a trust or a non-profit? Contact person or organization for the cemetery, if any: CCAS Property & Const {Seattle Archdiocese] This contact is ❑ Manager ©0 ner ❑ Contact:for access permisslon Care and Maint. Authority? ❑ Contact Address (address, city, state, zi ] 710 - 9th Avenue, Seattle WA 98104 Contact Phone: Fax: Email ad. ress: Additional Contact Info: Field Verified ate: 815/2010 field Verified By: Professional Other General Ir, fv Public Accessibility'. Accessible by: Accepts New Burials?: Year officiallyestablished: 1975 Ap roximate size [� cres) of cemetery: 56.58 Status: Active Earliest known burial date: Latesi known burial date: Has this cemetery ever been moved? Move Date: I New Location E �� Thursday, April 2 , 2016 PAGE Page 1 of CE E' 7ERY DE I AIL REPOR General Condition of Cemetery or rave Ite: Well maintained Condition Explanation: fArch.d.ioces ] Th cemetery was Jevelooed in the early 1 originally ou chas d in 1888 for use as a Catholic Indian Mission School, When the school clos d th6 propertywas deeded to the Diocese now the Archdiocese of Seattle. 1989 The torme St. George Indian School included the St. George Cemete 2019 Desi ned b GoIc smith En ineeri : first burial in 1975. The property was been expanded twice adde to the north in 1986 a d 314 acre to Ihe south in :Zn3. 1902 Heath Place of interment: St. Georiae Catholic Cer ietery. Now found in Gethsemane Cemetery, Design Characters Structures 20 0 A side- able chapql and office buildiing complex was com leted in 1974 and Medicated in 1975 Terrain: (desc ibe): Bounded by: (describe): Landscaping: Approximate A of In ct and standing: Stones/markers missing: gravestones or markers: Cemetary History Are important ndividuals instate o loca I history buried ere?: Does the site contain significant etElrnic r religious.sectipns?: Catholic Was this cemetery associated with pec +c groups such! as I.O.O.F., Masonic Lodge, etc.?: i Are there unusual features or histo i'c in4idents of interest?: What is the most urgent need for c4n-- of1this E MIT- PA U^ E 0 F Thursday, April 21,12016 1 1 1Page 2 of 2 � 1 King CourPrGp ; Description for p rce1 aumber 322104b025 [+ �-� K j C :' 066 Page 1 of 2 Klfig cmu Ity Assessor in ormation for par ;el number 3221.. 9025 Taxpayer name CCAS PROPERT & C 1NST Pare. I number 3221049025 Mailing address 710 9TH AN Tax ecount number 322104902505 SEATTLE WA 96104 Le : , code 1% Juri dipiion FED-FRAL WAY lfd� i Present use Mo . { r#�-i��Bmr��Cf�erti�fii,�t- ialsed value Address(es) at this pa ircel 37500 PACIFIC HVIN S.68003 + Legal descrpti in PLAT OF GETHSEI RENE CEMETERY #2 (E EING LOCATED IN SW 114 OF SEC 32-21-4 & IN POR OF NE 114 OF SE 1/4 OF SEC 31-21- 4) LESS POR DAF BAAP OF NXN BET S1 ILY L N OF SD GETHSE VIENE CEMETERY #2 & NW MGN OF SR 5 TH NELY ALG SD NW MGN TAP ON SLY N OF ST GEORGE CE AETEY TH NWLY ALG SD SLY LN 578.4 Fr TO SW COR OF SD ST GEORGE CEMETERY TH NELY ALG WL LN THOF 50 FT TO CO THOF TH N,61-5 -21 W 160 FT TH S 72-10 W 414.67 FT TH S 03-37-46 E 587.73 FT MIL TO SWLY LN F S.D GETHSEMENE C MET RY #2 TH SELY LG SD SWLY LN TO POB - LESS C/M RGTS Sales/Quit Cla ims/Transfers I i Sale date 11-16-1983 Sale price $0 Buyer UNITED -STATES GOUT $T Seller _ -C RPO RATION CATHOLI ! A CHBI 3H0 Excise tax number 7549D9 Recording number 198312290499 Instrument type Warranty Deed Sale reason Settlement Parcel descri ion Property name GE HSEMANE CEMETAR Plat name. i Water system Sewer system Access 2-21-4 Street surface WATER DISTRICT PUBLIC PUBLIC PAVED Property type C - OMMERCIAL Plat black ! Present use ICMMal Plat lot -MLDI Lot area $;-. 7,320 sq. ft. (47.00 ,' ; - Q-S-T-R SW � Commercial bL Ilding descri- :ion Building ~� 1 of 1 _ _ Buil., ling description TARP `��(j -Z(j �'} 7 f+ Year built - Stories 974 Pred )minant use. M©RTUAff�2 Gros ft. 2 Y ) 2.o Y 3 &5— Q 55 -}- _ s sq, 9x p� I , Building quality AVERAGE to GOOD Net q. ft. OUrrsb acttan-ctas SOLAR_HEM t-1 Sys em ^ ED K- f Building shape j tect or 8 ht Irre _Sprir klers R Elevators 2— 1 i' 13 A - Taxable value ;isita Tax year TaxStatLS_j Taxable value reason Appraisedyalu Taxable value S0 (6nd)- f 2009 EXEMPT EXEMPT $1,637,800 (land) $592.100 (imOovemer ts) + Ko (Improvements) I$2,229t900:(total)] $0 (total) $0 (land} t 2008 EXEMPT EXEMPT $1;837,800'(lamd) + .$582.40a (,mproveme ,$2,220,200(total) its) + � (mprovements) . _ $p. (total} 80 (land) / 2007 EXEMPT EXEMPT $1,175,000 (land) i + $548,900 imroveme�ts) $1,723,90;ol +§0 (Improve $Q [fat[) ments) . 01 XIRIT K http://www5.kingco ty,gavlKCGISRep rtsl xoperty_report�rint.aspx?P1N=3221049GE��' I 4/1/2009 —�.� (f) Ja E5 no si le 4 EXPIRIT—L— o;ft ��c r "n PAGr.__ e un cc k�a zr. �' ; ^+ f .C. r� �.,. �n{•tea N�L11VI \ rnln Apm or mil R' J r, o g y aruc' wort �• at C dam. ,, a •'SL•. YY 4 sy� ti � H : YMW7! D! Am of 3l7oY7 1Y 41 Xi rMAft i s, � � eye r a •,, . UP ws�snhll °aisi�S� a F ! • -otil '-Dos�r � yi�usPf�'�°fit ,�• • ..- - » �;: Ir YC62 Pf G � UN [r>:lY''sFi . _. - . - ~!.may rr r s S '- EX IN IM PA .-- Gethsemane Ceme4ry I Associated Cath�lic cemeteries, Sea0e Washington Page 1 of 2 I : AS.q(YAArFr) rM OLK: d A f CEMFTER iF.S f ' I v- i We trust in esus to use our -.he- anti hands to COMM:.rt His pople, celebrate the dignity of life and offer hope. HOME GEMErERIES CREMATION PRE -PLANNING RESOURCES BURZ kL LOCATIONS PHOTO GALLERIES CONTACT US Cemeteries I G the mane Bu>ial 9ptions I Gethsemane Photo Gallery Gethsemane Cern tery (view C 37600 Pacific Hig ay S. Federal Way, VVA 38003 253-838-2240 (Seattle) 253-927-3350 (Ta oma) 253-874-5910 (fax Gethsemane C em tery was ;del Archbishop TV om s Connolly, ) faith cornmun' of South King s The property as originally purr School. Wher the school close Archdiocese) of Seattle. The semi-rura sett ng of Gethse a panoramic view of Mt. Rainier spawning wat rwa , has been r Undeveloped cre ge at the.cei font - font le map) loped in the early 1970s and was officially dedicated ,hbishop of Seattle, in May 1975 to serve the Catholi f North Pierce Counties. ased in 1888 for use as a Catholic Indian Mission the property was deeded to the Diocese (now ane offers a peaceful and prayerful space. It include id the corridor along Hylebos Creek, a salmon- istered as a "Regionally Significant Resource." tery is home to small wildlife. It is a sacred sace[ a place of prays; and quiet re �tes us t member http://wvww.acc-seattl .com/cemeteries/g se iane.htrni PAGE __ j/20Q9 Gethsemane f Homes r Associated Cathbhe cemeteries, Seat a Washington Page 2 of 2 tIiE3Se "' c eel T'-V^ gone iQuzfCS �idLte %ur ehC[ih. , Gethsemane Cem tery offers a variety of burial choices. Contact us to discuss your preferences. Consider pre -planning your cemetery needs. Making decisions and pre -paying burial expenses will alleviate much of the burden on your loved ones at the time of death. Layout of Gethsemane Cerneteru- V6dftCA0sElaw� l *___ N a ht�u�ehut�!Grypts �.. OUR LAMY OF 12ALUPE 'a "S7 KATHARINE DRE%EL '-6wlart� 615NOP JUhi3lR r ! -1• � r aA1ROM OF ETERNAL LAVE Ahllf SogaI! E SR 09 FA C f C1rY{ca HMf g1tA 96&j !( click o map for larger, printable version to Gethseman Ce etery Burial Qptions to Gethseman Photo Gallery to Pre -planning to Cemetery Contacts I If you require assitalncV with immediate burial arrangements, please call 253-838-224( J Cremation J Pfe-planning .J Resources J Burial Locations I Photo Galleries J Contact U Privacy Poky �ea� pnnc 4 5c�u.�d �icifwiiCCa �4G ICo. HII r;Qilis PSPNPl] E PH,, R 1T �A __Ub_G F�.. http://www.acc-seattl1.CO /CeMeteHes/g4se+e.hbnI 4/1/2009 s��xa 2Y8$�03335 3 322 3i '32i2 2�x� O� 1 'S 1! �I 313 tJlliiLl�1 42 $1� ;'Y-�� "" ��:�i1 ter. i-:f ! 1 M ZEM 1 A i ' �1 f r �' 1 I CE Mon ' .7 Name on RAD: K100867 Arce: they Known amps, rnr n cr_,-,-r /Directions fro nearest Ad'ac mt to Geternane� Township/Ran je/Sectioi Listing Status. Inventory References 1989 Cernete Centennial USGenWeb u der Gehser Northwest Indi News Ma School and Ce ete ' ljistc Plats - "St. Geo e's Cemet, Cernete Sury 2010 - Fie Return of Deat Februa 2 Site De4rrinti . f f I � rERY DET IL REPORT i rry sign, if lany. ST. Gl<ORGE'S CEMEi1=RY 70wn/Co munityFede- zrP Code. � County: KI a 0 ❑ Vicinity Non-DAHP #: Field site No. 2987 Parcel/Lot #: 322'1— 004 Parcel Notes: - - - _ _ - _ _ - - _ I_ ---•u,1-di accounts. Ownerlco tact - Cemetery ow rshiP T ype: +gibe Contact perso or organization for e c rnetery, if any: Is cemetery p a trust b non-profit? This contact is ❑ Manager IRI OW er e Trust —Cont c:t7i re s (address, city, sta zi .Qontacjor-aeeess errmssion 3 Care and Maint. Authority? ❑ 2002 E. 28th St eet Tacoma A 98 04 Contact Phon Fes: 1 Emaij address: Additional Co ct Info: Parcel informa ion 11/16/1983 - WD Indians e# alSettl men t - Cor oration Catholic Archbisho Seattle to Pu ailu Tribe . U ited States Go{ t. et al R Field Verified ate: j � I - - - - _ - _ - r Field Verified By: Needs Field V dfication Genera/ In o - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ q� �4� r K, Public Access ility: ' Acce sibl by: is Accepts NewBuriars?'`:A�"' Thursday, April21 2016 f f Page 1 of 2 ' J tljl �_ i CE E ERy ET�41L REPORT Ap raximate size (�cresl of cemetery: 17 status: inactive ;ear Officially tablished: ; Has this cemetery ever been moved? Move Datk Earliest know burial date: `latest kn4o n bunal date. Yes Gethsem ne Cemete New Location: Tacoma Cafva Ce ate i r r-. meta or rave1. General Gone, ion e� 4�•=...pry usrid a ld fn road anf to later to learn there b r dazed and s dition Exp anation: 1975 The eattf Ar hdiocese wanted the umber In the viC�r �t otwas to George'5 vmn r`e,ma4arV1_ bu. Y_.i. .7 nit where the road 1 I_n the 19lus ine �iCw u�, _ Death Plac6 of in erment: 5t.1 wear Up�� ��_� - — — — — — — — — — — — — -- -- — Design C aracters 1 Structures 1 (dose ibe): 1 Terrain: I f (dose ibe): Bounded by: s a_andscap°n®: In ct and standing: stones markers missing: Approximate of — — — — — — — gravestones ❑ markers: — -- —— I — — — - —-- — —1 Cernetary H story in `State o lac l history b> tied here?: Are important ndividuals Does the site ontain signifyant a nic r religious sections?: Indian Mission: Catholic cemete h as I.O.O.F., a etc.?: Masonic Lodge, associated with pee fie, Was this cam tery � i ar histo "c in idents of it tenet?' ual features Are there unu . i What is them st urgent nee0 for re o this Cemetery?; EXR Page 2 of 2 Thursday, April 2 , 2016 • i � y i i � King Caurlppt Description forparcel number 322104 134 X:0o-&,&7 Page 1 of 2 King County 5(. Gee'. r� �J ca.,. lA, cc., Assessor inf rma on fob paron-1 n amber 32121 d49134 . Taxpayer name UNITED S iATES Aarcel number 3221049134 Mailing address PUYALLUP TRIBE TRUEST tax Account number 322104913403 f i rd TACOMAW,A 98�104 —yc�de i205 JIprisdicl F�resenj �rp 'on FEDERAL WAY use MartuarylCemetery1prematary rai ed value $592,400 Addresses) at this pa cel- None Ere al gLs-c i ti )n POR OF GETHSElY ENE CEMETERY #2 (LC CATE,D IN SW 114, OF S�C 32-214) DAF - BAAP OF NXN BET SWLY LN OF SD GETHSEMENE CEI AETERY #2 & NW MGN OF SR; 5 TH NELY NWLY ALG SD SL LN 576.4 FT TO SW CC +R OFSD ST GEC W 1 IO FT TH S 72-10 W 414.57 F TH S 03-37�16 ALG RGEPEMETERY E SD NW MGN TAP ON SLY LN OF ST GEORGE CEMETERY TH TH NELY ALG WLY NW CQ THOF 87.73 FT MIL TO SWLY LN OF SI7 GETHSEMENE CEMETERY #2 TH N 61-58-21 TH SELY ALG SD ;WLY LN TO POiB - LES 3 CIM, RGTS - TG i I SD §T GEORGE CEMETERY SaIP_C/011if f�1,,gl TranSferS I I Sale date Sale price Buyer j Seller Excise tax _ number Recording number Instrument type Sale reason 11-16-1983 $0 UNITED -STATES GOUT $T 0000 A CHBAHO ZATION CAIHOLI� 764909 1983M90499 Warranty Deed Settlement Parcel descri ion Property name VACANT LAND Property type C - COMMERCIAL Present use Mo 1Ceme#ierel Lot area 740 520 s . fk 17.6,0 ac I� Taxable value histo . fTax year Tax stat As Taxable value i 2009 EXEMPT EXEMPT a s2008 EXEMPT EXEMPT i f 2007 EXEMPT EXEMPT I ' I i Related resou ces I - King County Asse or. $,4mjt~�que; King County Asse sor:.--Rg Lrap"- -1 King County Asse sor: QyA6r e�#€ I King CountyGIS: - j King County GIS: igtricliff� D 1 ..eiel King County DDE : Permit Application King County Trea ury Operations: PPop_i King County Reco dens Office: JRXsie� King County Reco ders Office: ScaIhned King County Reco der& Office: Sl C Ilctd II littp://www5.kingogunty.gov/KC6Isl Plat name Water system WATER DISTRICT Piat blo Sewer system PUBLIC Plat lot I Access PUBLIC Q-S-T R SW�� Street surface PAVED Appraised i $592,400 (iar E0 (improverr $592,400 $592,400 (Ian Gmpr-o ew $592,4-00. I $425,000 (tar 10 (improverr $425,0.00 ( c_t.tCi�t?i��t 'DF format n F format req nditi; oaa:_)Lel (for unincor ta2 :11L 'RQp.Q.rt if plats. If sf]Ley_ I aroperty,Y, Taxable value $0 (land) + S-0 amprovernents) $0 (total) $0 (land) *;ir(hriprovemen s $0 (total) $0 (land) + �O Vmprovements) $0 (total) Acrobat) Ka; detailed report about the location of this property) ed areas only) i is amParty-_ V De�P �9r,V.MP.0ts., I+'s'uu Ian _�� i nrint.ast)OPIN=3221049134 4/1/2009 E E I k; T/ -E_ RG 'S1 CEMETERY BLALC I•-IDO' �' 1RPT++'ITr) .rL 'YSJ Ivr' A•�RI now •N f �.s 9�L rr ' � _ ��p►rr '�. h.rLrs r. I - r1t• Ni wl r'M1�� I••S. �� L'o- � �iT ' Eil� F W� .ar U� an " Y ,x ,� N � w •per' � n. f gg o I m a` N ire Sw Pr gF s. P,,o� 1 N R 4E1W-M r -- b OIf1x11Etis9��H�g`r�r6ssagf�sm u I V1 ,JFr ell ° z z Z z Q1Q.. ZI x r s E� z rs Una O :�TS3 Ll' �n� 11y`■`+ Z�" .a0 F' Yam% i "I:. w� ,�� "y 1• €s J z. w Tr � ►� r WmacwS r ° s' ..�r•! a- 4.T F 4cr� I I i DE50R1 T ION 1 Tllu DFli r.E.OE•9 GEMYTC9Y LG1 mxlNd IM TRJW dr LAW IN"t N Dr9FETfO Di• NIA 21 W R 4t v;Mr' m1i LORMER W11NE 11 7tiL5 Wi/C 4rSl 589-41'8 'W 7L1 �O FpET ALON6liiF 30 NEIAt DF Sm/40F5EC' S ai THENCEN FCETTO TRUE PVNT Or Dew RN INd� OF, -mcocE 1.11 mrwW dd MIT 7AtNI SO DD FEE iTY.ENGL5UP71'jD•'CSABf OdI 28 ]0^W 00 FEET IO T11ETRVE M T 01 L _ '4 gun TN18:N1SP'JJ�TxI' S{ y�y, IFD{i�!A1L)Ipf1'.NI;�fF7Qr S-YF1A1 tY 4iwTif xl N• 9.fG'f1YW T allo 0157 LEi�RECABiF'TL1' 7Hd14N�TIE1 TN L Mohrum ENTS HRVL BEEN SET ABI LVAIa �ii'JJ NwED N NcltT[PLa IlaRLlrwuL � u.N W/PiTaf crannuTt nt .n �pTrlFolc Trt jE i I S Hrt+de rry^ccnanr� t h r r rcrrp goo ' • .Ira pl.s 111 : rald-� F 4*t1`fFifaf 1C li�}lANa • _�[.4N µit 1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Yt- .plDWji}:.uc I.71tke.� �?F4!! Y a' •r cw.rso rrcrxrr•�nl . ION,etCpV+rSEv -uvoa ^ rlr.�+/wwlraTaar arta•Ik+rstsnrarr�aDeeC►- ALVII N7Q.'Ar11fLfAiH*G T3Y• '_ ptlYGf �Yl/�rwaF magic NrWrrRMiGKSc�' 7 Btrilr $fM��... I_T• . 8R? E dv.ri rxNe6er.v/r rexresrla /r xie'ot<oo." tf.rrlpl rC/.xtiv ]I sIMPLETi OiYSiO.% f+sran.rT.rww^C.IanKwwNr r.rfm.Tr.ArtlMa4 rlm.YOLTLQIM iar flC3i�fiCT x s><' +rYC.ga.'7.e 1: 5'•i4�[rArro.sranerKaaesrco errseran'i�P.rwr mmr_+w.r titl5!M R7iEyyrr TC Anil1?p �C'.Irr�?.rp!/+:r11�Ma/rN+l!gfr.►*+rnTl iCxl w►WimM :1• 4s sre IHO:Aw RSAL CAO�N/13A1G IH 0pp;R ]D.IdY4= +tiMRF�AfTt~ +•l AlTrn,a_W mrALaf: ATE ANR tE:Yws t�PT.0 IT1flH&>?Afi•�I^r �PIt4Tt rG[KJAIa KNw"S 06 3E L3ij '�yAB fl. 6F,4NINTLII Ti?F1!rJir1F D(i tT�( �A3�y fZ glAlaf wrlA 'JCiFtu$ rai'�IIIFE4rIWrwvrrACtt�Yn A Rg1"m W OI,IL ObM B Ta'7SE ' a' i' Dm CTR{NES Ni0 �Fj� �x -T-, OLIC CHUr/G 'WHICH ['W AL1,0 3g487 r1 ERATE7 QrTM IId16Ert TTIDL{G.DISHDP or IT' WHICH INTEA �E TATTO Aha OEctdiDNyM�6E „ -•- H. M AWAND� n1LC3NA 7e AMLA� WHICH IAWf 4:*w, N lirr' �•� _ 1r � �6MldI�•"�"'?I� rMW4 THAE To +wlE RE E AND+aOPnD BY THE C. } L. A • 4dWJr �T�IC E ?BEASTLC MR 11E iWM- j =\ . T[NANCE. u Aqo CP 7ROL Qi 9�S cE11LTERY. 4 '��' "" ro � '$• INWLTDipSE NfH[rfEOl 'F71E 7A10 p7RppARrlpH �F v� ' /i-•. `-AuiED ..:.^ieYd[t.T:IMM..T]9=7iIlEV D ? '�S Z' -�au : Wfl$GRI!!CDKr1YEG"FSJ 7i dWOF N ,. iiraxNriN14 %-�H ¢ uT+E A D /* PGIVq AT1ON.dr T7K.C4TNOI,JL aINDIAM WSs1d NS � fYKr'rir[OIA TW /r/[+�CI-� .�• .�.... .-_..-.....� ....._.w. •Lw4r F • PAGE -IL -OF I , A J Washington lace Names Full Di� 'I.dSL"47Elxf€ I'_ blic Lb' I I Display Full Results f Wash Search term entered: Spring Val ey (tr The search retrieved 1 mate 'es. D below. i Return to Search- ' iNo _SWO Page 1 of 1 LCa"alog I littler Databases Place Names g full information for number 1 of 1 1 Se rch Match Numb !r 1 Name: Sp ing Valley i,o rdinates: T 1 N R 4 E D scription: Er a B nce in an alicle in the Tacoma News Tribune I de�cri ing the d�em®lition of St. George's Indian School north o the Pie fce County -King County lire in Kiang County noted t at "...th C tholic Church purchased forty-two acres in pri g Valiey�in July of 1888..." and operated a school un it 1 �36. The pri gs drain into Hylebos Creek which i f!a s into Puge So. , nd at Commencement Bay. (Tacoma Ne s ribune, April 18, 1971). Soundex Code: j S1, 5 400 1 Maps:: Serchi WS U R the Early r releva t m�ps ashinan Maps digital collection at I Copyright© 1999-2006 Tacoma Pu tic L braq. wwwitplxi E . wa.us (version 03#05Apr20041729289907) Return to thel top of this page i r E ? 1-6429 9/3/2008 r E ? 1-6429 9/3/2008 i ' I Washing on Interment A Ceme i I Address .: 37600 P�cif Contact..: Richard,Pet Location of .Records at _cease ery q 1;te; fro �[ss6cia. ed -Ca o ie Ce Marion t., Seattle, 98 �iiseell nexus Notes zs c .: taexry s :at the include "th& S t < 0eorge thii St. Gearg a burt�ls, a list f re6ur7t'� is ther Names BE Ceorga s Cemetery j I Address Contact... Locati-oh of Recordi scell. nevus Alates Other N mes See Hil s of Eternitj I AddrContact ..ess . see e-o•gerown Cemetery f Address .: 40.0.State St Contact Loeati . of Records CC UNTY : CAI, Gethsemane Hi hway S. :on .bo t; 1975 , er'es., Carp 4. The, reco ite of the 4me teryi whi per . re rater .in wined. T ld Settlers Gi oth Olum Address .: 1215-145th Place SE Contact an State FunerAl.Directors Association es and Funeral Homes tic Cemetery City..: Federal Wa 98003 Phone : (2Q6)838-2 4+0, Joseph Sankov:ich, Director, Archdiocese of Seattle,_ 9.10 t the cemetery are comprehensive. r St. Georgge Indian School a%id s establisFied in 1886. Most of t Tacoma ` s Calvary Cemetery where sliest burial found is daPe-a 1:881; tery of Spring Valley City— Seattle Phone : 1 Metery - City. : Seattle iPhone E Ll H, e City..: Kirkland, 98003 Phone : (206)822-4151 i � I 117 i - i City..: Bellevue, 98007 phone /9C1F171 7_�7/.[1 EI 17,K P'�G iii I ffathor Hyle 3os.; St. Georg. e's ladi4m SchoDI . ................ and St. Cla Mission by 0 2003 by die Society of urch Prepared for the Historical Society of Federal Way ay October 15, 2003 PAGE1146 C-F® of in i enine of St. G first occupation was Octc buildings were comp ete f ce winter was coming on, i :ned on Octob4r 26, 1 88! there were six teache s avi the Order of St.Francs. Tl it Philadelphia: Two f the e the section relating I o St. xs were transferred to oche Ter Stevenson. Miss Drext ght up into thei.1920s. s Father Peter Hylebos, St. George's Indian School and Cemetery, and the St. Claire's Mission Church School Fer 19, 1888 when the first teachers arrived. At this time cept that tl a doors and windows -were -not in place and- arjkets we hunlg over the openings. The school officiaiiy lable whe the school opened. Of these, four were sisters :y arrived irec y from the Mother douse of their order died laterl at th school and were buried on the grounds ieorge's Cemet�ry). The other two after serving for a few schools oftheiriorder. One of the lay teachers was Miss as pall of her contribution, sent Miss Stevensen. She the first superintends It of a school lgian priest. F4ther H lebo had met: a visit to the AmericaCo eRe at Lo ng educated. Father e De en he received his fin I or( 1920s. Father) De De ker ; se on the Muckleshodt and he instractiori given xnment school so d ing was an importai ssary cleanirsg and ] clearing of land, er of work that) both d a small farm lestabli eying drawings. Reli epted as well as Cat students 61 n its early years the also able to provide ents in Belgium had n the members of th ,es of the St. I eo's 1 h things as linens, c; sough some did proN expense as part of 0 it per quarter �f the ; 57 icade, p. 27. sa icade, p. 27. 59 icade, p. 27. 60 icade, p. 27. 61 Notes on Father Hylebos,' p. 2 Reverend Charles De Decker, a young e Decker two to three years previously Agium where Father De Decker was -quest he would b'v sent tv �,�as iugivn Decker supervised the school up until nsibility for fourteen churches including Nisqually Rumyations." George's S� hool was modeled on that given in the dents could trano!fer from one to the other. Industrial re. The girls got domestic science training by doing the � ork aroun the 1school. In the early days the boys helped new buildings acid making roads and bridges. This was the s and girls voiiI4 need once they left school. Later there n connection wit the school where the boys were trained De DeckeremAasized academic work such as writing and nstruction rues so emphasized. Protestant students were S° The School accommodated both boarding students and i was mainl `i financed by Miss Drexel. Father De Decker vial assist a7ce using the money from the estate his wealthy m. Father Pe Decker also arranged support for the school ius church ong+gations he supen i sed. Once a year the 3ciety from Tacoma visited the school and made gifts of ind clothes, The �ptudents were not required to pay anything ids for their} own support. The government paid for a part of atleS with Jae lea Uans. lru Tally the governmuent paid $21 per was teaching fi4y Washington Indians. Later the number E' M 1T` K ..x..,._v PAGE _0 to I rose money for s�pport re rular public schools, I ools,around the coUh all n u childreit.' T#1 T1 e last Indian bureau be ng put into pu lic scl St George's ap ents. re ainder of the �chool pl tted the acreage for a a all sign on tl#e grout fo er school. NE ming of Hylebos Cri lbe original Indian name fi5 xing village, 6 1axtl'ab ti flats �a It is interesdi an aged in the mapping K lebos Creek on his m. Sc aool used "Koch Cree b ame the name used fc He [Fathei Hyleb a minute. When hi which included tl rose near the St. (, founded, and ran This was the cr map in large lette HYLEBOS CRE know so well — "Eh Bieli 1 He led to the arm of Asa final develop be ozae the West i 69 70 7] 72 73 74 75 76 i nmg in 19�5, )f many did. 9 in Wash 2 During a were in igs were ery,73 TC the nrese Father Peter Hylebos, St. George's Indian School and Cemetery, and the St. Claire's Mission Church al Indian children were allowed to attend in the late 1920's the Federal reservation ith the states to ing-oVer tht -education of School ltad been closed in Junt.1920 71 ate was closed in 1932 with the students rid World War, the land was used to build ► ease the post-war housing shortage. The 1971. The Catholic archdiocese in 1971 ing remains of the school facilities. Only emane Cemetery marks the site of the for iylebos Cr4ek w' s haxtl'. This derived from an Indian to ted on the rese;at Hylebos Waterway on the Tacoma ho Hylebos reel- got its name. It is said a surveyor friend vork around St. eorie's Indian School indicated the name is, vious to , s th name the Indians around St George's ," a the name f 3r the creek. The name Hylebos Creek thus the creek.75 i i S] f 'shed lunch an spread open the map. He studied it for notl-,edthecree wo and through a section of his parish mi iing districtsof ierce-andKing County. The creek eor e's Indian 24issi rl that he, Father Hylebos, had owi ward to Lit. into Commencement Bay. his Indian fri nds all "Koch." But what was written on the al gside of e ' ding creek? The letters spelled out K. ` t seemed o s eyor friend has given the creek that I n e now." Father H+lebos chuckled with satisfaction. iuld o such at ng?'�7 Wh n the bridge ove4 this rent, 4he w tlands that ant WA p. 72. on, p. 318n53'. �, P. 11. p. 72. ild dw u of++W ry,- a W S*kb,, VU Prey UO- uema n1 F7TiCt me ", was built, it became Hylebos Bridge. to the origin of the creek have now V*?"s, 10,Qctobw 1979, p. A-3 0;.NOW Y.atics.9M$-1tess, 1969) p, 10 15 Aft= 19.05. -IT K 10 � I �. Father Peter Hylebos, St. George's Indian School and Cemetery, and the St. Claire's Mission Church St Georges Ceriietery I At joining St. George's s Dhoolthere had end cemetery, Today there is some evidence to indicate that a cemete. exi 5ted in co ectioh with St. George's School. It is estimated th t at one time a out 2S, -per ons were b ariedi there. Records indicate that Indians, nuns an I pioneers were buriec in tt a cemetery until he early 1920's. 77 The exact burial plot an J the. identity 4 many of th se interred is s Why at best. Often Indians assumed E can surnan becoase tie Indian names ere too difficult for the white man to pr nounee. Those Europ an s immames.fre uen y were inscribed on the gravestones sliding the true identity of th person b 'ed. ost of the gr ves w e moved to a Tekom 'Cemetery many years ago. Vandals he vily damaged hose t tat re ain. i Today the small side is marre by gf ping holes — the calling card of trashers ho ex vate the grav in scorch of Indian treasures- and the mostly broken ar d top pled headstones. s i 1971, after tPe fin • school buildings wer razed, the Catholic Church began co strutting the resent eth ema .. Cern%tez` 79 St Georges Cemetery is on land just a fe hundred feetIM of e p ent te:thm ery pace. y 1979 the St Georges C metery s`wra's overgrown by ferns and blackberry vines, on y a few headstones remain,most of toppled by vandals.... The oldest grave id tined it; V3 a ]fission= cep ry is m� 1$89, the-ear.after Catholic Missionary P.. r Hyl$cos opbnd ; June of 1989 the C thou Church donated the land that they owned, which covered th original St. Gorge' •Cem tery, to th I Puy llup Tribe. _ I am delighted to be al le to offer o yo and your Indian brothers and sisters on behalf of the Chi Western Washl�rigtou, a gift -of -property of approximately 17 acres abutting your original re5ervati on, including a portion of Hylebos Creek and all of St George's Cemetery. h j � I t appears that. we Cat olio Church h been concerned about keeping the creek area in a linsfine Condit* and n k ing St. George's Cemetery maintained. i Being able to ma re a ' t, lmowi the deep historical significance of the - property t' your 'be, gives all of us i the Catholic Church a special pleasure, We, too, Dave m ch a our hi5to ass gated with this land. We will welcome you as neighbors kno ing your B3ans t�o pursue projects utilizing the land in an .I eber, p. A-3. 79 eberi p. A-3. i 0o abex..p. A-3. et jetnd G. Hunthausen, th files of the Historical Soc of Seat i , le to Puyallup Indian Nation, 24 June 1980, p. I., in rtil ay� j EJ MI ra P� encourage your of our Gethsern desire to bwiu I The original Sit. Geor e's rlier vandalism and is not metery staff or the Pu yall ther Hylebos' Retir mea ther Hylebos resignec leader of the Cathob d grown from 18 com Eirely free of d�bt.83 Rev. Father George C iry's in Sedro-1ooIle ,hop O'Dea tobe the v assistant. Father Hy 1 remained available t ther Hylebos' Death influenza epidemic h d of influenza on Tha been scheduled to sp tnksgiving sery1ce. Bi From the 'Very fi And his faith in of land in what i sons dW he 4 would certainly other Hylebos is burii land which he had;purchr Street W, Tacoma; WA 9 Hyl bos has a largie outdo The monument appears t( ez Hi nthauset4 P. 1. B3 ,13 'ography of the k. Rev. I 84i B'ography of the it. Rev. I 85 "B'ography of the Ri. Rev. l 86 ` tes on Father H*bos," 97 sC vary Cemetery,T brochu as Var ,W Father Peter Hylebos, St. George's Indian School and Cemetery, and the St. Claire's Mission Church ive and meanin' 1 manner.... [It] is our intention to the portio of yebos Creek located on the other part perty. Th Cat lic Church is totally in accord with your nek -im its �I state and to establish fishery �lerever o�s� sx -metery ar a �ntained unfortunately not cleaned up from the rrently bei g by either the Gethsemane Indian Nation. j stor of St. Leo's in early February 1911. He had served as rch in Tac4a. fc r 31 years. During his pastorate, St. Leo's ates to 7,0g0. At the time of his retirement St. Leo's was Goethem, I ho game to Tacoma in late 1910 from St. shington, a assistant to Father Hylbos was named by pastor. Rev. Father Ignatius Vasta, S. J., was named as the retained Wj office as vicar general of the diocese of Seattle )rm such duties as the bishop assigned him,84 � I I l the Tacoma areia in the fall of 1918; Father Peter Hylebos ing Day, lovejber 28, 1918. He was 69 at his death. He at afternoon at the Rialto Theater at an ecumenical tholies and Protestants felt a great loss. erHylebo�l was' enthusiastic Tacoman [sic] never wavored.;ie made extensive purchases days were wwoo ds ods and was told my many Lzy," and w0edl the some day a great city ip on this rtagr�t harbor. s 4 at Talv4uy Cei Wed x id &na�t 467, consists of it monument er be Ir ade of con dher I lylebos V. G ether I lylebos V. G 1her ylebos V. G .2. no ate. :tery in Tacoma (this was another tract of Caivaiy-Cemetery, located at 5212 701h 5 acres and was formed in 1905.87 Father ted �n his honor over the site of his burial. ,te �nd stone. The base is approximately i P. 1 P. 1 P. I; i F 12 k � QO �W >Zdsaffawhtm a >a Her+sa9e tifgb stw'w' ft the �esrlc lery �arlure 4pvl[utg ipyr.ptF rtvrioes � its'"tfitra t ht to Awarcan to Joe idn dhvetar O"f 'the Ilmer;�n iwit�e prS!<�m For fire €ttree ln&ts vfirb ► �, Y�rr of teaeJ•,[�• hoe ?'pwf. to myptesj Yeats• aoraitp ill 41, 7 1%c hers" mjr s_ was. -For 5r,¢Qraltt was. who A: z IPpraAm le3Cher 1 Y X8 ytals aft tY, .and sire r& 01,rftew41 notFG° daytlWay qcrF req4eT tN teach the itr*VM. Taal ltd �g ntsL+rlee[.F'JAp i945i himl r(near ' t e r►$+,il,yli +kor,Iy rOirefippl� lalst °Yr°ru map�,get -war girva aci+rI aption rfl f*M* m� cxffdo C' tiflu ly, ta` rq s5gtl: TO fisear we rlreset c+stx if3iliflgt}1e 8m,file &hts4 .riot '&Ad. ,t "Od br 4wY le Adze wa ovarafl 9(j tredttettem. ,Jaen L'.aUratyp a ell EA'thi ;)" N. )&r*wwt f►rdi'm N 'wit that. it ruderd c¢trrt rtrary -an the t a Ataj3let uafess. •ltta d 9�I of 20 pert mplopnrs7f is rem; I Position 4utweat r SV'bl`_4:,Ua to the 1 s yor Resat Rrrt R-CYadew CT Peratrovieh, if the. Burka, � � .kn arced: 1- the 6tod itrnennow a 're- is good faith =% a a Play have tQ seeandar. ri IOU a the 'a 13u to girt thr lab U4k`rp �It a rovi88 p•artitnrsed, "Due as c ch, i,nrlte � niaa must be awe tq fully, wl intenp of the e Altarouky = incji,& `KV 6rk-Or-aAhft=*nP",1b:r hie.. p+ ,In 7 --y' If rA � 7• 1 Indfar, to'q'" d r4r " w 6• f I�i+ 4A 17t �' AtCrrlj - r 'F' "h dfYd s11s! prr>i pre uspt{ ta4limrrHtRitsvyoui b" rer+ 1n�ruCrilsi trr .d,e :iflppj� ��� tffr i they 1usd.e .u{ i'�tF e wh I � M araN t.5 . w :kgt . vrhl tat life Fn£CQ �elRrA"Xft I'Z 7axk rtmeeF „t' rt 6rok� ki de"w�`fd f tI a hr. r jrp ft , er}lr,ir hop.6.r nJ t I(ur V Maref #+ Alan iC .reach' the i 9 i ar Ot'i a slow20 'fie• Point— dirtvey. capYp�ertct{ tli�da Pifiisq. >tiid TRW. yritive alre wtiva211"� h+cituW tei=er, 6,f 'Moodiate auras to A=. Alt tkoyes liy S aY or .ii cwt tbA to ? 9arirurt au tr, t amply f64 ►Jhb the f the rofunpivy.�fva raZ nr ptogrsmk; tiniil x �Fatl tile. � _ st three h year,. tiny Of the ls,Ar, ti,e a � i'4sr.ires�ri Ore ire Eb wmsnr [q; %glcyd Y1I bOCR a wad? on- ill p re,la�CR-ra �selt 'laF t t+Tai 00 its Pr.weR„s­� of - " rllr,grW.p,s.>�rg .. i6 Z - atid M, A°Afirra.arra-, aad fo r�r��•, '� ealtta bttt S P ..t► In the :. YO a nv } 'R Ii! 5pttia fa►riGed s 914Y be" it then, 4t,ri arve a she's UA )z r rs '�`, an txa f eots ti.4.ItY ihey'e tk. rip"�gral�� The moo fipuxe fx tar r'e[`tffied tea�heiei'. xc fat a Batt Akt1i f - rocs tt . hefd let a qa It 1 rttrtb1 • �6i3sifiaa sitital �c7i-at rh ruin t le Ms. h4 y. fra 4 �lttfk 3di6 fl t s [iCeiL arP ti W¢!tkr6iirF rlSti7 [ tut��� 7 !, Etitrr,i'�ntt hhl4rfi•:w- o ,t�� iiative ht+sa ti ivsi! yrr .ft.§� u ca,a wdef�;u�ina ho is Irwian t1trw Tidny wfy` iI� son S'j�fYl•.7.1!!'I.1.1)UGI�IJ HU list•r•,ci a -! LPQN in Yt,d F54ryrrCli'i,,,ylr,rl f; �- tiizle rrstrn 1 # A!] fY arx1� rfrwrrr rke tYr.ar's - �v+rrcm�nnr,p�,J- I rnI't••r�rnr,{i•rser�yre,4t:?uYel's• 090 _ �. Ib>�►. eexne�;ery Irk At•reY C,£ L (;S F-alhiriv to t[ w I wound t,H,re kr aw bt �mt out is aEk to Ilrrlrp GCF& Yr1r I .y+aufd h am theO=Lft i who hTrerales• of Co,inan OW yrauld htfleq td MY toL hefara ! Cenxci .y and told � Bald 1ka Aalidax azed that m S,, iiort.. Nh CSnnwis rax AM* Fltstlud dtlrar wh."_ aA wM aptr aF shock Rd �tu r the �Id &[ G A 'read through- dlx�bc&-t 14r. C: o,, Bien sEyyt ' x Emnr74.' one dF the iltlNGlid# the the 14ap ,Ziftw he t'iR taourj victory by `mom to •seed the km.ttA=d r� �} iItLi�+ C' SarrLt n r �ihs^rr+r"l,e a c ae " It wla theta %k • rdri R.ir a1d S� Cep ►b 4c ' out �. W-olltrgYets} La1c fitk1 � *6.d I � Ir.t ins• 90", ,rg arerg qrq sae the.taltoE ssrtr. rerx S't, rcT iq bar# woe tere3Y:lied R#d and tad told °��' I7-ARrccnrN the Roxh i� lhat daft t =_r%¢ i hixs the (he trrnotaryr Irfany ckT ot�e4ryt. L,1ttF.d t [ rld Mark= !ie srreym fee +ris ,-heQd ur t of Of ritel�y, the nerr�K gr and_atrDewedI]+ u,t Y tide fCf srtt limbs L. l5ivf - Uoti! z roan a "-vae-r4e �p St.E4sr Ut happrn, ga etD: a9e's � 1be rcr°ayr m9nd We 'stiiai! f iAeor a I+ft the sire. ar[d = w� OR, 'Attla0ed a,- s aad at+' hi+`e•. p rr agmn 5ettprage sk'#adtxs, but thr t wenta'itlf~ �{vel4);8 t>�tu9-�rh..ra�d dyltf �B aa'r+rxer di` Stk rhryr be' d tfre tiar� t°+y. Patfipr'9�Jaw. k r n .w9 i_ Lpan t tr them go ir, Angh*{aye- road �c�vary of the gti sixts '�yr-were tbtd m h The _ rr,r �'b+�rk�wt 1 "rtwo, pa-bw etcry.' aft wq �Y ' ' the airs • i e * .a Vww dai's frvrn ��People ho � tads : t*14 nr tw tte wa a or Au -if a[i clye detw4 P46 the t(wing PlActicea 1 wrattala 10 a the Qim �? LV plied rrr. , iidii y ak t o£ "he Aftlidiot�: ��>�.iv cautuPwma Yret ntrtk I spy ho wa in tht M' t to hta1, rap bn� ttutler the ,trt� _ktifr 3Yr?eG Faiat pxy Pttued oa taFufrTw atk�. hphs +rtiou3 n.wha hfmtu,. d,.-£',thyme r In a.1an.,3 .tp Via. 'We htf3 swkirf! n 9ftor has ce indrVaie } $ sra is _41ril l Gd il,r Ewd . Al Wet . jw tes prr, far - L*,b. ►r+Raiatia. °e 8ta7 spa wd fie• • e bute56r waa as. on h. i,{p�Fne. at . • Lauerralr :s beet t rmt � 71Li�5[y lriSt rrortr �.w C+'lIl-wi p War f "differences" is + Rismarck, Nprih Dakcta. Ind :e behind MCI. The a country's reining ch glans chucked the whole the BROWN= R LSTAI theory as a way to They won f l`rte by d eating 1 differences in 1 ohnia Book; in a Cl se, tot r opted instead for game 89.87.1 Macy's Diesel : for diversity, -.. Rapid City, South Da ota w ry��� third olace I by whi Ldj g i rin. I 1 Flagstaif ft of Anse �J There we}e many troph, awarded. Irlv'st valuab a play wer:t to "n Perri rron : swr--at baths t:ieai Browning, Mo)tlana Mr. Husile rid prepare the Merle Smith .Of Haleua AgAtaf e worship of tale individual spinrtmmsb Awa Willard Tsialgine, of lagstaj able will also be A r i z o n a- 'r it' a I' e a se with spiritual Spot tstnarlshihl Award t to 0 nears if,th place' taan^:, Ccivil ` ievcr, a grant need -Confederated Tribes f om Ti ing Loch such as state of WdYlrin 101i, s, malk. picks, £;ix•,,een teas wn•e hed--Je donations and 74 vied far: the r,harnl on5hij s of land will 1XI a Otte Afl-star �am fr -allad for Indians in rindeet one th from Detirl : the pressures c:' Frxftited Jue to severs weatble in the urban aonditiono JUs nricr m ip oft 1 spring biix� closed off ill. ideaiplaue:or the Blstnaeuk area Re. arkobl! the city-. I, will enough however- the t"Innt r � y Fr,m drugs, and l an atmuspliere in I rdian children in t t' ill be close;i t-, 1'I PII i15 militant to a bar: cij drugs P-ras, and iaj,e 1 enforced r . elderly Indiana ! he retreat center ihere brough L lily io eligiors and stilt ways of their needed fir: the include feathers, d the sacred pine to n herd of :ed to help feed e eesidenu of the pla+i are beiritl raps such as corn, (81uek6,er,1, Alike) I'r'eirel ,N laekjei ms, onions, iuetl ?ion 1 E'Ri1Cr�1' .AkIr-,(ar/. or Sri Clapxw Smell 11yorrherrr 71ererr i Center is known Pptybertan l.(91i(11xwa). li' frrrrix -chn-me" or as-es Ventre 1, Loren Cryyflurni (x G l'en Follow the Great I I 1 path is just as L d—r as r. n e all along The IrLd an oem te, : future is positive IT society because conilnu.a tram pay941 fining to feel more misunderstanding � between Mr. ie to look after the Canton. and himself abour how that has been and this center to get the trees acrom Georges, but the knees had St. o be earning experience logged out. Basil laid he to:* it wish to donate upon himself to malta.a to money are asked those trees by bulldozin it i to either Lila through the aiddie of St. O Box 2181. George's, i 99210, phone !k We also talked Lrjain with Mr - or the Spiritual Cannon on April 23st about hat r in care of the will be done with St. G*6*' . Fla iholism Recovery told us that t Oy Mio LSUY 15th, Spittle, WA planned to oimn-up the carru tery this surnma nith Indian help and I grows big as we as far as he wag oanoerned a t H ' . (t the reed, they flit ao graRes '"are R000ifto ) - by the„bulldozer land i r k The {{egtotl 1 Softball- been informed by the Washington fournamea i will lye held May 9 - State Bicentennial Committee 11 at Tower Wo land Park in ' that it has been awarded a $5,000 Seattle. Fitt further information, grant to produce a new Native contact Join Fie her, 682.2585 American play with a bicentennial or Mike rT ith,28 425. theme. In making the 1 announcement, business rrlalbager IrA4 MbJMIA Donald Matt (Flathead) also mentioned that Red Earth has w711 M(I e National j, Endowment for the Arts for NIAA hA been awarded additional funding. Red Earth is 1975 berth in the!Nadonal AAU seeking matching nioney from W o m e n s B a., k e t b a l l private sources and welcomes any C:hanipionhips! rho ivatiortal contributions, which, or course, AAU Tauomant will be held in are tax deductible, Gabbu=,i, Nei f Max' a in Wldreh tiJ' Earlier this year, Red Earth 7G- The fiql five girls selected -um the 1 75 Al 'tar team at :ire 1st NIA11, Wom • 's Baskolball Cliampionsihip whici was iield in Los Angeles, Calif io this year will -Vpfeser{t Indiapeople in the 76 AAU Nationals I i*c;n J hnson, E:xeC tine C;resilor Yif NI A will be attending the 1975 4ational AA>✓ Conference $7,I jl +" and -will ±egttest -for ill at large be di for i 9 7 tii, [or ule � men. f M. (!•run! I- In It) 11tr 1 vfff Chnwgr i, C'unch Curl Kipp , (B(arkJerij 1rh (Blarkfielf" (13rrek�rm 1, 10 Rj LI, Pelt' Cunw v (1$1 •kjitrf)• Kerr cal (Urea), Ae ur .S'r#fvrm ((;rus r,!, C'ari h•irn, . (Rlve feel jt V . f i that the ground I will be afurbished, Later in the afternoon Rainona Bart tr of e Indian Stoup Home Cl alitionItold some, .oncerned Catl AIcs about the :oaiitton's next move. it plans to rieket the sclie led 41eh�g of he Gethsem ne Cemetery, *cause it is t.he tb4t Indians tka over the [slid and put it beck vto use for Indiiina into that was that the land -on ptrMtnasad for Y the Catbolicl: ysm #go — and at the Arcbd W=a ahawed a oarplete lack of comrilunfztion boltk the llogq;iij prrcticw of St. 1 1 to enter into full company t. activities in the production of a new play and enhance its current ' repertoire of shows. Red Earth, under the - sponsorship of the United Indians of All Tribes Found4tion, has already performed for communities throughout Western Washington including the Makah Nation; With the support from NILB, the National Endowment, and the Bicentennial, we can take our shows to a wider Indian and non -Indian audience Presently a reservation tour is planned and also a tour down the West Coast Phiggeny named heal of boll f secretary. The staff has tentatively bean selected pending board approval Twenty Pei cent of The $410-thousand allocated for program operation is intended for administrative cuts: According to I'ttippeny, the 20% mandated by Congress is legislated for program .allure. "Osher programs in the past have been delegated 30-40% for adtthinistradve costs and bwause our budget isTw it is hard to find qualified people to work for less." phippeny's salary is :tl8,500. Yhippeny, in his former empIoymenL as the "Rew { Inter Relations governmental Specialist for Gov, Dan Evarls NV JERI HAMILEY helped develop the Puget Sound Indian Employment and Training J e f f Phi p p e a y, Consortium Program. Hr chose to Shoshone 13ar:Hock, is the new apply for this pro4ram4ocause her director for the Fugei.Sound believes, "Tbe idea of having a Indian Tko.loymew anti .Traiairiy program like this, a constwatim Consortium. Phippeny .vi ahorart for urban Indiana, is a new one for director o& March L9, 1975 by Seattle- 1 believe It is a key issue " Ghe Board of -Delegates for the Thertew director isowjrl#w com*rtium. process of involving community Three positions expected to be input by forming a manpower filled to complete the 0060, The meetings are yet to administrative staff are: fiscal be scheduled and location is based officer who develops contracts an eemus tracts, with the employers, manpower Tha-program services the ring counselor who advises the County area a* and phippeny, applicants and an executive estimates about 9,000 Indians United Indian-s c Foundation. - Native Am. erica! We arze flappg to on; " cornrnctraity a display V. A .1 •� czar2r ntic, k2ana cna.P> Zuni turlquoise area sil.ven jewaingi beaaruoak, area o16 In6ion photogn ]2e6ucea- prices will be in e1:4:ect. f�Le3�Dla57 Ma}� 9, #40Y 20, Robm 1 Holy Things, Holy People Page 1 of 2 HOME The BASICS • Mass Times Coming Evens Sacraments Min'suics Parish Staff Consultative Bodies Photo Gallery • Virtual Tour History Contribute PUBLICATIONS Bulletin: POF In Your Midst • Pastors Desk DEPARTMENTS Becoming Catholic Bookstore Faith Formation Funerals immigrant Assistance Liturgy Mental Health Music Outreach Pastore! Care •VVeddings Young A.dulIs Youth Ministry PRAYER KIDS' PAGE SITE INFO Holy Things, Holy People Host Icon from St. George s Indian School Above: A detail of the host iron used at St. George's Indian bcnool, from Iuuu ro ly30. Below: An early photo of the main school building. Courtesy of the Archives of the Archdiocese of Seattle. 3-6-2016 A common task for religious sisters well into the twentieth century was the making of hosts. Using wheat and water my the-Slsters-pr4Wanxd dough-which-was-rolled.ve*thinand-pressedllatJn_a has iron_ The_IrQn was the^ placed In a hot oven until the hosts were cooked. Various designs, from the simple to the elaborate, could be pressed Into the hosts, particularly the large host which was used by the priest celebrant. The host iron featured here dates to the late nineteenth century and was used by the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis of Philadelphia at St. George Indian School just outside Tacoma. St. George Indian School owed Its beginnings to Father Peter Hylebos, the pioneer priest of Tacoma. Hylebos was, by all accounts, a very decisive personality. When he became the first resident pastor of St. Leos Church, Tacoma's first parish, many of his parishioners were members of the Puyallup and other tribes. They had been baptized years before by missionaries like Archbishop F. N. Blanchet and Father Chirouse. Now, these native peoples were vanishing before his eyes: decimated by disease, marginalized by the new dominant culture, and forced ever further from their native lands by the Influx of whEte settlers. In lamenting their fate, Father Hylebos quoted the words of the Puyallup Chlef Stanup: "Thera are three times as many Puyaliups down under the ground in our graveyard as there are standing here.... Two years ago you Could see a house here and there between the trees, now you can only see a tree here and there between the houses." Not long after his arrival in Tacoma, Father Hylebos traveled east, to Washington DC and then to Rome, In search of support for the Indian tribes of Puget Sound. In Rome, "Divine Providence almost dlrect4y guided him to Miss Katharine Drexel," he later wrote (describing his own journey in the third person). Drexel would not long afterwards establish a religious community especially dedicated to the service of African American and Native American people. She provided Father Hylebos with generous financial support —more than $4,000 annually for many years —and also recommended a lay teacher, Esther Stevenson, who would devote her life to the school. With additional help from the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions in Washington DC, grants from the government, and the support of a group of Franciscan Sisters from Philadelphia, 'St, George's Industrial School for Indians" soon became a reality. The Sisters arrived In October of 1888: "a reeling of loneliness stole over the hearts of the missionaries as day after day the :aln poured dawn and the clouds obscured the blue heavens." The school was ready dp Ir1l October 16. and the First dess was held on October 26. L„�, , 1 MI- IT Holy Things, Holy People :fir, V tr' Page 2 of 2 At that time, assimilation was the government's policy In dealing with native tribes. The goal was not the preservation of the history and -culture of tlsese tribes, or their survival as a people, but rather their total assimilation Into the dominantdilture. St George Indian School was characteristic of this phi[osophy. It was a boarding school, so children were separated From their famill les and tribes and completely Immersed In a new way of life. They Came from many different tribes —Puyallup, Yakima, Tula]lp, Muckieshoot, among others —and spoke many languages. At St. George, only English was spoken and the use of native languages was forbidden in the classroom. The school was also a working farm, and children !earned trades: the Sisters taught the girls to wok, sew, and raise chickens, while the chaplain, Father De Decker, helped the toys lea to handle horses and cows, Clear land, build Woes, and plant and harvet crops. Faith was at the heart of all that happened at St. George's. The records of the school give witness to many baptisms and First Communions. The vlsit$ of Bishop Ringer for Conflrmatlon were a special treat. The boys of the school built a small budge and a new road on purpose to make the Bishops visits to them easier (the road was appropriately named the'blshops road"]. In 1895, the children helped build a stone grotto on the grounds, in which was placed a statue of Our Lady of Lourdes, a gift from Mother kathaFine Drexel. Father Hyle6os described the procession: 'The boys headed the festal march, holding aloft a banner of St. ]oseph. Ae girls Foliorred, Svro by two, marrying a banner of be Blessed Virgin. Next came tour large.gfris, dressed in white, carrying on their shoulders the statue.... Sisters hool followed, singing the litany alternately with. four priests of nearby towns. Last came several Rpm St George's Sc young Indian girls, dressed like little angels, and strewing flowers where the Blessed Sacrament was to pass.... the occasion... made a lasting impression on the minds of all present' St. George's School continued to thrive into the 1920s, and was a prominent Catholic presence In Tacoma, even sponsoring a tooth at the Alaska -Yukon Exposition in 1909—the handiwork of the boys and girls was, according to Father Iiyletos, muds admired. But with the Great Depression, funding dried up and Bishop Shaughnessy, dealing with massive delft, closed the school In 1936. In 1944, 1n a letter to the Bureau of Catholic Indian M;ssiorts, Shaughnessy wrote that Financial concerns were not the only reason for closing St. Geoff ge's. The whole policy of assimilation —which, under John Coll ler, ItoosewAt's Director of Indian Affairs, was being dismantled -was a failure. 'The school was located nowhere near any tribe of Indians, '5haughnessy wrote. 'Hence the little chlid ren were deprived of family life and unnecessarily so while the actual schooling that they received was too often lil fitted toward attaining the purpose to which it should have been directed.' The school buildings endured for many years and served various purposes until 1971, when the property was razed for the Construction of Gethsemane Cemetery. Corinna Laughlin, Pastoral Assistant for Liturgy 804 Ninth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Phone 206.622.3559 Fax 206.622.5303 ra ". Ti PAGE Iowa Definition of a cemetery Chapter 531I.102.6 of the Iowa Cemetery Act defines a "cemetery" as follows: Any area that is or was open to use by the public in general or any segment thereof and is used or is intended to be used to inter or scatter remains. "Cemetery" does not include the following: a. A private burial site where use is restricted to members of a family, if the interment rights are conveyed without a monetary payment, fee, charge, or other valuable form of compensation or consideration. b. A private burial site where use is restricted to a narrow segment of the public, if the interment rights are conveyed without a monetary payment, fee, charge, or other valuable form of compensation or consideration. c. A pioneer cemetery. Statewide inventory of graves and cemeteries The Office of the State Archaeologist is responsible for maintaining records of all known or even suspected ancient burial sites (Chapter 68-11.1.4, Iowa Administrative Code). The Iowa Code includes a provision defining "ancient remains" as human remains that are over 150 years old (Section 263.7, Iowa Code). ftorting inadvertent discoveries of human remains The discovery of human remains must be reported to the county or state medical examiner or a city, county, or state law enforcement agency (Chapter 5231.316.6, Iowa Code). Inadvertent discovffy process The Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) has developed procedures in collaboration with the OSA Indian Advisory Council and other stakeholders regarding the inadvertent discovery of human remains, including "ancient human remains." The following excerpts are from the Office of the State Archaeologist's "Field Procedures: Treatment of Mounds and Sites Containing Ancient Human Remains, Information for archaeologists and cultural resource managers" (reprinted 2007): Newly discovered burial site encountered during construction If human remains are encountered in an actively worked construction area, the construction workers, foreman, and supervisor should be aware that to proceed would be intentional disinterment without permission, a breach of Iowa State Law (Code of Iowa, Chapters 263B, 523I.316.6, and 716.5) and could lead to prosecution. Every effort should be .made to temporarily discontinue construction activities. If possible, someone should be left to oversee the site, and if necessary, county or state law enforcement officials contacted to provide site security. The OSA Burials Program Director or State Archaeologist should then immediately be contacted. If no one is available to remain on the site, in situ remains should be photographed and surface fmds collected before departure. 17 Historical Burial Sites A. Marked historic burials less than 150 years old are covered under Code of Iowa Chapter 5231 (tile foiitner Chapter 560' incorporated into the expanded Chapter. 5231), and require a permitfrom-the Office of Vital Statisii cs -for disititerrnent'(Chapter _ ' " - 144.34). B. -Unmarked hiaoric cemeteries that may_ _be -close to orless-than 150 years old m y -present: Prvui ims In-Uetermining respansibility. i1 Funned archaeolog§s'rmay be t`_ne only professionals who have the training and resources necessary to accurately determine the age of the remains and -possible associated grave furniture. The Offce of the State Archaeologist is the appropriate authority to first contact upon discovery, with a determination to follow regarding subsequent official notification of appropriate authorities. Obviously recent human remains If human remains are encountered which are obviously of recent origin (i:e. if any flesh or clothing are still discernible), the appropriate county or state law enforcement officials and the County Coroner should be contacted. Remains should not be collected -or otherwise disturbed if a crime may be involved. The State Archaeologist is responsible for -"investigating, preserving, and reinterring discoveries of ancient huinan remains." if the remains have been rdinoved or need to be removed, the State Archaeologist has the authority to disinter and study the remains prior to reinterment. In addition, the State Archaeologist has the authority to deny permission to disinter human remains if It 1C rip ed that the remains have "state and national sigriificarice from' scientific standpoint" (Chapter 263.8, Iowa Code). If ancient human remains are rem C Pd, tii eV are reinterred in a designated state cemetery that is closed to the public (Chapter 26313.8, Iowa Code). Identification of human remains The State Archaeologist is responsible for coordinating with a forensic osteologist to study ancient burials (Chapter 2063.71, Iowa Code). Incen 'ves for reporting the discovery of human remains See penalties section below. Fundiin for the inadvertent discovery of human remains Pursuant to Chapter 26313.7, the State Archaeologist is responsible for "investigating; .preserving; and reinterring, discoveries of ancient human remains." Penalties for disiprbinin, or failing to report human remains hltl lition -' Ciis- U Llce or �LI11als is a vioianor! of Iowa State Law and is putushable as an aggravated misdemeanor (Chapter 716.5, Iowa Code). Failure to report the discovery of human remains is a serious misdemeanor (Chapter 523I.316.6, Iowa Code). EP11 PAGE V) 0E- 18 Minnesota Definition of a c mete Chapter 307.08 of the Minnesota Statutes 2006, Subdivision 13(g) defines a cemetery as "a discrete location that is known to contain or intended to be used for the interment of human remains." Statewide inventoa of praver and cemeteries The Office of the State Archaeologist manages locational and related data about burial sites. The information can be accessed with permission via the Office of the State Archaeologist's website and is considered "security information." Individuals who are granted access to the data maintained on the State's site are subject to liability and penalty if data is improperly used (Chapter 307.08, Subdivision 11). Reporting inadvertent discoveries of human remains Currently, there is no provision for reporting human remains within Chapter 307.08. Inadvertent discovgy process Remains found outside a recorded cemetery that are older than fifty years and that cannot be identified are the responsibility of the State Archaeologist. If the remains are found to be Indian, the State Archaeologist and the Indian Affairs Council collaborate in order to determine the tribal identity. If the tribal identity can be ascertained, the State Archaeologist and the Indian Affairs Council, turn the remains over to contemporary tribal leaders. If the State Archaeologist or the Indian Affairs Council request a scientific study of the remains, a qualified professional archaeologist is allowed to study the remains before they are delivered to the appropriate tribal leaders (Chapter 307.08, Subdivision 7). Identification of human remains Chapter 307.08 does not specify the.party responsible for determining that human remains are older than fifty years. Incentives for reportingLeporting human the discovga of human remains . See funding and penalties sections below. Funding for the inadvertent discoypa of human remains The cost of the "authentication, identification, marking, and rescue of unmarked or unidentified burial grounds or burials" shall be the responsibility of the State (Chapter 307.08, Subdivision 5). When an Indian burial ground is located on public lands or waters, the State is responsible for relocation costs if the burial ground is to be relocated. If large Indian burial grounds are involved, the State is encouraged to purchase the land in order to protect the burials instead of removing them (Chapter 307.08, Subdivision 8). m- IT 19 Penalties for disturbiniz or failing to r ort human remains A person who "intentionally, willfully, and knowingly destroys, mutilates, injures, or disturbs skeletal remains or human burial grounds is guilty of a felony." Any person vandalizing a cemetery is guilty of a gross misdemeanor (Chapter 51I7.08, Subdivision 2). , Oregon. Definition of a cernete Oregon Regulatory Statutes (ORS) 97.010.2 defines a cemetery as "any place dedicated to and used, or:intended to be used, for the permanent interment ofhuman remains." For purposes of ORS 97.740 an Indian grave is defined asa "burial" or ``human remains." A burial is defined as "any natural or prepared physical location whether originally below, on or above the surface of the eai-4 into which, as a part of a death rite or death ceremony- of 'a culture, human remains were deposited" (OHS 358.905.e). Human remains are defined in ORS 358.905.g as the "physical remains of a human body, including, but not limited to, bones, teeth, hair, ashes or mummified of otherwise preserved soft tissues of an individual." In addition, Oregon defines a "historic cemetery" in ORS 97.772, as "any buriai.place*hat - contains remains- of one or more persons who died before February 14, 1909" (1-999 c. 731 1; 2003 c. s1). Statewide inventory of graves and cemeteries . - Pursuant to ORS 97.782, the Oregon Commission on Historic Cemeteries is responsible for aiaaiiataiiuiig a 115t of ail l.0 LO ll 1 e111FtFl-les in the SLQte. ORS 97 does not discuss a statewide inventory of Indian graves. Re-portinginadvertent discoveries of human remains In the event that native Indian human remains are discovered, the discovery shall be reported to the state police, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the appropriate Indian tribe, and the Commission on indian Services (ORS 97. 745A. Inadvertent discoygy rocess If human remains are encountered during excavations of an archaeological site on privately owned land, the person shall stop all excavations and report the find to the landowner, state police; the -State Historic Preservation -Officer, and -the Commission on fhdian Services (ORS 358.920.6). Identif cation of human remains Pursuant to ORS 146.090 and 146.095; the law enforcement official, district medical examiner, and the disrict attorney of the county where the death occurs are responsible for deaths requiring investigation. Deaths that require investigation include those "occurring under suspicious or unknown circumstances. - incentives for reporting the discgvgy of hum= remains See penalty section below. E IT � 3z �20 Funding for the inadvertent discovpM of human remains In Oregon, if human remains are removed during an archaeological investigation, the reinterment will be performed under the supervision of the affected tribe, and the archaeologist will pay the costs associated with the reburial (ORS 97.750.1). Pursuant to ORS 358.953.2, if human remains are removed from private_ property at a tribe's request, the tribe requesting removal shall pay for the removal and the restoration of the property. ORS 97.745.1 states that any person who inadvertently discovers a native Indian burial shall be responsible for the reinterment of the human remains under the supervision of the appropriate Indian tribe. Penalties for disturbin or failing to report human remains The penalty for disturbing or failing to report the discovery of human remains is a Class B misdemeanor (ORS 358.920.8). Any individual or the Attorney General can file a civil action against an individual who performed a prohibited, act under ORS 358.920. The civil action must be filed within five years of the violation (ORS 358.961). Regarding Indian burials, an "Indian tribe or enrolled member thereof'-' can file a civil action in the county court in which the burial was located within two years of a violation of ORS 97.745 (ORS 97.760). Texas Definition of a cernetery In Chapter 26.5.6.B.v of the Texas Administrative Code (Title 13, Part 2), a cemetery defined as follows: Cemeteries and burials, marked and unmarked, are special locales set aside for burial purposes. Cemeteries contain the remains of one or more persons. Burials may contain the remains of one or more individuals located in a common grave in a locale not formerly or subsequently used as a cemetery. The site area encompasses the human remains present and also grave stones, markers, containers, coverings, garments, vessels, tools, and other goods, which may be present. Cemeteries and burials whether prehistoric or historic, that are publicly owned are protected under the Antiquities Code. Cemeteries are considered historic if interments within the cemetery occurred at least fifty (50) years ago. Individual burials within a cemetery are not considered historic unless the interments occurred at least (50) years ago. Statewide inventory of aver and cemeteries Currently, the State of Texas does not have a statewide inventory of graves and cemeteries. 21 Ke ortin inadvertent discoveries of human remains State law does not compel the citizens of Texas to report the discovery of human remains on private lands. However, if a person discovers an archaeological site on public land, including human remains, project activities shall cease and the person skull not the Texas Historical Commission 'b• Inadvertent discovery_ process If a project has been reviewed by the Texas Historical Commission and discovery of an archaeological site; 1nCluding —urnan remains, 'Occurs on public lands, the Texas Historical Commission will determine, within two days, if a historically significant site is present within the project area; if additional steps are necessary to protect the site; and if an archaeological assessment is warranted (Section 191.0525.g.1. a,b.c). If the Texas Historical Commission does not respond within two days; the project may proceed (Section 191.0525.g.2). Chapter 26.1 i.4 of the T exas Administrative Code (Title 13, Part 2) states: Anyone working on public lands who discovers archeological sites or historic structures which may qualify for designation as a State Archeological Landmark according to the 1__te S / n. 206 n lit 7 r n A Y criteria ii��Cd in 0ecricris 20. �-zo.l� o� this titre (relating to Criteria for Evaluating Historic Structures; Criteria for Evaluating Archeological Sites; Criteria for Evaluating Caches and Collections; and Criteria for Evaluating: Shipwrecks) shall report such discoyery to the state. agency or poliiir_.a] I I -V .-, nns Owning nr contr I ing the property and to the commission. Upon notification, the commission staff may initiate designation proceedings if it determines the site to be a significant cultural or historical property and/or the commission staff may issue a permit for mitigative archeological investigations or any other investigations. Identification of human remains ETi _ eN y7,, c Texas T� torn 1 /'1 n �Wf ,1 b + + lit ca k . of i:iiv T.,nua i'ii$cvarvaa �il1n111tiSJioi1 iS uvtiflG-u by a S�a�e agency or poiiclt�ai Siiudl'ViSivri about archaeological resources, including human remains, the Commission assists with the identification of human remains -(Chapter 26.11.4): Ir_centives tonne ordn the discQvM of human remains I.. urr01161y, there are no i.rlcentives for resorting the discovery of human -ielLains. Funding for the inadvertent discov of human remains In Texas, the private,property-own er bears the costs associated with the inadvertent discovery of human remains (Section•19l.057). Penalties for disturbing or failing to report human remains Section 25.031 of the Texas Penal Code states that "damaging or destroying a human burial site is a state jail felony." K 22 l�• �:. r Further, Section 42.08.a.1 of the Texas Penal Code states that the penalty for anyone who "intentionally or knowingly disinters or disturbs a human corpse" is a Class A misdemeanor. Wisconsin Definition of a cemetLry Section 12.70.11(13) of Wisconsin Act 316 defines cemeteries as "land owned by cemetery associations and used exclusively as public burial grounds and tombs and monuments therein, and privately owned burial lots; land adjoining such burial grounds owned and occupied exclusively by the association for cemetery purposes; personal property owned by any cemetery association necessary for the care and management of burial grounds; burial sites and contiguous lands which are cataloged under s. 157.70(2)(a)." Statewide inventory of graves and cemeteries Chapter 157.70(2) states that the director of the state historical society will identify and catalogue burial sites in the state. Reporting inadvertent discoveries of human remains Wisconsin law requires that all persons report the disturbance of a burial site to the director of the state historical society or to the state historic preservation officer (Chapter 157.70.3). Inadvertent discovgy process If an uncataloged burial site is reported to the director, the director will notify the property owner and other interested parties about the discovery (Chapter 157.70.4.a). Once the state notifies the property owner, the property owner cannot disturb the burial site without permission from the director (Chapter 157.07.4.b). If the property owner is planning a land use activity, the director will determine if the activity will adversely impact the burial site (Chapter 157.07.4.c.1). If the director is satisfied that the activity will not have an impact on the burial site and no one has objected, the property owner can proceed with the activity (Chapter 157.07.4. c.2). If the director determines that the activity will have a negative impact on the burial site, or an interested party has objected to the activity, the property owner cannot proceed with the project (Chapter 157.07.3). However, the project can proceed if the property owner allows the director or a qualified archaeologist thirty days to excavate the burial site to remove and analyze any human remains and objects related to the burial site (Chapter 157.07.3.a), or redesigns the project to avoid the burial site (Chapter 157.07.4.c.3.b). After one of these measures is completed to the director's satisfaction, the property owner can proceed with the project (Chapter 157.07.4.d). Identification of human remains If a coroner or medical examiner is contacted regarding a death and determines that the human remains are of non -forensic interest, they will contact the director of the historical society (Chapter 979.01.1.r of Section 22). Incentives for repoging the discovery of human remains The director of the state historical society is authorized to "make recommendations concerning burial sites on private property for acquisition by the state or other public agencies to preserve the burial sites" (Chapter 157.70.c). FuP1 PACE 3-_09 23 Wisconsin also utilizes conservation easements to assist in preserving burial sites (Chapter 700.40.1.a). Funding for the inadvertent discovery of human remains Wisconsin has developed two classes of burials: cataloged and uncataloged. If a person or agency disturbs a cataloged burial site, they shall pay the cost of reburial; cremation or-caration of'the human !-ergs (HS 2.45:8): - - if an inadvertent discovery of an uncataloged burial site occurs and it is not feasible to leave the burial in place, fie director of the state historical society has thirty days to excavate and analyze the remains at no cost to the landowner. If the director cannot complete the work within the landowner's timeframe, the landowner can hire a qualified archaeologist and skeletal analyst at their own expense (HS 2.04.12.b). Lenalties for disturbing or for failing to report human remains Anyone who does not report the disturbance of a burial site will be fined "not less than $500 and no more than $1,000" (Chapter 157.70.10.a). input froin Stakeholders and Affected Cow-m- unities In order to gather information about current grave and cemetery protections from those responsible for or affected by the protections, members of the Study Team attended two open iir rns civiiJoiied by nepreseiitabive John MLcCoy, conducted a series of discussion groups, and reviewed written comments. Information was gathered during forty-one interactions represented by the following categories: State Legislators (2), Open Forums (2), State/County Government Agencies, including attendance at a Mason County Superior Court Bearing (7); Tribal Governments, including individual and group meetings and a tribal lobbyist (14); Professional Associations (11)- and Citizens, including advocates, professionals, and groups (5). Some overlap between categories occurred as many participants were represented at both individual meetings and at the open forums_ Also, in terms of Tribal Governments, members of the Study Team gathered information from both individual tribes (8 Washington tribes; I Oregon tribe, I Idaho tribe) and from a group meeting of tribal chairpersons (7 tribes represented); in all, members of the Study Team gathered information from 15 individual tribes (13 Washington tribes, I Oregon tribe, I Idaho tribe): Participating stakeholders and affected communities reflect the wide range -of peaple engaged in the issue of grave and cemetery protection. Despite the seemingly disparate values and interests of the participants, a number of common themes, common issues, and proposed solutions emerged upon review of the input provided. While a detailed statistical analysis of the information was beyond the scope of this project, seven common Themes, Twenty-one common issues, and twenty-three proposed solutions were noted. Common responses ranged in frequency from three to twenty-nine: A list and brief description of common themes, issues, and proposed solutions follows. E K Common Themes Graves and cemeteries should be respected It is commonly accepted that respect for human remains and the graves and cemeteries where they are found is a fundamental value of nearly every. culture. Input provided by the participants supports this statement_ The shared value of respect for human remains and graves and cemeteries represents critical common ground in the often -divisive issue of grave and cemetery protection. Everyone has a responsibility to protect graves and cemeteries_ although specific nations of cprotection" differ according to factors such as cultural value systems and economic interests While participants generally agreed that everyone is responsible for grave and cemetery protection, "protection" means different things to different people. Notions of protection that were discussed included: leaving human remains in place and redesigning proposed development projects to avoid impacting them; removing human remains and reinterring them elsewhere; and automatically dedicating all graves and cemeteries, thereby requiring project proponents to address potential impacts by completing the removal of dedication process and, if the grave or cemetery is also an archaeological site, by obtaining and fulfilling the terms of an Archaeological Excavation Permit issued by DAHP. Trust between stakeholders and affected partieg must be established In order to successfully address the shortcomings of the system of grave and cemetery protections, trust must be established between the State Government and Tribal Governments and between the State and its citizens. The grave and cemetery issue itself is shaped by conflicting value systems, and the current system of protections lacks effective guidelines for resolving these conflicts. As a result, a series of unsatisfactory outcomes has led :to a lack of trust between the parties. All.parties including their leadership. must commit the time, effort_ and resources necessary to making meariingU and lasting changes to the s stern of wave and cemete pLotection Establishing trust takes time. If the goal is to establish a system of protections that will better serve the deceased and their descendants or advocates, as well as all the citizens of Washington State, then consultation and collaborative policy -making must occur. The momentum. created by such a process will facilitate later steps. Proposed legislation should strengthen and not weaken current protections Stakeholders and affected communities stated that effectively protecting graves and cemeteries within the current system is difficult; and many would like to see greater levels of protection established. Any legislative change resulting from" consideration of this study, therefore, should strengthen grave and cemetery protections and not weaken. them. The system of grave and cemetery_protection must be predictable in order for citizens to participate If the system of protections is unpredictable, people will not participate in the protection of known or inadvertently discovered graves and cemeteries. A number of participants reported a general fear among property owners that reporting known or inadvertently di"y4and UP�E 31 OF 25 cemeteries'will result in the loss of use or ataking by the State or a tribe. If a predictable process with clear timelines and adequate funding exists, people will be more confident about participating. 'Predictability, therefore, represents the most basic incentive available for encouraging the protection of graves and cemeteries. Protections are -needed for both known and inadvertent) discovered graves and cemeteries The overwhelming nia ority-of input provided by participants was related to theprotection of b-n-adveftlently discovered graves and ce teri however, part�i i-r,�rt 1 recognized i-he nee gr-. r??e e , . ale, , Y....,,.C.ra.. s a.s0d for better protection of known graves and cemeteries. A complete, effective system must address both types of graves and cemeteries. Common Issues Scattered. unclear_ and confusing rations Participants identified a number of regulatory disconnects, particularly between RCW 27.44 (Indian Graves and Records Act), RCW 68.60 (Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves Act), and Title 68 RCW (Cemeteries, Morgues, and Human Remains). For example, many basic definitions differ between regulations, including those for "human remains" and "cemetery," which, in turn, has led to jurisdictional uncertainties.. Also, reporting a dead body to the county coroner or medical examiner is mandatory at RCW 68.50.020, but reporting disturbances of Indian burial sites and hist6he graves is voluntary at RCW 27.44.030. Confusion regarding how to fulfill the policy statements in the RCW also exists.- perhaps because corresponding procedural` steps have not been established in the WAC or in agency guidelines. Protections are different in RCW 27.44(Indian. Graves and Records Act and RCW 68.60 Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves Act -Participants identified anumber of differences in the protections established in RCW 27.44 and RCW 68.60. For example, RCW 27.44 provides for civil action by an Indian tribe or tribal member, but civil actions at RCW 68.60 must be made in the name of the -State Cemetery -Board. Most participants agreed that maximum available protections should be extended to both categories -of graves and cemeteries. Automatic dedication of cemeteries(including historic and abandoned and historic gmes is established at RQW 68.60.020 but is not established far Indian aves in RCW 27.44 Marry participants stated that automatic dedication is an important protection, particularly for cemeteries without an advocate to can--y out dedication with the county; as removal or use of a dedicated cemetery is dependent on completion of the removal of dedication process. Automatic dedication; -however, does -not compel the landowner to recorda: cemetery with the county, and if the cemetery is not recorded, it,will likelynot appear .in an_inventory. Some .participants stated that it should be the landowner's choice whether.or not to dedicate a cemetery on their property, bffle othcr5 Stuieu 7ila% a cemetery shouiu be considered a cemetery even�if it iS not formally recorded at the county. No statewide inventory ofknowngrayes and cemeteries Many participants stated that effective protection of known graves::and cemeteries begins with centralizing existing locational information. Without a centralized inventory, it is difficult or E X F I TK r rA E _ !7 = tx .b _ 26 impossible to apply information about known graves and cemeteries to preventive measures, such as a permit review process. In addition to maintaining and updating an inventory, rules governing. access to and use of the information must accompany it. No access to private proper A number of participants stated that protection of graves and cemeteries is much more difficult when access to private property is denied. Protective measures, such as inventorying, general upkeep, and responding to threatened or endangered graves and cemeteries, often require access to private property. Variations in the capacity of local and tribal governments to participate effectively in grave and cemetM protection According to participants, effective grave and cemetery protection requires resources in the form of funding and professional expertise. Small local governments and tribal governments may not have the resources necessary to participate in the system of protections in a sustainable manner. The existence of stakeholders and affected communities without the ability to participate may cause breakdowns in the system or significantly slow processes. Disincentives characterize the current system of & ave and cemetM proWetions Participants discussed a number of disincentives faced by those responsible for or affected by the current system of protections: Examples of disincentives include the following: those reporting inadvertent discoveries often have to pay for the response process; no funding has been appropriated to DAHP to assist with reinterment of inadvertently discovered remains; no timelines are established for responding to inadvertent discoveries; and incentives for dedicating known or for leaving in place inadvertently discovered graves and cemeteries are not clearly articulated. The lack of a predictable process also serves as a disincentive for responsible agencies and tribes as decision -making is often a "negotiated process" conducted on a case -by - case basis and relying on the maintenance of good relationships between often -strained parties. No directive for reporting the discovery of human remains in RCW 68.60 and voluntary reporting of the discovg_ry of human remains in RCW 27.44 Current reporting requirements are as follows: reporting a dead body to the county coroner or medical examiner is mandatory at RCW 68.50.020; reporting disturbance of Indian burial sites and historic graves is voluntary at RCW 27.44.030; no directive for reporting disturbances or discoveries of abandoned and historic cemeteries and historic graves exists in RCW 68.60. Participants recognized that human remains might represent a missing person or a homicide whose relatives should be notified of their discovery; in other instances, human remains might be related to modern-day descendants who should be notified of their discovery. Many participants also noted that the penalty for not reporting is a misdemeanor at RCW 68.50.020 and stated that either the 1same penalty should be applied to RCW 27.44 and 68.60 or a higher penalty should be applied so people do not disregard the reporting requirement. Other participants discussed the fact that penalties might discourage reporting. EXPI T L\ PAGE V No Predictable. standardized statewide pLocess for responding to inadvertent discoveries of human remains According to participants, current regulations include only minimai procedural steps and no timelines for responding to inadvertent discoveries of human remains. For- example, although not mentioned in the regulations, DAHP often requires an archaeological assessment in order, to determine whether or not additional human remains are present; -while it -may', - canduct an assessment, the response timeline is extendea ofteri unexpectedly: Without predictable process, decision -malting ,s often a"negotiated process" conducted on a case -by -case basis and relying on the maintenance of good relationships between parties that are often already strained. Stakeholders and affected communities often feel marginalized and unsatisfied v,��th the process and outcomes, and wimcut predictaui lity Qi�d certainty, they fear people will not repot inadvertent discoveries. No timelines established for responding to inadvertent discoveries of human remains The lack of timelines for, responding to inadvertent discoveries leads to uncertainty and represents another disincentive to reporting according to participants. Delays often lead to additional and unexpected costs for project proponents. Delays are considered undesirable and disrespectful to many descendants anal advocates desiring speedy disposition; as well. Lack of professional OLWifications of those res onsible for identifying human remains Many participants discussed the fact that county coroners are elected officials, and they often lack the professional training required to identify human remains. Identification of human remains represents the first step in responding to an inadvertent discovery, so it must. be accurate and timely. An unqualified individual might incorrectly identify human remains or incorrectly determine them unidentifiable, and all subsequent steps of the inadvertent discovery process - would be based on incorrect information. "Key arson" often relied on for the identification human remain Many participants acknowledged that elected county coroners without the professional expertise to identify human remains often request assistance from the Forensic Anthropologist at the King County Medical Examiner's Office; however, only one Fordisic Anthropologist is available to the entire State. While such consultation is prudent; dependency, on a "key person" can delay the identification process, and if consultation does not occur, the possibility that human remains are incorrectly identified increases. A system relying on a key person may compromise both the death investigation process should the remains represent a crime scene and the inadvertent discovery process.shouid they represent non- 4orensic remains. Destructive scientific testing of human remains is unacc table in same values sterns - Coroners and medical exaiminers responsible for identifying human remains typically employ scientific testing -when necessary. Some participants stated that destructive testing methods shuuici be;used if non-destructive testing are not enough to identify the -remains; while other participants object to destructive testing in any instance. Many states have_a so-called "science clause" that permits scientific testing of human remains before they are returned to the affected community. E P , r17 Not always possible to_identifv remains A number of participants discussed the fact that it is not always possible to identify remains. Procedures for deciding how such remains should be treated must be established. Mediation often falls to DAHP despite their role as a stakeholder in the process DAHP is often expected to mediate between stakeholders, such as the project proponent, and affected communities, such as descendants and advocates (e.g. tribes, pioneer descendants, historical societies, cemetery advocates). DAHP may also be expected to mediate between two or more tribes claiming the same set of remains. However, participants pointed out that DAHP is charged with the scientific study of "archaeological resources" defined at RCW 27.53.040 as including "skeletal remains." Many affected communities do not consider human remains archaeological resources that should be scientifically studied. This conflict of scientific and cultural values has led to strained relations between DAHP and some affected communities. Relying on a stakeholder (i.e. DAHP) to serve also as a mediator is not an effective process. Late notification to affected tribes of an inadvertent discovery of human remains Current regulations do not require DAHP to notify affected tribes of an inadvertent discovery of human remains, although reinterment under tribal supervision is required (RCW 27.44.040) thereby necessitating notification at some point. Some tribes indicated that they would like to be notified as soon as the identification process begins. Some tribes indicated that they prefer to be notified of inadvertent discoveries as soon as remains are determined human. Still others prefer to be notified when remains are identified as Native American. A number of participants stated that they have worked with their local coroner or medical examiner to establish notification procedures. In some of these scenarios, notification to DAHP by the coroner or medical examiner was inconsistent. Lack of meaning#ul tribal consultation in the event of an inadvertent discovery of human remains Many tribes stated that they should have a meaningful decision -making role when remains are determined Native American as protections should reflect the wishes of the descendants. Current regulations at RCW 27.44.040 appear to support this position: "Persons disturbing native Indian graves through inadvertence, including disturbance through construction, mining, logging, agricultural activity, or any other activity, shall reinter the human remains under the supervision of the appropriate Indian tribe." Other tribes requested the opportunity to participate in decision - making from the very beginning of the inadvertent discovery process and others as soon as the remains are determined human. Removal of inadvertently_ discovered human remains should not be assumed For some participants, "protection" involves leaving remains in place and avoiding any impacts to them. A number of affected communities, including both tribes and cemetery advocates, favored a system that includes the opportunity to discuss the option of leaving remains in place rather than assuming their removal. Some participants citing the values of conservation, preservation, and protection at RCW 27.53.010 (Archaeological Sites and Resources - Declaration) stated that DAHP should be doing more to protect graves and cemeteries in place rather than permitting their removal over the obj ections of descendants and advocates. Pik' Lam.• :? :2 29 Identification of descendants or advocates not always possible, descendants or advocates ma choose not to paitcinate A number of partiwipants discussed the fact that it is not always possible to identify descendants or advocates. Others pointed out that, if identified; descendants or advocates may choose not to participate. Procedures for deciding how such remains should be treated must be established_ Weak penalties are difficult to eruoice - - - Many participants noted that the penal y for not reporting a dead -body is a misdemeanor at RCW 68.50.020 and stated that either the same penalty should be applied to RCW 27.44 and 68.60 or a higher penalty should be applied so people do not disregard the reporting reqpirement. Other participants discussed the fact that penalties might discourage reporting. Collaboration with law enforcement and attorneys regarding enforcement is lacking. No funding for known or inadvertently discovered graves and cemeteries Many participants discussed the lack of funding available for protecting either known or inadvertently discovered graves and: cemeteries: For example; funding is necessary for, producing an inventory of known graves and cemeteries and for applying the information to planning efforts; such as a permit review process. In terms of 'inadvertent discoveries, both RCW 27.44.040 and RCW 68.60.050 contain an "unfunded mandate" that states that the costs of reintennent will be paid by DAHP to the extent the State Legislature appropriates such funds,. No such funds have been appropriated, so persons reporting the'discovery of remains must pay for the response, and while sundry claims are possible, they are not guaranteed. The lack of funding creates an enormous disincentive for reporting. Proposed Solutions Build relationships between stakeholders and affected communities Participants agreed that grave and cemetery protection has proven to be a complex and often emotional issue due to the large number of stakeholders and affected communities; each- with their own, sometimes conflicting value systems. In such an environment, building relationships based on trust and respect is essential to promoting the coliaboration-necessary for developing and implementing a viable system: Relationships should then be formalized through processes such as government -to. -government consultation and the development of interlocdl agreements., Some tribal representatives, for example, cited fulfillment of the Centennial Accord as an appropriate means cffurthering the vela iLh onsrip between bat and State governments. Clarify definitions In -order to address-a-numberof confusing regulatory disconnects, participants suggested -a - cleanup bill addressing different aril sometimes conflicting definitions and related jurisdictional uncertainties. Definitions requiring clarification included those for "human remains;" "burial," c ciiiEwiy, a-m7wt .i to nams, . uoules, .and Elie so-called rive'oI more rule" at RC W 68.60.010 (Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves). InvoLo1y known graves and cemeteries In order to protect known graves and cemeteries, participants recognized the importance of conducting an inventory to establish a baseline of information. A centralized inventory could 1. (Y I UT '` = PAGE L ) �%.- then be used for pre -project planning and review of permit applications with the potential to impact graves and cemeteries (e.g. shoreline permits). Most participants suggested that DAHP coordinate and maintain the inventory, perhaps in a manner similar to that for maintaining the statewide database of archaeological sites. Procedures governing access to and use of the information and ensuring confidentiality of the information might also mirror procedures governing the archaeological database. Retain automatic dedication in RCW 68.60 Many participants considered dedication an important level of protection for cemeteries, and whether or not a cemetery has been formally recorded at the county, it should be treated as a cemetery. Some participants suggested the "five or more rule" at RCW 68.60.010 be changed to reflect the definition used by the State Cemetery Board so that abandoned and historic cemeteries containing less than five graves receive the protection of automatic dedication. Other participants suggested that automatic dedication be extended to RCW 27.44 so that Indian graves and burial grounds also receive the protections associated with dedication. Establish positive incentives for leaving aver and cemeteries in place rather than removin Participants recognized that positive incentives are necessary in order to encourage property owners to leave graves and cemeteries in place rather than remove them. To be effective, the incentives must outweigh the costs of abandoning the use of the property or a proposed project. Possible incentives include a property tax exemption (cemetery property is already tax-exempt as per RCW 68.24.240, so expansion of the cemetery definition would facilitate availability of this option), an easement option; or classification as open space for valuation at current use rather than highest and best use. Establish statewide permit review process to protect known and to identify_ potential raves and cemeteries Pre -project planning through a permit review process represented an important preventive measure to many participants. The proposed inventory of known graves and cemeteries and the DAHP archaeological database could be used to identify the presence of graves and cemeteries, as well as potential impacts to them. Local and tribal governments could send information to DAHP to be used during permit review; tribal information might include maps of areas of interest. Funding might be provided on a pass -through basis much like the Certified Local Government program. Corresponding procedures, including those for ensuring confidentiality of sensitive information, could be established in the WAC. Participants proposed the following as a step in the permit review process: Require pre -project archaeological assessments as part of the statewide permit review process Many participants cited the fact that pre -project archaeological assessments can only be recommended and not required. DAHP and tribes, as well as some local governments, typically recoi'iIimend the assessments during the permit review process. Tiie autlion'by to require assessments when justified would assist in identification of graves and cemeteries prior to construction and prevention of inadvertent discoveries. Data gathered could be added to the DAHP database of archaeological sites and, if graves and cemeteries are identified, to the proposed inventory of known graves and cemeteries. Suivorttribal Proarams and -local governments with the capacily to particiate in the grave and cemete rotection and those building the re aired capacity Participants generally agreed that an effective:system of grave and cemetery protections depends on stakeholders -and affected communities -possessing the capacity required to participate in -a meaningful and sustainable manner. Some participants suggested that -State assistance be provided to tribal programs and local governments for building capacity. Require mandatory re por6sig of discoveries of human remains Many participants stated that reporting discoveries of human remains should be mandatory and not voluntary in both. RCW 27.44 and RCW 68.60. Not only would this provide consistency with RCW 68.50.020 requiring reporting of dead bodies to the county coroner, it would also support the shared value of respect forhuman remains. -Mandatory reporting requires a predictable response process so that people know how to report discoveries and agencies agree on jurisdiction over fine various steps of the subsequent response (see next proposed solution). Establish a standardized statewide process for responding to inadvertent discoveries of human remains Participants agreed that a standardized statewide process for responding to inadvertent discoveries of human remains would provide much -needed predictability and certainty for those reporting and for the stakeholders and affected communities responding. A predictable process represents a critical incentive lur consistent reporting of discoveries of -Murat, remains. The statewide process, established in the WAC, should provide the basic framework, while specifics should be established on the local level. The inadvertent discovery process should be based on "best practices." Proposed individual steps in the process were as follows: 1) Call 911 to Mort inadvertent discoveries of human remains According to current regulations, law enforcement assumes primary jurisdiction of human remains as they may represent a missing person or a homicide. Law enforcement manages the:discov.ery as a crime scene by providing security, preventing. cont amiriation of the scene by controlling access, and controlling media coverage. Some;participants �?.1 ussed the,.option of providing confidential: reporting as through a hotline. 2) Establish a statewide Physical Anthropologist to ensure pro er identification of remains: A number of pa ticip�-ts Supported the establisriment of a statewide Physical ATitlllGp^viGgiSt to address the tack Gf professional quaiiLcationS. of sGiiie-:elected coroners. The Physical Anthropologist would be available to any jurisdiction requiring assistance. Currently, the Forensic Anthropologist in the King County Medical _ Examiner's Office serves as the de facto statewide Physical Anthropologist, so many participants supported a transition to establishing an official position. Over time, _mod tio�al 1eAlcerS i;n-a�d JC added 11W d^^.Ierc fne Bey k` rc '. ..tuatiGn. 3) Notift and consult with affected tribes when remains are of interest Many participants agreed that notification and consultation with affected tribes should occur when the remains are identified as Native American. Some tribes.. requested notification as soon as the remains were identified as human or as soon as the EXF r.71 IT 32 PASOF identification process begins. Currently, if remains are identified as non -forensic, DAHP assumes jurisdiction from the coroner or medical examiner. If the remains are Native American, DAHP then notifies the affected tribe(s). Participants suggested a variety of ways to identify affected tribes, such as consulting tribally generated maps of areas of interest, following NAGPRA guidelines, and consulting Indian Claims Commission maps. Many tribes have codes of law and procedural manuals guiding notification and consultation, and these should be incorporated into DAHP procedures. 4) Grant affected tribe primary authority when remains are identified as Native American According to a number of participants, human remains should be cared for according to the wishes of the descendants as they have a responsibility to care for the remains according to their cultural value system. Many tribal representatives explained that remains are viewed as people, not as mere bones. When remains are identified as Native American, many participants stated that tribes should assume primary decision -making authority. If State law continues to define skeletal remains archaeological resources, DAHP would still be involved as the State agency charged with regulating such resources. 5) Establish a State inter -agency cultural resource team Some participants suggested that the State establish an inter -agency cultural resource team to address cultural resources issues, including grave and cemetery protection. The State Historic Preservation Officer should be a member of the team. 6) EstabIish a statewide Native American commission to address issues concern n Native American remains Some participants discussed the establishment of a statewide Native American commission to assist with identification of the appropriate affected tribe, settling disagreements concerning a plan of action in the event of an inadvertent discovery, and developing a plan of action for unidentifiable remains and remains for which there is no advocate. 7) Establish a formal mediation process m the event agreement on a_plan of action cannot be reached Currently, no formal mediation process exists in the event stakeholders and affected communities cannot agree to a plan of action for responding to an inadvertent discovery. With a mediation process, DAHP would not be expected to serve as both stakeholder and mediator. Formal mediation served as the mechanism for reaching resolutions in several high -profile cases, including the Washington State Department of Transportation's graving dock on the Port Angeles waterfront (2003) and the City of Blaine's wastewater treatment plant expansion on the Semiahmoo Spit (1999). 8) Establish a plan of action for human remains for which there is no advocate A number of stakeholders recognized that an advocate might not be identified for every set of inadvertently discovered remains. Currently, DAHP has jurisdiction of non - forensic remains (i.e. historic or Native American remains). However, DAHP does not serve as a repository for remains, and State law requires reburial or cremation (RCW EV,IR4T Lt PAEL)� 68.50.110). The law doesnot appear to encourage the curation of human remaws, so a plan of action is needed describing how the remains are to be treated and, if they are to be reinterred, where and how that will occur. 9) Establish timelines Participants generally agreed -that timelines.should be established for the various steps -in the inadvertent &—coveiy p­rncess.- Suggested steps and; where p6ssibl,e, suggested timelines were as follows: reporting discoveries (immediately --on discovery); lave enforcement response (immediately upon report of dis-covery); coroner/medical examiner response (in» i7.ed1ately upon notiffication by lave enforcement)- identification (depends upon the discovery); notification. to DAHP (immediately upon identification as non - forensic); DAHP notification to affected communities and Cemetery Board (immediately upon notification by law enforcement and identification of affected communities); consultation (depends upon the stakeholders and affected communities); mediation, if necessary -(perhaps within a certain time of beginning consultation); implementation of a plan of action (depends upon the plan agreed to by the stakeholders and affected communities). Enforce the existing enalties in RCW 27.44 and RCW 68.60. and an new VMft for not reporting lvianriy participants proposed equivalent criminal and civil penalties.RCW 27.44 and RCUI 68.60 and coordination with law enforcement so that the penalties are enforced. - Authorize fimding for grave and cemetery protection PartiC.Inants generally agreed that %; ndinng is re. -wired to support all effective, susiainabie system of grave and cemetery protection. Funding was proposed for the unfunded mandates in RCW 27.44 and RCW 68.60 so that those reporting do not have to pay; a statewide inventory of known graves and cemeteries; and planning efforts with local_ and tribal governments, including a permit review process and inadvertent discovery planning. R i ire developer and proponents to provide -funding for offsetting the costs as ociated with future inadvertent discoveries of human remains Some participants proposed cost sharing by developers so that the costs were not borne solely by the State or by stakeholders and affected communities. For example, an impact fee could be paid into a revolving fund that would serve as insurance in the event of an inadvertent discovery. Launch an educational cg=aiga for leadershi rofessional and the public Participants generally agreed that education is -critical to the establishment of an effective system Vf grave and ceiilete y protection. DAIIIP could provide coordination of an education campaign for leadership (e.g. State, tribal, local), professionals (e.g. law enforcement-, coroner and medical examiu rs, attorneys, archaeologists, developers), acid:Cie public (e.g. properly owners, cemetery advocates). Education regarding mandatory reporting could be modeled after the "call before you dig" campaign. Education should create greater awareness of the issue and present a work plan for developing and implementing solutions. Education should inform people that the State is committed to establishing a predictable -process. Education should also promote respect for human remains and cultural value systems. EPIIT P� RECOMMENDATIONS Within the first month of the contract period (August 2007), regulatory research and input from participating stakeholders and affected communities confirmed the Study Team's expectation that the creation and implementation of viable, long-term solutions to all of the issues currently affecting grave and cemetery protection in Washington State requires further discussion and collaboration than was possible during the four -month timeframe afforded the Study. This observation was shared with Dr. Brooks, DAHP, and Mr. Bill, GOIA, on several occasions and with Senator Haugen and Representative McCoy during the first week of September just prior to the second Open Forum. Recognizing the complexity of the issues and the extensive number of stakeholders and affected communities, the Legislators requested that the Study Team's recommendations include: 1) a list of solutions that might be addressed during the next legislative session, and 2) a list of solutions requiring further discussion and collaboration as described in a two to three year work plan. Based upon the results of the regulatory research and the input from participating stakeholders and affected communities, the Study Team respectfully submits the following recommendations to DAHP and the State Legislature. Solutions to be Addressed During the Next Legislative Session 1) Declaration section to accompany proposed_ legislation Grave and cemetery protection has proven to be a complex and often emotional issue due to the large number of stakeholders and affected communities, each with their own, sometimes conflicting value systems. In such an environment, building relationships based on trust and respect is essential to promoting the collaboration necessary for developing and implementing a viable system. Leadership, including the State Legislature, can build trust and respect between parties by identifying common ground and agreeing to move forward together on the issue. For example, the shared value of respect for human remains and graves and cemeteries represents critical common ground in the often -divisive issue of grave and cemetery protection. In order to begin building relationships based on trust and respect and to move forward together on the issue of grave and cemetery protection, it is recommended that the following statements be considered for inclusion in a declaration section to accompany proposed legislation: all graves and cemeteries should be respected; all citizens have a responsibility to respect graves and cemeteries; respect for graves and cemeteries is often expressed according to cultural values. which should also be respected; when determining specific protective measures for graves and cemeteries, descendants should be identified and included in decision -making whenever possible. 2) Clarify definitions and related jurisdictional uncertainties in a cleanup bill Regulatory disconnects in the form of scattered definitions and related jurisdictional uncertainties have led to an unpredictable and confusing system of grave and cemetery protections. Definitions requiring clarification include those for "human remains" at RCW 68.04.020, "burial" at RCW 68.04.140, "cemetery" at RCW 68.04.040, "skeletal remains" at E Ri � aE L 350F RCW 27.53.040, "bodies" at RCW 68.50.010, and the so-called "five or more hale" at RC'S]ii 68.60.010. Related jurisdictional uncertainties include questions about jurisdiction over human remains in the event of an inadvertent discovery. For eXampie, law enforcement -and the coroner or medical examiner have jurisdiction over human remains until they are determined non - forensic .at which time jurisdiction is transferred to DAHP and notification to the State Cemetery Boardoccurs.- Also,_upon_remo_ral of_dedication-at RCIN-6.8.24.090(3), notification -is made.to---- both DAIP ai d the State Cemetery Board. - it i.3 the Study i earn's understanding that legislative staff have been cor,siriering the specific content of such a cleanup bill. 3) Invento_ known graves and cemeteries A Statewid2 4 entory of known graves and cemeteries is recomixnended in order to estaviish a centralized baseline of information. DAHP is the State agency recommended for coordinating and -maintaining the inventory in a manner similar to that for maintaining the statewide database of archaeological sites. Procedures for maintaining, accessing, and ensuring confidentiality of the inventory are necessary and can also be based upon current procedures governing the statewide archaeological database. It is also recommended that the inventory procedures established by Iowa, Minnesota, and Oregon be examined as possible models. 4) Re uire mandatp Z iWorting of discoveries of human remains it is recommended that reporting discoveries of human remains be made mandatory in both RCW 27.444 and RCW 68.60. Not only will this provide consistency with RCW 68.50.020 requiring reporting of dead .bodies to the county cor.-oner, it will also support the shared_value of_ respect for human remains. It is recommended that the penalty for not reporting be a 111isUellleallor 1Vr 1+o11sisLellVy W1L111\V VO.JVA. V 20. 1a11UQLV1Y rcpoikuig rci�.uircS a prediCLavi� process so that people knowhow to report discoveries acid agencies agree on j�,.risdiction over the various steps of the subsequent response (see next recommendation). 5) EstabIish a standardized statewide process for responding to inadvertent discoveries of human remains A standardized statewide process for responding to inadvertent discoveries of human remains is recommended, as it will provide much -needed predictability -and- certainty for those reporting and for the stakeholders and affected communities responding. A standardized and, therefore, predictable process also represents a critical incentive for consistent reporting of discoveries of human remains. It is also recommended that the statewide process provide a basic -framework while specifics are established on a local level between the stakeholders and affected communities directly involved. During the next legislative session, the following steps addressing reporting, identification, and notification are recommended (steps for consultation and implementation are recommended for further discussion- and are included at item 5 of the next section): a; Call 911 to report inadvertent disoveries of human remains According to current regulations, law enforcement assumes primary jurisdiction of human remains in order to rule out missing persons and homicides. Lave enforcement manages the discovery as a crime scene by providing security,, preventing contamination of the scene by controlling access, and controlling, media coverage. EXRFI R IT tc b) Establish and fund a statewide Physical Anthropologist to ensure proper identification of remains Establishment of a statewide Physical Anthropologist to assist all jurisdictions requiring assistance with the identification of human remains is recommended. A statewide position will address the fact that many elected coroners currently rely on the Forensic Anthropologist in the King County Medical Examiner's Office for assistance with the identification of human remains. c) Notify and consult with affected tribes when remains are of interest It is recommended that notification and consultation with affected tribes occur as soon as human remains are identified as Native American. It is also recommended that tribal codes of law and procedural manuals guiding notification and consultation be incorporated into DAHP's procedures. - d) Establish timelines for re ortin _ identification and notification timelines for consultation and iMlementation are recommended for further discussion and are included in the next section) Recommended timelines for reporting, identification, and notification are as follows: reporting discoveries (immediately upon discovery); law enforcement response (immediately upon report of discovery); coroner/medical examiner response (immediately upon notification by law enforcement); identification (commence identification within twenty-four hours of coroner/medical examiner response, total time required will depend upon the discovery); notification to DAHP (immediately upon identification as non -forensic); DAHP notification to affected communities and Cemetery Board (identify and notify affected communities within twenty-four hours of notification by law enforcement, notify Cemetery Board immediately upon notification by enforcement). While the recommended timelines do not establish an exact timeframe for reporting, identification, and notification in terms of hours or days, they do represent the reality of the situation as shared by participants currently responsible for the steps. 6) Enforce the existing penalties in RCW 27.44 and RCW 68.60 and auy new penalty for not re ortin Enforcement of the criminal and civil penalties in RCW 27.44 and RCW 68.60 is recommended. The penalties are based on knowing disturbance; accidental or inadvertent disturbance that is reported is not considered a violation. Coordination with law enforcement and attorneys will facilitate enforcement. 7) Authorize funding for gELve and cemet= protection Funding is recommended for the following: the unfunded mandates in RCW 27.44 and RCW 68.60 stating that the expenses of reinterment shall be paid by DAHP; a statewide inventory of known graves and cemeteries; and planning efforts with local and tribal governments, including a permit review process and inadvertent discovery planning. 8) Launch an educational cammgn for leadershim professimals,and the public Education is critical to the establishment of an effective system -of grave and cemetery protection. It is recommended that DAHP provide coordination of an education campaign for RAG E __LL6L_n F 37 leadership (e.g. State; tribal, local), professionals (e.g. law ertforcement, coroner and medical examiners, prosecuting attorneys, archaeologists, developers), and the public (e.g. property owners, cemetery advocates). 'it is also recommended that the educational campaign create greater awareness of the issue, present the State's-work plan for developing and implementing solutions, inform people that the State is committed to establishing a predictable process, and promote respect for human -remains and cultural value systems. Crp]ufle_r_s Requiring Further Discussi-M. a:d Collaboration 1) Build relationships between stakeholders and affected communities (T irneline: 2008-210109) Participants agreed that grave and cemetery protection has proven to be a complex and often ernotional issue that is furthered complicated by a large number of stakeholders and affected communities, each with their own, sometimes conflicting value systems. In such an environment, building relationships based on trust and respect is essential to promoting the collaboration necessary for developing and implementing a viable system. 'It is recommended that the establishment of such relationships be pursued and that resulting relationships be formalized through processes such as government -to -government consultation and the . development of interlocal agreements. 2) Discuss the retention and ex ansion of automatic dedication in RCW 68.60 (Timeline: 2008) Automatic dedication represents a level of cemetery protection due to the fact that use of a dedicated cellleteiy' for pulyoses other Ulan ule placennOnt 01. 11UMan rer lainS iS dep ei ldent upon corn-letion of the removal of dedication process. However, Some study participants suggested dedication should be the landowner's choice; other participants suggested changing the "five or more rule" at RCW 68.60.010 to reflect the definition used by the State Cemetery Board so that abandoned and historic cemeteries contair1 ng less than five graves receive the protection of automatic dedication. It was also suggested that automatic dedication be extended to RCW 27.44 so that Indian graves and burial grounds receive the protections associated with dedication. 3) Establisb posifive incentives for leaving aves and cemeteries in place rather than removin (Timeline: 200 8 -2009) Positive incentives are recommended in order to encourage property owners to leave graves and cemeteries. in place rather than remove them. —he incentives must outweigh the costs of abandoning use of the property or a proposed project in order to be effective. Possible incentives include a property tax exemption (cemetery property is already tax-exempt as per RCW 68,24.240, so expansion of the cemetery definition would facilitate availability of this option), an easernenti option, or classification as open space for valuation at current use rather than highest and best use via the Open Space Taxation Act (RCW 84.34 and WAC 458-30). 4) Establish statewide permit review process to protect known and to ident' otential ayes and cemeteries (Timeline: 2008-2009) Pre -project planning through a permit review process is recommended as an effective preventive measure. Locational information available for conducting permit review would include the E��-4.!,,�17 K� proposed inventory of known graves and cemeteries, the DAHP archaeological database, and information shared by local and tribal governments and by cemetery advocates. It is recommended that corresponding procedures, including those for ensuring confidentiality of sensitive information, be established in the WAG A proposed step of the permit review process is as follows. a) Authorize DAHP and Iocal governments to require pre -project archaeology assessments as mart of the statewide permit review process (Timeline: 2008-2009) Currently, pre -project archaeological assessments can only be recommended and not required. DAHP and tribes, aswell as some local governments, typically recommend the assessments during various review processes (e.g. SEPA, Shoreline Management Act). It is recommended that DAHP and local governments be granted the authority to require assessments when justified. Assessments would assist in identification of graves and cemeteries prior to construction thereby reducing the number of inadvertent discoveries. Data gathered would be added to the DAHP database of archaeological sites and, if applicable, to the proposed inventory of known graves and cemeteries. 5) Establish a standardized statewide process for responding to inadvertent discoveries of human remains A standardized statewide process for responding to inadvertent discoveries of human remains is recommended, as it will provide much -needed predictability and certainty for those reporting and for the stakeholders and affected communities responding, and it represents a critical incentive for consistent reporting of discoveries of human remains. It is also recommended that the statewide process provide a basic framework while specifics are established on a local level between the stakeholders and affected communities immediately involved. Recommended steps for consultation and implementation are as follows (steps for reporting, identification, and notification are recommended for the next legislative session and are included in the previous section): a) Grant descendants a meaningful role in the decision-making_process- (Timeline: 2008-2009) It is recommended that human remains be cared for according to the wishes of the descendants as they have a responsibility to care for the remains according to their cultural value system. When remains are identified (e.g. Native American, pioneer), the descendants should be granted a meaningful role in the decision -making process. If State law continues to define skeletal remains archaeological resources, DAHP would still be involved as the State agency charged with regulating such resources. b) Establish a formal mediation process in the event agreement on a plan, of action cannot be reached (Timeline: 2008) Currently, no formal mediation process exists in the event stakeholders and affected communities cannot agree to a plan of action for responding to an inadvertent discovery. With a mediation process, DAHP would not be expected to serve as both stakeholder and mediator. Formal mediation served as the mechanism for reaching resolutions in several FAGE--al-00, high -profile cases, including the Washington State Department of Transportation's graving dock on the Port Angeles waterfront (2003) and the City of Blaine's wastewater treaan.er d plant expansion- on the Semiahmoo Spit (1.999). Discuss establishment of a statewide Native American commission to address issues concerning.Na#ive.American remains (Ti: eline: 2008=2:009)- - Some participants discussed *tie establishr ent of a statewide Native America.*: commission to assist with identification of the appropriate affected tribe, settling disagreements concerning a plan of action in the event of an inadvertent discovery, and developing a plan of action for unidentifiable remains or remains for which there is no advocate. Models for such a commission exist in California, Iowa, Minnesota, and Oregon. d) Establish a lan of action for human remains for which there is no advocate (Timeline: 2008-2009) An advocate might not be identified:for every set of inadvertently discovered remains. Currently, DAHP has jurisdiction- of non -forensic -remains "Le. historic or Native American remains). However. D,AHP .does not serve as a repository for remains, and State law requires reburial or cremation (RCW 68.50.110). The law does not appear to eicourage the curation of human remains, so a.plan of action is needed describing how the remains are to be treated and, if they are to be reinterred,_ where anal.. _how that will occur-. The plan of action will also serve coroners and medical examiners in the event that reins, ., tiaiisporteI to th eir offices for idea fication are determined non -forensic but no advocate:can be located. e) Establish timelines for consultation and implementation iimeiines for re ortin identification_ and notification are recommended for the next le 'slative.session and are included in the previous section (Timeline: 2008) Possible timelines -for consultation and ixnplanentation are as -follows: consultation (within forty-eight hours of all stakeholders and affected communities receiving notification); mediation, if necessary (within: ten days of beginning consultation); implementation of a plan of action (within -ten days of beginning consultation or iinediation and/or according to the plan agreed to by the stakeholders and affected communities). 6) Discuss a re uirement that developers and ro nezits provide funding for offsetting costs associated with future inadvertent discoveries of human remains (Timeline: 2009) It is recorrimended that cost sharing with developers be examined so that the costs of responding to inadvertent discoveries are not borne solely by the State or by the stakeholders and :affected communities. For example,: an impact. fee paid into a revolving fund could be used in the event of future inadvertent discoveries. f E f PA E P CONCLUSIONS Through support of this study, the State Legislature has created a legitimate opportunity to improve the system of grave and cemetery protection in Washington State. The complexity of the issue in terms of the number of stakeholders and affected communities, their value systems regarding respect for the deceased, and the relationship to increasing population and a corresponding increase in the rate of development requires that the Legislature and the participants commit to working collaboratively on effective, long-term solutions. While the study period did not allow for the resolution of all issues, positive momentum was established with a wide range of stakeholders and affected communities through respectful discussion and exchange of ideas. The results of this exchange are reflected in the findings and in the recommendations, in particular, where a plan for addressing outstanding issues is presented for consideration. In order to develop and implement lasting solutions, the Study Team recommends that the State Legislature establish a process for discussing the findings and recommendations with the stakeholders and affected communities. By enlisting the input of those invested in the system of protections, a work plan that is acceptable to and supported by all the parties can be established, and a system that will better serve the entire State can be created. Implementation of the recommendations will improve the protection of Washington State's graves and cemeteries and result in a system of protections that will better serve stakeholders and affected communities. Early identification and planning will reduce the number of inadvertent discoveries occurring during development projects, both public and private. In the event that an inadvertent discovery does occur, a predictable process and adequate funding will result in significant savings of time and money, improved confidence in State policies and regulations, the protection of finite and irreplaceable resources, and a more responsive and respectful system of grave and cemetery protection. Collaboration between the State Legislature and the stakeholders and affected communities will further the current effort to fulfill the shared responsibility to protect the graves and cemeteries of Washington State. EX 17TIT- P�CE--1jL0,F® APPENDICES Appendix A: Participating Stakeh" olders and Affected Cornmunifies Appendix B:,. Handout Provided to Each Participant. APPendix'C: -WrittenCommnts From the Yak6hia Nation E x F I IF! T ll.T ---L- PAGE-5--LL0E-- 42 APPENDIX A: Participating Stakeholders and Affected Communities Open Forums and Discussion Groups (listed chronologically) Tribal Task Force for Indian Graves Bill June 18, 2007 Shelton, WA Approximately 25 attendees at the start of the meeting, including: _ Frances Charles, Chairwoman, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Leonard Forsman, Chairman, Suquamish Tribe Rhonda Foster, Squaxin Island Tribe Justine James, Quinault Indian Nation Sarah Johnson, Samish Indian Nation Dennis Lewarch, Suquamish Tribe Camille Pleasants, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation David Powell, Yakama Nation Larry Ross, Squaxin Island Tribe Jefferey Thomas, Puyallup Tribe of Indians Cowlitz Indian Tribe represented Tulalip Tribes represented Mike Moran, Moran Public Affairs (lobbyist for Hoh Indian Tribe, Quinault Indian Nation, and Samish Indian Nation) Miguel Perez -Gibson, lobbyist for Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Gabriel Galanda, Williams Kastner (law firm for Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe) Sharon •Haensley, Williams Kastner (law firm for Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe) Colleen Jollie*, Washington State Department of Transportation Mary Rossi*, APT -Applied Preservation Technologies *Excused by the Task Force at 10:45am. The Task Force viewed Ms. Rossi's attendance as a conflict of interest since APT was under consideration for the Legislative Study contract. Open Forum and Planning Meeting on the Reparation of Human Remains July 10, 2007 Mukilteo, WA Convened by Representative John McCoy Moderated by former Washington Secretary of State Ralph Munro Senator Mary Margaret Haugen Senator Claudia Kauffman Senator Adam Kline Senator Eric Oemig Representative Sam Hunt Mac Nicholson, Senate Committee on Government Operations and Elections Colleen Kerr, House Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs UNRIT ; PAGE Y 0F_ Lacey Homchick, Representative John McCoy'-s Office Heather Lewris-Lechner, Senate Democratic Caucus Selected attendees (complete attendance list unavailable): Sandra Adix, Assistant Attorney General Oraig B II, -Governor's Office of Indian_Affairs_ ySrn ro�ii5; iraaii i7gto13" i�' 2pai�zrlEiii Archaeolo— acidlEstork Prese: 7a�i Frances Charles, Chaii rwomal,, Lower Elwha Klal!am Tribe Janice Ellis, Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney Stan Finkelstein, Association of Was'_nington Cif-; es Gabriel Galanda, Williams Kastner law firm Al Scott Johnnie, Lummi Nation Dennis McPhee, Washington State Department of Licensing Armand Miinthorn, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Greg Sandstrom, Washington Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners Kathy Taylor, King County Medical Examiner's Office Norman Thiersch, Snohomish County Medical Examiner's Office From legislative staff summary: Building Trades Organizations represented Washington State Association of Counties represented Isaac Blum, APT -Applied Preservation Technologies (not yet under contract) hjiah LvesvF' IrP, Ai1�, ne, Q s 1, T—A,' — T,;], 1 / w,s,.� + l +. 7 +l 1, 1V LLVl11 y, LJ V1.1V11uJ11111u1cu1 111Ua1 .,on 11LLLLlL� `11VL�et ui1uG1 4V11uaCL) Mary Rossi, A -PT -Applied Preservation Technologies (not yet �.:nder contract) Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe July 16, 2007 Port Angeles, WA Frances Charles, Chairwoman Phillip L. Charles, Jr., Vice -Chairman Verna Henderson, Secretary and Treasurer Dennis Sullivan, Council Member Carmen C lheles, Tribal ",uiiural Liaison Gabriel Galanda, Williams Kastner law firm Sharon Haensley, Williams Kastner law firm Isaac Blum, APT -Applied -Preservation Technologies (not yet under contract) Steve KiLnley, K2 Productions -(riot yet under contract) Mary Rossi, APT -Applied Preservation Technologies (not yet under contract) Washington State Department of Licensing, Business and Professions Division, Funerals and Cemetery Program July 23, 2007 Olympia, WA E11 l l' � IT VA sl 44 Dennis McPhee, Program Manager Joe Vincent, Administrator Brad Carlson, Chairman, State Cemetery Board Colleen Kerr, House Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs [first hour] Isaac Blum, APT -Applied Preservation Technologies (not yet under contract) Mary Rossi, APT -Applied Preservation Technologies (not yet under contract) Mason County Superior Court (hearing on removal of dedication for Slocum Cemetery) July 23, 2007 Shelton, WA Allyson Brooks, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Jennifer Chambers, Cultural Resource Consultants Rhonda Foster, Squaxin Island Tribe Glenn Hartmann, Cultural Resource Consultants Stephenie Kramer, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Kevin Lyons, Squaxin Island Tribe Stephanie Nichols, Squaxin Island Tribe Larry Ross, Squaxin Island Tribe Harry Rydell, Manke Lumber Company Robert Johnson, Manke Lumber Company Squaxin Island Tribe Legal Department representative Mac Nicholson, Senate Committee on Government Operations and Elections Colleen Kerr, House Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs Isaac Blum, APT -Applied Preservation Technologies (not yet under contract) Mary Rossi, APT -Applied Preservation Technologies (not yet under contract) Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation August 7, 2007 Nespelem, WA Andy Joseph, Jr., Business Council Member Camille Pleasants, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Guy Moura, Traditional Cultural Property Supervisor Alice Koskela, Reservation Attorney Melissa Campobasso, Reservation Attorney Miguel Perez -Gibson, Lobbyist Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Washington Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners August 10, 2007 Port Orchard, WA Greg Sandstrom, President and Kitsap County Coroner Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Ep X44-� 77, e7 f\ 45 Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Snohomish County Medical Examiner's Office August 14, 2007 Everett, WA C5j}Thcnonoiue0ty edic Examiner rloi.iai, i"—_bALVal Carl Wigren, Associate Medical Examiner Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team G-S Meeting August 16, 2007 Deming, WA Brian Cladoosby, Chairman,. Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; Legislative Study Teain Narcisco Cunanan, Chairman, Nooksack Indian Tribe Evelyn Jefferson, Chairman, Lummi Nati on Jan Mabee, Chairman, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Melvin R. Sheldon, Jr., Chairman, Tulalip Tribes Tom Wooten, Chairman, Samish Indian Nation Shawn Yanity, Chairman, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians Nadine Wilbur, Treasurer, Lummi Nation T �VV i111a ri "Bill" Coleman, UiG'IA IC].l MelT�iber, I,VoV1CSQck iiidiari Tribe Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe representative Greg LaFrance, Bureau of Indian Affairs Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Steve Tinley, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Yurok T ripe (Masnath, CA) August 20, 2007 Discussion conducted via telephone Tijornas dates, Tribal I listoric Preservation Officer Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Association of Washington Cities S eptel'nber • 4, 20V0V 7 Olympia, WA Stan Finkelstein, Executive Director Colleen Kerr, House Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs Mac Nicholson, Senate Committee on Government Operations and Elections Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team E -_ .. M. Mary Thompson, Legislative Study Team Washington Association of County Officials Washington State Association of Counties September 4, 2007 Olympia, WA Deborah Wilke, Executive Director (WACO) Eric Johnson, Assistant Executive Director (WSAC) Colleen Kerr, House Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs Mac Nicholson, Senate Committee on Government Operations and Elections Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Mary Thompson, Legislative Study Team Washington Farm Bureau September 4, 2007 Lacey, WA John Stuhlmiller, Director of State Affairs Colleen Kerr, House Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs Mac Nicholson, Senate Committee on Government Operations and Elections Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Mary Thompson, Legislative Study Team Washington Public Ports Association September 5, 2007 Olympia, WA Eric Johnson, Deputy Director Mac Nicholson, Senate Committee on Government Operations and Elections Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Representative John McCoy September 6, 2007 Tulalip, WA Representative McCoy Darrell Hillaire, Legislative Study Team Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Steve Kinley, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team EXRF PACE � Senator Mary Margaret Haugen September 6, 2007 U-salady, `ETA Senator Haugen -Isaac Blum, Legislative Study. Team -Steve Ki'nley, t-egistativeStady Tea: Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Mary Thompson, Legislative Study Team Second Open Forum on Human Remains September 11, 2007 Port Townsend, WA Convened by Representative John McCoy Moderated by former Washington Secretary of State Ralph Munro Senator Claudia Kauffman Senator Eric Oemig Representative Kevin Van De Wege Representative Lynn Kessler Nova Gattman, Senator Haugen.'. s Office Colleen Kerr, House Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs Mac Nicholson, 10 mate Col 1 1ftee or, Gove11 mMi t Op eredons and Elections Carl Shroeder, Representative Van De Wege's Office Selected attendees (complete attendance list unavailable): Sandra Adix, Assistant Attorney General Sheriff Michael Brasfield, Jefferson County Sheriff's Office Tim Brewer, Tulalip Tribes Allyson Brooks, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Joy Brosier, Coeur d'Alene Tribe Phillip L. Charles, Jr., Vice -Chairman, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Andrew Cook, Building Industry Association of Washington Ed Edwards, Beckett Point Fishermen's Club Stand Finkelstein, Association of Washington Cities Leonard Forsman, Chairman, Suquamish Tribe Gabriel Galanda, Williams Kastner law firm. Sharon 11-1taensl2y, Williams Kastner law -firm Keith Hansen, Beckett Point Fisherman's Club 1%W essell ne S__ k,_� f-_L F T nula__� t�u��cii iicplcl, �.uuiicii %vaciiiuer, sower Eiwiia Kta.Eia.ili 11106 � " _r i�v' fjr�i J�� James Hillaire, Lummi Nation U Al Scott Johnnie, Lummi Nation Andy Joseph, Jr., Business Council Member, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Stephenie Kramer, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Dennis McPhee, Washington State Department of Licensing, Funerals and Cemetery Program 48 Hilary Moran, Moran Public Affairs Mike Moran, Moran Public Affairs Deborah Munguia, Washington Forest Protection Association . Jim Parker, Jefferson County Public Utility District #1 Dana Roberts, Jefferson County Public Utility District 41 Commission Alyson Rollins, Lummi Nation Larry Ross, Squaxin Island Tribe Greg Sandstrom, Washington Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners Tamela Smart, Equinox Research and Consulting International (ERCI) Matthew Sterner, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Sergeant Mark Toner, King County Sheriff's Office Major Crimes Unit . Dawn Vyvyan, Yakama Nation Rob Whitlam, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Deborah Wilke, Washington Association of County Officials Scott Williams, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Brian Cladoosby, Chairman, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; Legislative Study Team Darrell Hillaire, Legislative Study Team Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Steve Kinley, Legislative Study Team Marty Loesch, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Theresa Trebon, Historian and Legal Assistant, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community September 13, 2007 La Conner, WA Theresa Trebon Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Association for Washington Archaeology (AWA) Board of Directors September 15, 2007 Burien, WA . Tom Becker, President Gary Wesson, Vice -President Doug Tingwall, Secretary Robert Kopperl, Director At -Large Scott Williams, Director At -Large Jackie Cooke, Director At -Large Stephenie Kramer, DAHP representative Mary Rossi, AWA Treasurer; Legislative Study Team PAGE __LLnQF__4_q..- Moran Public Affairs lobbyist for Hoh Indian Tribe, Quiripu!t Indrar, Nation, and Saniish Indian Nation) September 17, 2001 Discussion conducted via telephone - - Mike Moran T- -Maw3' .Z. T64tR'1--- -- __ �s C —is:a i l S ii `y 4V�= Maggie hail, cemetery advocate September 20, 2007 Discussion conducted via telephone Maggie Rail Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Puyallup Tribe of Indians September 25, 2007 Tacoma, WA Judy VYght, Tribal IiIStOJ.Ian Cynthia Lyman, Tri bal Attorney Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Steve Kinley, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, LegisiaiVeS ady Team . Building Industry Association of Washington September 25, 2007 Olympia, WA Andrew Cook, Legal Counsel Isaac Bium, Legislative Study Team Steve Kinley, Legislative Study Team, Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Mary Thompson, Legislative Study Teary, Washington Forest Protection Association September 25, 2007 Olympia, WA Mark Doumit, Executive Director ' Peter He! de, Director ofrrrorest Manage-meni Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Steve Kinley, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Mary Thompson, Legislative Study Team E X, 50 King County Medical Examiner's Office September 27, 2007 Seattle, WA Kathy Taylor, Forensic Anthropologist Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Steve Kinley, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Tulalip Tribes October 15, 2007 Tulalip, WA Henry Gobin, Cultural Resources Department Manager Richard Young, Environmental Director, Natural Resources Department Gene Enick, Fisheries Technician ]I, Natural Resources Department Theresa Sheldon, Representative John McCoy's office Tim Brewer, Tribal Attorney Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Steve Kinley, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Beckett Point Fishermen's Club October 17, 2007 Port Townsend, WA Keith Hansen, President Patti Sahlinger, Secretary Ed Edwards, Co -Chair for Septic Project Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Steve Kinley, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation October 22, 2007 Toppenish, WA Laving Washines, Tribal Council Chairwoman Athena Sanchey, Tribal Council and Cultural Committee Secretary Portia Shields, Tribal Council John Smartlowit, Tribal Council and Cultural Committee Chair Lorena Sohappy, Tribal Council Stella Washines, Tribal Council Mavis Kindness, General Council Johnson Meninick, Cultural Department Head Mathew Tomaskin, Legislative Liaison 51 Kate Valdez, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Anita Nez, NAGPRA Coordinator Daviu PtiWeii, ZU&I.aeoiogiSt Dawn Vyvyan, Attorney Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Steve�Kinnpley,,Leeglsiat7veStudy Team -.� t`Los-.i, JegiJlative Study-T-m':i-- _ Squaxin Island Tribe October 23, 2007 Shelton, WA Larry Ross, Cultural Resources Specialist Darrell Hiliaire, Legislative Study Team -Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Steve Kinley, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation October 23, 2007 Shelton, v�+A �Ar]mand'Minthom, Board off'Trustees Member At -Large a-i 4li-ell i~J17 itafire LegiJiati ve 1`J L�{,LUy Te(.r�rn 7 Isaac Blum, Legislative Stud- Team Steve Kinley, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Ding County Landmarks Commission October 25, 2007 Carnation, -qrA Mr. Brian Rich, Chairman Mr. Robert Weaver, Vice -Chairman N1r. luck C'houinard, CoMmllsstoner Ms. Lauren McCroskey, Commissioner Ms. Lynette Weber, Commissioner Mr. Tom Hitzroth, Commissioner j'cilie Kohler;.King County HistJiic Presen,,,etion Officer and Commission Staff Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Washington State Department of Archaeology and historic Preservation October 31, 2007 Olympia, WA Allyson Brooks, Director/State Historic Preservation Officer IT RGI� 52 Rob Whitlam, State Archaeologist Stephenie Kramer, Assistant State Archaeologist Scott Williams, Local Government Archaeologist Sandra Adix, Assistant Attorney General Alan Copsey, Assistant Attorney General Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Steve Kinley, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Lummi Nation November 2, 2007 Bellingham, WA James Hillaire, Cultural Department Director Al Scott Johnnie, Cultural Department Staff Lena Tso, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Kelly Easter; Deputy Compliance Officer Alyson Rollins, Semiahmah Project Physical Anthropologist Darrell Hillaire, Legislative Study Team Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Steve Kinley, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Washington Association of Realtors November 7, 2007 Everett, WA Bill Clarke, Public Policy Director [via telephone] Nick Harper, Government Affairs Director for Snohomish Co.-Camano Association Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi, Legislative Study Team Suquamish Tribe November 21, 2007 Suquamish, WA Leonard Forsman, Chairman Dennis Lewarch, Archaeologist Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Steve Kinley, Legislative Study Team Mary Rossi Legislative Study Team Jefferson County Public Utility District #1 November 26, 2007 Discussion conducted via telephone OTF 53 Dana Roberts, Commissioner Isaac Blum, Legislative Study Team Written Comments (listed chronologically) Coeur d'Alene Tribe August 13, 2007 Comments submitted to the Legislative Study Team via mail Nancy A. Ke motsu, Ph.D., Amhe eol_ogist September 3, 2007 Comments submitted to the Legislative Study Team via email James D. Nason, Burke Museum September 11, 2007 Cornnients submitted to Representative McCoy via email and forwarded to the Legislative Study Team on September 25 at Representative. McCoy's request Frances Charles nChairwoman, Lower Eiwha Klallam Tribe Septemmber -1 7, 20C1 Request for a draft report submitted to Allyson Brooks (DAHP) and Craig Bill (GOIA) and copied to the Legislative Study Team via email and hard copy Sergeant Mark Toner, King County Sheriff's Office Major Crimes Unit Deborah Wilke, Washington Association of County Officials September 20, 2007 Comments submitted to Representative McCoy via email and forwarded to the Legislative Study Team by Representative. McCoy's legislative.assistant Allyson Brooks, Washington State Dep,art ., of Ar chaeulom =d Historic Preservation September 26, 2007 Response to Frances Charles' letter dated September 17, 2007, copied to the Legislative Study Team via email and hard copy Frances Charles, Chairrvornian, Lower Elwha Wallam Tra%e October 15, 2007 Comments on emerging themes and draft report submitted by Sharon Haensly, Williams Kastner law _fi_rm tp Craig RilF(GOIA) and rotnied to the L ec slative Studi.- Tram era Pma�1 aynra hard copy J r Allyson Brooks, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation October 15, 2007 Response to Sharon Haefisly's email dated October 15, 2007, copied to the Legislative Study Team via email Tulalip Tribes October 26, 2007 Comments submitted to the Legislative Study Team via email and hard copy Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation November 26, 2007 Comments dated November 16, 2007, submitted to Governor Gregoire, Senator Haugen, and Representative McCoy and copied to the Legislative Study Team via email and hard copy Telephone Contact and Provision of Scope of Work via Entail (listed chronologically) Association of Washington Business August 6, 2007 Chris McCabe, Director of Government Affairs for Environmental Policy Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs August 6, 2007 Sheriff Richard Lathim, President Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys September 18, 2007 Tom McBride, Executive Secretary Yakima Valley Museum September 19, 2007 David Lynx, Director Washington Association of Sewer and Water Districts September 26, 2007 Harold Schlomanri, Executive Director Telephone Messages Left (listed chronologically) Associated General Contractors of Washington September 18, 2007 Rick Slunacker, Director of Government Affairs, State and National Washington Public Utility Districts Association September 18, 2007 Dave Warren, Energy Services Director 4VIP IT K FKA, G E- F 55 APPENDIX P: Handout Provided to Each Participant Scope of Work Washington State Legislature Grave and Cemetery Protection Study Original submitted to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the fo;:ernOr's Office of Indian Affairs June 29, 2007 (abbreviated version created July 13 for discussion purposes) Prepared by APT -Applied Preservation Technologies i0ary Rossi, Program, -Director Isaac Blum, Program Manager Background: On February 7, 2007, Senate Bill 5938 entitled "Providing a unified means for handling both Indian and non -Indian graves and cemeteries" was read and referred to the Senate Committee on Government Operations and Elections. Following a public hearing and executive action in the Senate Committee, a substitute bill entitled "Regarding the protection of graves and cemeteries" was -proposed -and on February 24-passed_to the Senate Rules Committee for a second reading. On March 21, action on the bill ended. Fallowing the discussions of SB 5938, the State Legislature requested a study of the issues surrounding the discovery of human remains, both Indian and non -Indian. Funding for the study was appropriated to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and the Govemoi's Office of Indian Affairs (GOIA). The following scope of work describes how Applied Preservation Technologies (APT), a program of the nonprofit Bppard Vision, will produce the requested deliverables_ ASSUMPTIONS: Study Team — APT has assembled and will coordinate a team of qualified individuals who will work cooperatively to complete the scope of work. °!.� PAGE Timeline/Deliverables — The study timeline is July 1 to November 30, 2007. Requested deliverables are a report of findings/recommendations and model legislation. If the project budget does not allow for completion of all work items, the final report will include progress made to date and recommendations for addressing outstanding or additional work. Study Team/Tribal Stakeholder Relationship — While the study team intends to discuss grave and cemetery protection with all 29 federally recognized Tribes, as consultants the team cannot conduct government -to -government consultation. True government -to -government consultation on the State level must occur between the Governor and the Tribal Chairpersons. Stakeholder Participation — The study team will solicit the input of all 29 Tribes but not through individual meetings since the project timeline and budget do not allow for such an approach. By having Tribal leadership on the study team, the team will be able to discuss the issues with all of the Tribal Chairpersons, either by convening several meetings or by utilizing larger gatherings, such as the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians and G-8 meetings. A similar approach will be utilized with other stakeholders when appropriate. SCOPE OF WORK (tasks requested by the State Legislature): I. Examine the legal processes used to dedicate graves and human remains as cemeteries II. Examine the legal process of decertifying a cemetery III. Examine the legal process to permit the removal of human remains from property IV. Assess endangered cemeteries and current and older historic sites V. Develop a statewide strategy and action plan for ensuring that all discoveries of human remains are reported VI. Develop a process to ensure that all human remains, graves, and cemeteries are treated equally and with respect due to a finite, irreplaceable cultural resource of the people of Washington VII. Develop model legislation incorporating the above findings 57 APPENDIX C: Written Comments From the Yakama Nation eat c4, 0"ie, 9,; Nv#ft -z 16: 2POG7 Officz of flic-G,k"Ver.-Or O.-Bcox-40002, 3 05, Jahn A. Che-rberg.B U1 .; 1"Q P .'Q xx 40 4 10 Zay-40600 Olympia; "WA Oly�rpi.& Wrk'985 A 0,60t) t� Ve I and Rq,,roSe!TtLzfT_ hqccoi: C=etmies, mczstrajiburiij grounds, audga-v:?s are sacred pies tolb)Ylakar.japf.aple, OM ancestors are sill me-Liberts Of OW 0011=13jty a their Snali resting-pi4ces are sancti: � the Act -Of blr-yfug OLL, !OYCd ude,' qlavol-Evi I= that the -'-,0- _P1= -3s -. S—Mmed ST61Ua- We d6 h0f TMATe a PMCess ofpapersrnLlc Z6 demonstrate 1he ete[Mi bolinciq of a The Yakama-Wati.on,ba5 followed use disvissio7 I w sur..Aundirlg since it W.as we are a,,Nrare -that no version of 885938 pag,-4 bit thatbn4get proviso &,&q included to _tbe-2007- 0.rin-_b _ Budget Act-&=ting the Axbawlogy or(i- Jjsturicrtetvaj-arid ffic'G6vtmocs Offit,- of Indlaa Aftaixg OMA) W conduct a gud­; Th�- &Ldv sW.tftliriisie:exinting SLate lavis and pTotqde wi acnom plan: 40 ensure that 4 disco-yerks o!"humox-_ 7_-.majCjs.em Te-pciy-,ed ald- that 811 Wavy s are area mj equally. "Weagw !h botb Indift DW.aon-L-&x6. &sdNo. 'm b6 pired'ed 'Mil, resowlt_ Eppud VisiOd cwh%,dt4d)iy DrOM aad CIA to oondvct ilie study OaOciobar2S, - 0071 mvemlwR of this Tnibai Coutleii. an(j Gnez� Co,jncjj a,Mn'- -,A'tb =,ff rrw-t with Eppard Vision -to pro Adc our pftsqwdve_ Og the i4sut-'s 4.q the st-06 1qgiSUMre directed Rtudy. 'Mbir 'teOrt:U411U. ncoesw.-Ay. gererdiWd gLvenc thr n.1m, ber of, Mbes andlur-_ they are rote Vi0W1n9-'aS wt,11; as the-soupe ol�work to be compli,,ted_ in such a shw! appr=atls 6z OfFafs Cf- qie group and,llicnir vn& we zes_pcct'jfl% jy ,�mjf -the follo"Ving .t comi-nents:todirectly,pro-vide:W.zishington'stalegovcmffl",-, with tine Yaka'niaNat on',-,uievpoirti On of ancestral rMlains. Processes wed 'n.dedWate �=Mctarjos. As st uted above the yakama vailoy) does not squire apapsrs�rork.p,wcess to.t3erlicsta a. meters. TEeact ofbur*our need, Oyka_%; _bO'n-lifter: how inatly gengrations ap, 6etamires c4w;ecra�od Ole PUIC* ApOtInd. &-.Xd therefore z cmuctery. 'rhe Yakama NatRm stz-ong ly encourages. W,UsbinVon stare to: eliae;t- I'm bc, habor Jiiiq 'philjfioghy. - 0 'q -by j�tWnjng jMtonv& M. ietery � PcUcatiaa :that prolizAs aill plm.ei containing: bwials- regardiess:of fhei -number of -graves. *T.-L [MVP M-W 58 I—) r H. rased for decertffying ;a CE-i'AxdW , i1ie concept of decertifying a. f em&aa ]' is aliiai. to :tiie T-akari a— Cilku e: Wdiv3dwls 'arti meani to rew,dSiL wheie tlley :ai`E :alten'ed xoie°tier, lrtei final y re r-Loviag Ytnlran-remahis-J nn:a.grava is an-extr2t7181y spiritually anderriotionally disturb ig:idea-for us. Decettify�ng- 1:sz3rlotery 5 zotlld be• rare,and•difficult. ,a_ffectted trues shmild be given a form it role in any process when airy proposals to decertify a: cmnetery. involve Plat'i,vi; Americans-. Consent 'of tl�. uibal goi enirltenr AoWd be regvired iyheu:Nla;M A:xnerican.: gr,aves amvolvcd and site-prdtcetion is to be terniiilat.ed. The prepoitent should incur all ;costs:.asstiailted �+tifI 7j�ja11Lyolvement in 6.6procom 11T Processes used to permit the removal of hufex m re-mairm from a propel-ty; As stated aboVe, fi tePtimially removin* l?tunan renr.ai n -.fir a , grave is ail Oxft=ely: spiritiial_1y mid emotionally disturbing aid alien concept to: the y'alranla culture. Affected T'l bes should be giiyren a fonnal role whek arty proposal is made -to; disinter human remains that it. be Native An,ei;eai;. ContseItt-ofthe 4baf':govy.=.=lent sfiolild b& requiied -lies, Nati-i%e _ medcan groves are mvoived and sit&prclEciioi is ai. be terni'mated. TI e prop one A should. nicur �ull ws's associated with tribal i,:4i�O.t�'.�.T?i@iltilI tilt; i3ILiC$.DS. 1 ,1: lism6e rMdan ere cimetnra'es axed a lde;f historic saps. he state .le. sl g T gi giwe slota:id. appropriate adequate l ftiding to esta> l sh :and mtdataha a confi.&Wi.al :database of klllaWii and: safely to rG- ka6vm Ce'ri1@ic}ies. au ial minds, and ame5_ i :Nt ]FIia iE cernetery deilicaticl� 'end 17roteCfiCii; should Apply to All arcab de[txiialI to. confaiit &raves regardless of the age; aFfiIiatii.;�r, a^:l �iunber Qf.�ves. V_ Maud-ai`e pr veut tine• measures: It is vary imgaoitan; that the Y:iltama Nwtio_f lie aleitcd whet :dOeliattmen' is proposed 4,; them* ce&-A apes ussaal. and accustomed areas; ttiar cotLd dais to a digiur Y lw." Of Oaftural 'Lind 111'i m., rvxa7i?iY::. The, 111.:°li7 tc V"O':ection an-d prcveilti:Di; of less a. c C ili' l i `fir. <r s- iL 1'�t al;.:a i�:S11 _ r9I11�SiCeS b:�:PS -MiG_i all e4TA.. ''t' (' peS'm listu b CLfe r_ md. �Y.his 3lli3u'd r_,.". ur at.t e local. i"� .i;iii TS iTiilflY .L•,r it t: ."i7 : car. go-.�zfient le�'e: whc:, a l applic.itio for a:penuit: for devi lrSL,.;lent is 'filed- A.r -'mted 'Tribes.sha-iT1tl.be noti:ie d of all d eve:+,tl5 mrlYrffie;[rtS_ a VL Exisure that 01 culturg arid l dni ar- :rer-taro raiscoveries are- rer�or ed, provide tucentkws, sr'a' .penal Z4 non'-:sra��lta'aee>. Landmwmars and anaz_agers including siitate agencies, counties, id-anii;saalities aiid tlll'rir sabdivisions shm1d be ripired to re -poet. all discov2r,es of 11un n. 1- TIiai_ns, "l'lie eu;-rent aciiiitary system is inadequake: ['hs re sil{11°.ld be a brier time Period, abou"C' 24 hours, Wmera :all approprtateS en'titiC6: are n•{'orxraed of ft ciscoijery. Tribes whose traditional lanes �=e in d2e area of cLcovery should b:e among the First contacted along lvirh the Comity lurtiff and ',G.ANP. inceirivf st,ouid .i: imq: Leineented, to wgcoura�e l:and�wuers to cr;trtply witli fr_-e rer.uimi=7t_ Peaialttes. shwld be cs ablisrFd for tllersi: �v o do no.eom� i'ncllidia;,g: stwt# agr acies-1 cown-ties, m.uniLipal'itits and. their subd3':i3 (iCS: Vr'11 provide 1".um(M" For iilad'•°ei_tral:t d scovetios:tllere needs to be; a smarce of. funding to C3.L'e;' the: ccots Jf innvostiaatt?n and re:-7nte-111Tnerit. Upon 1�ladve rttem di5 mvery, a1'1: 3L17V3`1` ;l]�ii.1Fl Ce2sv [1itlt il2C'F iGUI Gc)vr,`Yitilletll, i�A,�lR,'and file Ciaut1;jF:.Sl_er-Ti" detelanines �rJiat}iarties should be:invoi�xed ro protectthe:halnan �-einsin;;. w 1a:. :clttz�Y €seirti eefi csf all Carisnaift ses :ps, groves,: ,and. ceme ries: T:he 'Fakarna Nation supports Erinal .respect and prat ction of a'lI graves, burial g aunds, arid:: --nnemtks'- F f6'r 11 i1T1i=.: r3:.'. c: riCiill b'117115, :he affetted .uibu' go:vEz--,==t qhy r:; primary, ant, Ity'WRb elywr4 -know,104e -for i- the tm.melltoltlie sac s. stme I . L,:Mlc ow MWE defix'O. Wbal, apt: ftNatvelAmedan, hmnaij rem'� '4 auL State Agencies. -ourpft-sp.=� 7a mon- the sensitive issue of vprOPTI.Afely treating the aiswv&y of JIUMdn remwas. if Youhaw any questi:ow or comments,�dtke to salt EyA.qj v. v �Ienc do not he, y yaa:at fl-06) '5 -Ljj 5 atmdm 448: Ain=*1 cct SWWOr DaHene Vairlcv, Chair- of Sevate C-Gvemment Opm='dls & RePrm9lativc,Sflm -Hun,-- Chair Of HOLM6-State Goy apietYE r3e TribafA- ffiiu.6inmitt= Afl-YzOn-BPlOks,Dcpa-hb&U-of Arcbwl-&, and C rA 1-9- Sill; G04tm -�'. d 0 TJ cc Of In'di an A ffiaf rs .F-PP&,d Vision ZE TACOMA May 10, 2016 Mr. Jim Harris. City of Federal Way 33325 8t` Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 1902 Marine View Drive Tacoma, WA 98422 Phone: (253) 572-4000 Acct Fax: (253) 593-8986 Ext F : R(253) 572-0316 "? �120 pT� - <'611f 7, Re: Schnitzer Steel of Tacoma, Karileen Restoration Project, 2014 Monitoring Report Dear Mr. Harris: Thank you for taking my call last week regarding the Gesthemane Cemetery expansion. As you know we are involved with the Karileen Restoration Project that is just north of the cemetery. The cemetery owners are familiar with our site and it is our belief that any expansion to the north should keep in mind any required buffers or set -backs in order to maintain the integrity of the ongoing restoration project. Per your request I have included a copy of the most recent Monitoring Report for our project. If you have any questions please contact me at (253) 254-4310. Sincerely, Schnitzer Steel of Tacoma r Bryan aham, R.G., L.Hg. Sr Envy ental Manager - West Attachment Karileen Restoration Project: 2014 Monitoring Report— Year Five PAGE�rL� Scale: s PAGE-'OF`Federal Way 0 500 1,000 Feet This map is accompanied by NO warranties, and is simply a graphic representation. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY [7r= 33325 8`h Avenue South ® Federal Way 98003-6325 Federal Way 253-835-2700;Fax Fax 253-835-27092709 www.ftaffederalway.com CAPA CITY RESER VE CERTIFICATE (CRC) This CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION is made this 13`" day of July 2016 by the City of Federal Way (COFW), a political subdivision of the State of Washington (hereinafter called the "City"). WHEREAS, the developer intends to develop the property described as Gethsemane Cepieter reviewed under City file CN Number(s) 16-101142-00-CN (hereinafter called the "development"); and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A requires that the City adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of .the development are made concurrent with the development; and WHEREAS, the City adopted its comprehensive plan in November 1995; and WHEREAS, Chapter 19 of the COFW Revised Code was amended by the creation of Chapter 19.90 Division III on June 10, 2006 by Ordinance 06-525 effective January 1, 2007; and NOW, THEREFORE, a concurrency certificate is issued for the development of 20.9 aer" additional cemetery based on the facts and conditions set forth herein. Development Parameters This CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION is based on the following development: . Development type: Cemetery Development size: 20.8 acres expansion Property address: 37500 Pacific Highway S Federal Way, WA 98003 Parcel No. (s): 2188204281, 2188204365,2188204560, 2188209025 Number of New PM Peak Hour Vehicles Trips Generated: 13 Validity of Concurrency Determination This CAPACITY RESERVE CERTIFICATE is valid only for the specific development approval consistent with the development parameters and the City file number contained within this certificate. If the development is changed, expired, cancelled or withdrawn, it will be subjected to reevaluation for concurrency purposes. Terms of the Capacity Reserve Certificate This CAPACITY RESERVE CERTIFICATE is valid until the underlying develo lelwo��� expires, is withdrawn or cancelled, whichever occurs first. C PAGE.�O Approved By: Date: Printed Name: Richard A. Perez P.E Title: Ci , Traffic Engineer trans ortation inc. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Project: Gethsemane Catholic Cemetery Master Plan Womm Subject: Trip Generation Analysis for Submittal MAR, 07 20f6 Date: February 25, 2016 , CITY ®F FEDERAL WAY CDS Author: Tod S. McBryan, P.E. — Principar%:r,� r 1. Summary of Findings The proposed Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan would make more area available to accommodate future burials in many phases over 50 years; however, the additional available burial areas and plots will not affect the primary influences on cemetery trip generation. Based on the analyses that follow, it is reasonable to conclude that average weekday PM peak hour trip generation at the Gethsemane Cemetery would not change as a result of the Master Plan proposal. However, based on discussions with City of Federal Way staff, this analysis applies the observed trip generation rate to the proposed fully expanded cemetery in order to estimate the potential increase in future trip generation. At this rate, the cemetery could generate a net increase of up to 13 PM peak hour trips (increasing from 5 to 18 trips) over the proposed long term 50-year period of the Master Plan. 2. Introduction The Associated Catholic Cemeteries is engaged in a long-range master planning effort for the expansion of the Gethsemane Catholic Cemetery located at 37600 Pacific Highway S in Federal Way. As part of that effort, the applicant is seeking Master Plan approval from the City of Federal Way for an expansion of 20.8 acres (from 8.2 acres currently to 29 acres when complete) over 50 years. The expansion may require one additional employee within 5 years and up to 3 to 4 more employees within the 50 year period assuming the expansion occurs as described in the Master Plan. As part of .the City's review process, applicants are required to document the levels of net new PM peak hour traffic generated as a result of project proposals. Trip generation of cemeteries is very unique since it is dependent on a number of factors that are not directly related to the size of the cemetery. Factors that influence cemetery trip generation include: 1) Types of services provided, such as funeral home functions (Gethsemane does not operate a funeral home nor is one anticipated at this time); 2) Characteristics such as number of employees and operational hours for offices and visitation; 3) Local area population, death rates, and associated number of burials; and 4) Types and frequency of special events (such as memorial services). This memorandum presents data and analysis of trip generation for the Gethsemane Cer�,a � t� the Master Plan review effort. F7 � �re i 4 t 6544 NE 61st Street, Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: (206) 523-3939 Fax: (206) 523-4949' Gethsemane Catholic Cemetery Master Plan heffron Tri�C�rltemtionAnalysis for sobmifta 3. , Existing Trip Generation 3.1. Background and Approach The City'of Federal Way's traffic analysis and transportation impact fees are -based on -trip generation . during the PM peak hour. The City of Federal Way's Revised Code section 19.90.010 states that ""Peak hour" means the highest volume of traffrc for a continuous hour between 4: 00 R M and 6:00 P.M. on weekdays." The -code a150 SCateS �hs�t "���'Yip g&1TBYQt►Q►�" mannr thv n��mhor nfnan h-M q s estimated rr tobe produced by the development activity using Institute of Transportation Engineem aTE), current edition, or, other methodology approved by the director." Although the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manuals includes information about cemeteries (Land Use Code 5661, the data related to the PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic is based on only one study and does not include key information about the operational characteristics of the cemetery studied, such as whether it included funeral home facilities or its. operational hours. The manual_-irther cautions use of these data because of the small sample size. Since the purpose of this analysis and the overall master planning effort relates to a specific existing cemetery, it is most appropriate to develop trip generation estimates using data collected from that facility. Therefore, new traffic counts were performed at the site access driveway and its intersection with Pacific Highway S. These counts were used to determine the time of the PM peak hour of the adjacent street and the trip generation of the existing cemetery. The count results were compiled and combined with extensive data related to the numbers and times of burials at the site over the last 10 years to document Gethsemane Cemetery trip generation. Finally, these data were paired with information about traditional patterns of visitation and their influence on trip generation to address future trip generation with.the expansion. 3.2. Traffic Counts at Gethsemane Cemetery A new seven-day, 24-hour-per-day machine traffic count was commissioned and performed at the Gethsemane Cemetery access driveway from Sunday October 4 rhrmq h Saturday October-10, 2015. In addition, new PM peak period (4:00 to 6.00 P.M.) video turning movement counts were performed at the Gethsemane Cemetery Access intersection with Pacific Highway S on two of those days (Tuesday and Wednesday, October 6 and 7, 2015). The turning movement counts were used to document the time of the I A -peak ho'ulr on racu c-Highway a at this location and to ensure accurate data collection Dy-the machine counts on the site access driveway. The access driveway from Pacific Higtiway S provides the only vehicular access to the site for employees and visitors. It is noted that the Cemetery office is open Monday through Friday from 8.00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M.; Saturdays from 8:00 A-M. to 4:00 P.M.; and is closed on Sundays. Grounds visitation from October through March is permitted from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. and from April through September from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. The.access gates are closed daily after visiting hours are over, except for occasional special events. The count data sheets are included as Attachment A. 3.3. Existing Gethsemane Cemetery Trip Generation The site access traffic count data were compiled to document the average weekday daily a_nA PM peak hour trip generation at Gethsemane Cemetery. Based on the average of the PM peak period video turning movement counts on two days, the PM peak hour of Pacific Highway S occurs from 4:45 to 5.45 P:M: The 24-hour machine count data were compiled by 15-minute period and analyzed to determine the average weekday trip generation during the 4:45 to 5:45 P.M. peak hour. Based on the average of five weekdays — Monday, October 5"' through Friday, October 9f, 2015—the Gethsemane Cemetery generates an average of 183 trips per day (93 in, 90 out) and 5 trips PM peak hour trips (2 in, 3 out . Based on the exiting EPII ' In, 9'h Edition, 2010. p r E O F_ 1 i - 2 - February 25, 2016 Gethsemane Catholic Cemetery Master Plan Trip Generation Analysis for Submittal trans ortatEon inc. cemetery size (8.2 acres), this relates to a trip generation rate of 0.61 trips per acre, which is slightly lower than the published ITE rate for a cemetery. The weekday count data and the average weekday results are included in Attachment A. 3.4. Factors Influencing Cemetery Trip Generation As mentioned previously, there are several key factors that influence the amount of traffic generated by a cemetery. The primary factors are listed below followed by more detailed descriptions for key factors specific to the Gethsemane Cemetery. ■ Regional death rates — Related to overall population density and lifespan characteristics. • The number of employees — Gethsemane currently has six employees. • Whether there is a funeral home on site — Gethsemane does not have a funeral home on the site. ■ Hours of operation — Gethsemane office closes at 4:30 P.M.; grounds visitation ends at 6:00 P.M. (winter) and 7:00 P.M. (summer). ■ Burial service frequency, days, and times — See analyses below. • Event frequency, days, and times — See analysis below. • Visitation patterns — See discussion below. Gethsemane Burial Service Frequency Gethsemane Cemetery staff provided detailed data about the number, dates, and times of burial services held at the Cemetery from September 2006 through August 2015 (nine years). These data showed that there were a total of 1,614 burials for an average of about 180 per year. Based on the years with complete data (2007 through 2014), the annual number of burial services has raged from a low of 147 in 2012 to a high of 196 in 2008. Based on the specific dates and times of the 1,614 burial services, the data showed that over nine years, only seven occurred on weekday afternoons at times that could have resulted in PM peak hour trip generation (those that occurred between 4:00 and 6:00 P.M.). Based on these extensive data, on average there has been less than one burial service per year on a weekday during the PM peak period. Therefore, burial services generally do not contribute to PM peak hour trip generation. Since the number of burial services per year has remained relatively stable (between about 150 and 200 per year since 2006), these data also demonstrate that the number and frequency of burial services is not related to the size of the cemetery or its available plots. Gethsemane Event Frequency Gethsemane Cemetery hosts a variety of special events. A summary of the events andtypical attendance levels is presented below. 1. Monthly Mass in English —Held on one Saturday per month at 10:30 A.M. The Mass and fellowship time usually last about 1 %z hours with average attendance of about 75 people. 2. Monthly Mass in Spanish —Held on one Saturday per month at 10:30 A.M. (alternate Saturday from the English Mass). The Mass and fellowship time also usually last about 1% hours with average attendance of about 15 people. 3. Memorial Day Weekend —Several activities including: a. Saturday visitation occurs all day, but usually peaks between 10:00 AM. and 3:00 P.M.; b. Sunday visitation occurs all day but usually peaks between 11:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M.; EXF11T - 3 - February PAGE �,i� - Gethsemane Catholic Cemetery Master Plan heffron Trip Generation Analysis for Submittal c. Memorial Day Masses: Held at 10:30 A.M. (in English with about 500 attendees), at 12:30 P.M. (in Vietnamese with about 250 attendees), and at 2:30 P.M. in Korean with about 175 attendees; and d. -Memorial Day visitation, which peaks between 11.00 AM. and 3:00 P.M. 4. Feast of St. Vincent de Paul (September 27) — Parish prayer service held at the Cemetery begins at 7:00 P.M., lasts about two hours with about 75 attendees (note that September 27"' falls on different -days of the week depending-10D the_yeAT)_ — — — -- ---- 5. All Saints Eve (October 31) — Mass begins at 7:00 P.M. and with fellowship lasts about 1'/a hours with attendance of about 45 people (note that October 31' falls on different days of the week denpnelimy nn the year) 6. All Souls Day (November 2) — Two activities including: a. Mass at 10:30 A.M. with fellowship time usually lasting about 1 % hours with average attendance of about 125 people (note that November 2" a falls on different days of the week depending on the year); and b. On the Saturday following November 2, there are 2 Masses (one in -Vietnamese (at 10:30 A.M. with attendance of about 100 people) and one in Korean (at 12:30 P.M. with attendance of abo»t 75 People). 7. Feast of St. Martin of Tours (November 11) - This event will. be held for the first time in 2015, but is expected -to be a..n n ie. «T d.� t _Pan flu niazrAr �.�:: x..e .'mc the ('Pmaf^_ � l�uJr:r�� �]+ 7•nn P l i 11 . ul, p MI,V Ga'bV-VV[.l1V Wl,1 VV�,. Ldi� LG4 J-VV an.. ,4 , fellowship is expected to last about 1'/2 hours. The attendance is estimated to be about 40 persons. Of the above events, only four could occur on non -holiday weekdays and all consist of Masses, with three held beginning at 7:00 P.M., and one beginning at 10:30 A.M. None of the events are scheduled to occur on weekday afternoons and none are expected to contribute to average weekday PM peak hour traffic generation of the Gethsemane Cemetery. Gethsemane Visitation Patterns Cemetery visitation patterns are affected by the natural progression of mourning and population aging. For example after" a death And burial, family members tend make more regular visits during the first few years after death. Gradually the number of visits declines as the grief process continues and families return to regular activities. Over longer periods of time, the family and relatives of buried individuals also pass away. As this occurs, the older areas of the Cemetery (locations where very few new burials occur) receive fewer and fewer visitors, while the newer plot areas receive the majority of visitors. This can be demonstrated by photo documentation of memorials (such as flowers) left at grave sites. The attached figure shows the photos of several sections of the Cemetery, and indicates the variation in visitation for various sections. Also included on -the -figure is infolination- about -the year each section was opened and the number :of -burials in each. As shown, images 1, 4; and 12 reflect very little visitation within Section D with. phases opened from 1974 to 1978. Similarly, images 5, 6, and 8 show Sections C, A, and E, respectively. These sections had phases ^pe'?2I3g .^,"' 1970 t^ 1088 and .'.1.�.v reflect � i�r` Irua.P"norials '---4 a lower level. c.L � sttatii�n ;n :3ntrast, images 2, 3, 7, 10, and 11 are of Section B with phases opened from 1988 to 2014 and reflect higher numbers of memorials and levels of visitation. Due to the patterns described, the overall level of visitation is likely to remain relatively constant regardless of the size of Cemetery in terins of interment capacity. As a result, visitor related trip generation, particularly during the weekday commuter PM peak hour, is not expected to fluctuate noticeably. EP ! I - 4 - FPAU25, 211E _� 11 Gethsemane Catholic Cemetery Master Plan Trip Generation Analysis for Submittal 4. Future Trip Generation trans artation The proposed Master Plan would make more area available to accommodate future burials in many phases over 50 years. However, the additional available burial areas and plots are not expected to affect the primary influences on cemetery trip generation. For example, the larger cemetery area will not affect regional death rates or the related burial frequency, event frequency or timing, or visitation patterns. The expansion may require one additional employee within 5 years and up to 3 to 4 more employees within the 50 year period assuming the expansion occurs as described in the Master Plan. However, those additional employees may not travel to or_ from the site during the PM peak period. The expansion would not include development of a funeral home on the site and no changes to office hours or grounds visitation hours are planned. Based on these analyses, it is reasonable to conclude that average weekday PM peak hour trip generation at Gethsemane Cemetery. (currently 5 trips) would not change as a result of the Master Plan proposal to expand and add burial areas. However, based on discussions with City of Federal Way staff, the observed trip generation rate of 0.61 PM peak hour trips per acre is applied to the proposed fully expanded cemetery (29 acres) in order to estimate the potential increase in future trip generation. At this rate, the cemetery could generate a net increase of up to 13 PM peak hour trips (increasing from 5 to 18 trips) over the proposed long term 50-year period of the Master Plan. However, for all of the reasons described in the previous sections, we believe this estimate of future trip generation is conservatively high. Attachments: Attachment A: Traffic count data sheets Attachment B: Gethsemane Cemetery Memorial Images TSM/tsm Gethsemane Cemetery Trip Generation Analysis for Submittal - FlNAL.docx -5- RAGE S- ---,no F—lIL-- February 25, 2016 Attachment A Gethsemane Cemetery - Site Access .Counts CoOnis performed bV Wax VW* Solufrons Inc: October 4 - 12:30 12:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1;45 6:00 a:15 1:90 F45 7:00 7:15 7.30 7.45 1:00 8:15 tt:30 11:45 12:D0 12:15 i2:30 12:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 x:DO 5:00 5.30 5:45 6:00 1:15 8:3n_ 6:45 7:00 9:00 Fie 9:30 9:45 10:00 10:15 10:30 10:45 11:00 11:15 h effron 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ___ 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 D 0 2 0 0 0 1 0- 1 2 2 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 2 1 3 2 0 3 2 1 1 1 2 0 3 2 1 5 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 0 3 1 0 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 0 3 5 0 4 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 4 i 2 3 2 2 1 0 x 1 1 1 3 0 i 1 a 2 1 1 a 0 s 0 1 1 0 a a- 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 -0 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 2 7 10 8 37 5 2 1 2 2 0 0 7 1 5 1 0 2 1 2 3 2 4 a 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 �0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 4 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 S 3 5 3 2 7 1 2 2 i 2 1 2 2 3 7 1 2 2 2 1 ! 1 2 1 1 0 D ! 1 0 1 a u 9 0 0 a 4 1 1 1 1 2 3 A 3 3 9 3 4 4 2 2 2 1 6 6 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 s } 0 1 Total MM16 Attachment A TUES 01 PAC HWY (SR 99) GETHSEMANE CEMETERY ACCESS N Peak Hour CorM I T� Co co I- N O I LU TEV: 2,701 PHF: 0.94 GETHSEMANE CEMETERY �2 �2 �0 n ■ rf 0 0 0 co m o Two -Hour Count Summaries e 2 re-rolan Date: Tue, Oct 06, 2015 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour. 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM HV %: PHF EB - - WB 0.0% 0.50 NB 6.9% 0.91 SB 5.1% 0.95 TOTAL 5.6% 0.94 li A Interval O GETHSEMANE CEMETERY ACCESS PAC HWY (SR 99) PAC HWY (SR 99) 15-min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 171 0 0 1 428 0 601 0 4:15 PM 0 0 U 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 180 0 0 1 475 0 658 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 218 0 0 0 446 0 665 0 4:4S P11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 187 0 0 0 473 0 660 2,584 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 0 0 1 495 0 718 2,701 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 0 0 451 0 641 2,684 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 232 0 0 1 432 0 665 2,684 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 212 1 0 0 347 0 1 560 2,584 Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 1,612 1 0 1 4 3,546 0 1 5,168 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 $07 0 0 2 1,886 0 1 2,701 0 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SIB Total East West North South Total Start 4:00 PM 0 0 15 25 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,15 PM 0 0 18 23 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 9 24 33 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PY 0 0 15 26 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PIPS 0 0 14 23 37 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 10 24 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 9 18 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45PM 0 0 9 9 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 99 172 271 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hr 0 0 S6 96 152 0 0 1 0 1 0 n V V110 17 0 fj 0 Mark Skaggs: (425) 250=0T77 PAGE—:2—OF mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com Attachment A TUES 02 !NTERNAL ACCESS GETHSEMANE CEMETERY ACCESS L3` A Date: Tue, Oct 06, 2015 N leak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM o v jGETHSEMANE I CD L* U CEMETERY ACCESS t 0i 0 � TEV: 6 5 A 0 ��.. 2 2 I'HF: 0.67 1 0 0 c�rHSEMANE� 1 r�'�Q�� P 0 '� 0 4 CEMETERY o o C O Q? ACCESSUj HV %: PHF Jj� z Q EB u:U% -U,-SIY- i WB 0.0% 0.75 � i CDNB - - SB - - TOTAL 0.0% 0.67 'Two -Hour Count Summaries Interval GETHSEMPNE CEMETERY ACCESS GETHSEMANE CEMETERY ACCESS INTERNAL ACCESS INTERNAL ACCESS 154min Rolling Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Total One Hour UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 a a 0 0 a ❑ 0 a 0 3 0 415 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4:30 PM 0 a ❑ 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 a 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 5.00PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 6 0 0 0 0 5 6:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 5:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5145 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Count Total 0 1 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 Peak Hour 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 Note: Two-hour couril summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in averall count, Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) ER WB NB CAB_: total EB aNB fJB Total East West North South Total Start 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 V 0 0 a 0 iJ 0 4:45 PM ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.-00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 5:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 545F'M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gaunt Total 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 Peak Hour 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 Mark Skaggs- (425)250-0777 Attachment A WED 01 PAC HWY (SR 99) GETHSEMANE CEMETERY ACCESS 044 N W } am 'Two -Hour Count Summaries Peak Hour TEV: 2,472 PHF: 0.98 Date: Wed, Oct 07, 2016 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM GETHSEMANE CEMETERY 2 0 n i v � v W� U m M r` � n e 3 HV %: PHF EB - - WB 0.0% 0.25 NB 5.4% 0.98 SB 4.2% 0.97 TOTAL 4.6% 0.98 A Doi, O GETHSEMANE CEMETERY AccEss PAC HYWY (SR 99) PAC HWY (SR 99) 15-min Rolling Interval Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total One Hour Start UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 198 1 0 1 385 0 587 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 176 0 0 0 367 0 546 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 185 3 0 1 378 0 569 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 182 0 0 0 438 0 630 2,332 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 193 0 0 0 432 0 625 2,370 0:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194 0 0 0 425 0 619 2,443 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 197 0 0 0 401 0 598 2,472 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 0 0 0 343 0 499 2,341 Count Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 0 0 1,488 4 0 2 3,169 0 073 0 Peak Hour 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 773 0 0 0 1,696 0 2.472 0 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing ) Start EB WS NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:00 PM 0 0 20 25 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 19 11 30 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 4,30 PM 0 0 11 12 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4AS PIN 0 0 18 17 35 0 O 0 0 b o 0 0 O 0 6:00 PM 0 0 10 15 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAS PM 0 0 4 25 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 10 14 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 7 10 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total j 0 0 99 129 228 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Peak W, 1 0 0 42 71 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 Mark Skaggs' (425) 250-0777 PAGE-._OF�.i.l__ mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com Attachment A WED 02 - iWERN A►L ACCESS GETHSEMANE CEMETERY ACCESS �J9� A Date: Wed, Oct 07, 2015 N Peak (-lour Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM I GETHSEMANE CEMETERY [ACCESS VV L I 0 TEV: 17" 10 --� PHF: 0.71 0 6 3 mxmw► 3� �0 3 GECESE 11 ♦1 r` 0 . i� _ o 4V 0� Q 0 ~ 0 V c V' CEMETERY TERM ACCESS -I to < w ix U LU U HV %: PHF l+ WB 0.0% 0.63 NB 0.0% 0.25 Se TOTAL 0.0% 0.71 'Two -Hour Count Summaries Interval Start GETHSEMANE CEMETERY ACCESS �GETHSEMANE CEMETERY ACCESS INTERNAL ACCESS INTERNAL ACCESS 15-min Total Rolling One Hour Eastbound UT LT TH RT Westbound UT LT TH RT Northbound UT LT TH RT Southbound UT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4.30 PM 0 O 1. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 4:45 PAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 4' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 17 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 5:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 5:30PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 3 3 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 17 0 Peak Hour 0 0 3 _ 3 0 0 10 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 .17 0 Note. Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing L ) Start I EB WB NB Sa Total E6 WB NB SB Total East West North Sauth Total 4:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 T•�e1511.11 — •v :cw 4:30 PM n n n t e 0 0 0 ea 0 0 e: 0 0 0 0 0 0 v a 0 .3 0 0 0 ; U 6 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 1 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QJIL F-`' �irh. 111fit 10 0 F Mark Skaggs- 425) 250-0777 m:aggs@idaxdata.com LU w U) LL Z LLw Go CL D 9L dK LOL t 40 E z 0 4, :5 U) 0 0 C) 4, 72 ui 0 2 tr ui I.. LLJ IIJ c 0= 'a z v LU CO O Z4 z 2 ............ - %Wm�uw m I I m m U) E701 Technical Memorandum To: Richard Peterson, Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle From: Kevin O'Brien, Senior Ecologist Jeff Gray, Senior Wetland Scientist Copies: Jim Harris, City of Federal Way Jason Walker, Perteet Carol Ohlfs, J.A. Brennan Associates John Hempelmann, Cairncross and Hempelmann Date: August 18, 2017 Subject: Addendum to Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan for Gethsemane Cemetery Project No.: 32655 Introduction This technical memorandum is provided as an Addendum to the Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland BufferMitigation Plan, completed by Otak, Inc. (Otak), dated January 27, 2017, for the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle for the Gethsemane Cemetery in Federal Way, Washington. The original report and this Addendum have been completed to support the long range planning effort and Master Use Plan to guide future development at the Gethsemane Cemetery. This Addendum updates wetland classifications on the property, and includes a buffer mitigation/enhancement plan for the maintenance and repair of the existing stormwater pond that is required per the 2009 King'County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). The updated wetland classifications and buffer mitigation/enhancement plan have been completed following coordination with the Federal Way Planning Department staff and their third party reviewer (Perteet) from 2016 to present. The buffer mitigation/enhancement plan was developed to offset habitat conversion impacts in a wedand buffer to achieve a no net loss of function. The buffer mitigation/enhancement plan described below describes the existing conditions of the wetland buffer being impacted, steps taken during the planning design process to avoid and minimize impacts to the wetland buffer, and the proposed mitigation/enhancement to offset unavoidable impacts. RESUBMITTED AUG 2 2 2017 CRY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNfTY DEVELOPMENT Page 2 August 18, 2017 Updated Wetland Classifications Otak biologists delineated 14 separate wetlands on the Gethsemane Cemetery properties as shown on Figure 1 included with this memorandum. The total area of delineated wetlands is 3.50 acres, mostly occurring as forested and shrub wetland habitats along West Fork Hylebos Creek and along the northern property boundary. Wetlands 1, 4, and 6 extend beyond the property boundaries, with Wetland 1 extending onto the adjacent Karileen property. No wetlands or streams were observed on the undeveloped portion of the study area east of West Fork Hylebos Creek. The 14 delineated wetlands are variously rated as Category II and III per the 2014 Ecology Wetland Rating System (Hruby, 2014), and have buffers between 60 and 165 feet (Federal Way Revised Code [FWRC]19.145.420). Cowardin wetland classes include palustrine forested (PFO), scrub -shrub (PSS), and emergent (PEM) habitats. Wetlands 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are classified as PFO; wetlands 4, 10, and 13 are classified as PSS; wetlands 2, 3, and 14 are classified as PEM; and, wetlands 1, 5, and 6 have PFO/PSS/PEM habitat mosaics. Wetlands were classified as depressional, riverine, and slope per the HGM classification system. Wetland 2, artificially created in a roadside ditch along Pacific Highway South, is exempt from the FWRC per Chapter 19.145.110(3), and does not have an associated buffer. Wetland 1 (Unit 1) was revised from a Category III to a Category II classification at the request of the city on behalf of Perteet, but the buffer width (165 feet) remains the same. See Table 1 for the updated list of onsite wetlands, classifications, ratings, and buffer widths. Page 3 August 18, 2017 Table 1. Delineated Wetlands within the Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland t Wetland Classification Wetland Size 4 Habitat Score from Ecology Rating System Buffer Width (feet)s Cowardinz HGM Ecology3 Square Feet Acre W1 PFO/PSS/ PEM Depressional/Slope Unit 1: I1 Unit 2: 111 Unit 3: 11 >64,890 >1.49 Unit 1: 6 Unit 2: 5 Unit 3: 7 Unit 1: 165 Unit 2: 105 Unit 3: 165 W2 PEM Slope II1 290 0.01 4 0 W3 PEM Depressional 11I 580 0.01 4 60 W4 PSS Rivenne II 970 0.02 6 165 W5 PFO/PSS Riverine/Slope 11 7,030 0.16 6 165 W6 PFO/PSS Depressional/ Riverine/Slope II >66,750 >1.53 7 165 W7 PFO Riverine II 480 0.01 6 165 W8 PFO Riverine 11 400 0.01 6 165 W9 PFO Riverine 1I 6340 0.15 6 165 W10 PSS Riverine 11 260 0.01 6 165 W11 PFO Riverine II 330 0.01 6 165 W12 PFO Riverine 11 480 0.01 6 165 W13 PSS Riverine II 910 0.02 6 165 W14 PEM Depressional 111 2,940 0.07 4 60 TOTAL 152,650 3.50 A. Wetlands Wetlands shown on Figure 1. B. Cowardin et al. (1979). Class based on vegetation: PEM = Palustrine Emergent; PFO = Palustrine Forested; PSS = Palustrine Scrub - Shrub. C. Ecology category according to Hruby (2014). D. Wetlands sizes measured within the study area boundaries; Wetlands 1 and 6 extend beyond study area boundaries. E. Wetland buffer width according to FWRC 19.145.420. Wetland 2 is artificially created and has no buffer because it is exempt from the FWRC per Chapter 19.145.110(3). Proposed Buffer Mitigation Related to Repair of the Existing Stormwater Pond The proposed maintenance and repair of the existing stormwater pond in buffer of Wetland 6 is exempt from FWRC 19.145 (Environmentally Critical Areas) per FWRC 19.145.110(2): Operation, maintenance, or Page 4 August 18, 2017 repair of exisibig public improvements, rrtik ies, public or private roads, parks, trails, or drainage ystems if the activity does not further alter or increase impact to, or encroach further within, the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed operation, maintenance, or repair, and no new clearing of vegetation beyond routine prftniog However, FWRC 19.145.110 also states that an exemption is not an endorsement of any action that may cause degradation to a critical area. The maintenance and repair of the existing stormwater pond includes clearing 10,100 square feet of the outer forested buffer to Wetland 6. This clearing is within the existing stormwater pond. Mitigation for this habitat conversion within the buffer is proposed. The proposed maintenance and repair of the stormwater pond includes clearing vegetation from the inside slopes of the pond, installing a bentonite slurry cutoff wall to prevent seepage and slope failure with the existing berm, installing a new catch basin and pond inlet, installing a 12-foot wide gravel access road adjacent to the buffer, and installing a 12-foot wide emergency overflow spillway at grade. Most of the maintenance and repairs are outside of the buffer. A small area of grading (<50 SF) for the access road is within the buffer to tie into existing grades. The proposed Wetland 6 buffer mitigation plan goals, objectives, performance standards, and monitoring and reporting methods and schedule is consistent with the mitigation plan for the Wetland 1 buffer enhancement plan as documented in the Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland BufferMitigation Plan (Otak 2017). Consistency with the previously approved buffer mitigation plan will ensure that maintenance, monitoring, and reporting is effectively implemented for the whole Gethsemane Cemetery property to achieve the goals and objectives of both buffer enhancement plans. Existing Conditions in the Pond within the Wetland 6 Buffer Currently, the stormwater facility receives some stormwater from Gethsemane Cemetery, but the quantity of stormwater discharging into the facility is limited due to the broken inlet pipe as evidenced by the vegetation, soil, and hydrology conditions typical of upland habitats. The existing stormwater facility is comprised of upland habitat, and is dominated by red alder, Himalayan blackberry, and sword fern. Subdominant plant species include osoberry, trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and vine maple (Acer circinatum). The plants found within the existing stormwater facility are typical of the upland plant communities found in the early successional forested portions of the Gethsemane Cemetery site. Soil samples indicate non-hydric soils, and evidence of hydrology was limited to small depositions of sediment in the lowest portion of the facility near a catch basin. Approximately two thirds of the existing facility is located within the outer half of the Wetland 6 buffer. Page 5 August 18, 2017 Photo 1. Photograph of the early successional forest community dominated by red alder trees with a dense shrub understory in the existing stormwater pond on July 29, 2016. Wetland 6 Buffer Mitigation Approach Wetland buffers primarily function to protect water quality and wildlife habitat in wetlands (Hruby, 2013; Environmental Law Institute, 2008). The proposed Wedand 6 buffer mitigation/enhancement plan is intended to increase the functional performance of the existing Wetland 6 buffer. Increasing these ecological functions in the buffer will increase water quality protection and habitat functions in Wetland 6. Because the proposed impacts are in the outer half of the Wedand 6 buffer, which is primarily associated with habitat functions, the proposed mitigation is focused on improving habitat functions. The proposed Wedand 6 buffer mitigation plan is analogous to wetlands mitigation in that the proposed plan accounts for temporal loss and risk associated with the proposed buffer enhancement actions. A 2.1 mitigation to impacts ratio is proposed that is consistent with these factors when determining mitigation ratios (Ecology et al, 2006a,b). The Gethsemane Cemetery property is located within the Western hemlock vegetation zone in the Puget Trough physiographic province (Van Pelt, 2007; Franklin and Dyrness, 1973). The Western hemlock dominated forest is considered the climax forest community due to its shade tolerance in forests with established canopy cover. The main goal of the proposed buffer enhancement is to accelerate the speed and increase confidence that an existing lawn -dominated area will succeed to native climax forest. Page 6 August 18, 2017 The area to be cleared is potentially also at risk from developing into a climax forest community. Red alder trees are successful at pioneering disturbed sites, such as in the existing stormwater pond that was previously constructed and not maintained regularly. However, forest successional trends toward climax communities can be impeded by dense alder stands that make it difficult for conifers to regenerate and grow if they do not become established at the same time or shortly before (Harrington, 2006). The time for this to occur in unmanaged forests is not well documented, but Douglas -fir seedlings can easily be eliminated in favor of more shade tolerant species such as Western hemlock, Western red cedar, and Sitka spruce. According to Deal (2006), Douglas -fir, Sitka spruce, and Western hemlock can all surpass red alder at about age 50. Western red cedar may take 80 years to surpass red alder. However, mixed stands can have extremely variable growth patterns depending on abiotic factors such as soil nutrients, available sunlight, and moisture availability. The area to be cleared within the Wetland 6 buffer consists of a red alder and cottonwood canopy with a dense deciduous shrub understory. It is likely the dense canopy and shrub understory has thus far precluded the establishment of conifers. In absence of understory conifers shrubs may completely dominate the site after alder senescence at age 80-100 (Deal 2006). Dense salmonberry stands, a species present in the area to be cleared, can also form a dense shrub layer under red alder that can exclude conifer regeneration (Franklin and Dyrness, 1973). It should be noted that Douglas -fir trees are present on the hillside surrounding the existing stormwater pond, and may provide a viable seed source for future conifer regeneration, but none have established in the clearing area at this time. The proposed buffer enhancement area is currently lawn with a hedge of Himalayan blackberry. If the existing grass and Himalayan blackberry stands are left alone and preclude the establishment of trees, then the area may remain shrubland for an indeterminate amount of time. Typical succession in the Western hemlock zone following a clearing (logging, fire, etc.) is an herbaceous weedy stage followed by a shrub - dominated period until the shrubs are overtopped by tree saplings, generally Douglas -fir (Harrington, 2006). Douglas -fir is considered the sub -climax tree species because it is shade intolerant. The proposed tree and shrub planting in the existing lawn area will accelerate succession and increase the likelihood these areas will return to climax forest habitat in the future. Wetland 6 Buffer Mitigation Design Criteria As documented in the Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wletland BufferMiti2ution Plan (Otak 2017), reduction of the wetland buffer for Wetland 1 with enhancement is proposed per FWRC 19.145.440(6). The proposed reduction will decrease the buffer by 25 percent in the outer buffer, from 165 feet to 124 feet. The remaining buffer will be enhanced with native plant species installation and non-native invasive plant removal. The buffer mitigation performance standards, monitoring, maintenance, and contingency standards met the requirements of FWRC 19.145.140 per the letter from Perteet dated March 24, 2017. As such, this memorandum addresses the proposed impacts and mitigation associated with the repair of the existing stormwater pond in the buffer of Wetland 6. The performance standards, monitoring, maintenance, and contingency standards detailed in the WWletland and Stream Delineation Report and WFletlMd Page 7 August 18, 2017 BufferMiltoatian Plan (Otak 2017) will also be used for the proposed buffer mitigation area as described below. No net loss of ecological functions to the Wetland 6 buffer or to Wetland 6 itself will occur on the Gethsemane Cemetery property as a result of the proposed mitigation, and it is anticipated that overall buffer function will be enhanced through the proposed buffer mitigation. Steps to avoid, minimize, and compensate for unavoidable impacts (i.e., the mitigation process) are described below. Avoidance and Minimization Measures Direct impacts to the on -site wetlands will be avoided altogether as a component of the Cemetery Master Plan and future land use decisions and activities related to implementation of the Plan. No modifications, including excavation, fill, and/or removal activities will occur in the onsite wetlands. No modifications will occur to off -site wetlands associated with the Karileen property to the east. Action items related to the repair and maintenance of the existing stormwater pond that have been located outside of the buffer to avoid impacts include: • Install catch basin type 2 with flow control structure • Install 12" pond inlet • Install and grade 12' wide gravel access road • Install 12' wide emergency overflow spillway at grade (partially outside buffer) ■ Eliminated the splash pad at the pond inlet in the buffer, and replaced it with a water quality settling cell outside of the buffer • Install gravel access road for stormwater pond maintenance Actions to minimize impacts to the buffer include: • Installing bentonite slurry cutoff wall in the berm rather than using a pond liner that would otherwise prevent groundwater infiltration • Limiting the gravel access road in the buffer to very minor grading (<50 SF) to tie in the terminus of the access road • Installing 12' wide emergency overflow spillway at grade (partially within buffer) Unavoidable, Minimized Impacts Unavoidable, minimized impacts to the buffer of Wetland 6 resulting from the maintenance and repair of the existing stormwater pond will be limited to those necessary to meet the requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM. Existing deciduous trees must be cleared from the interior side slopes and basin bottom within the existing pond footprint. Approximately 10,100 square feet of red alder, successional forest habitat will be cleared within the Wetland 6 buffer. Improving the function of the stormwater pond will have a significant positive effect on Wetland 6 by improving water quality. Currently, the stormwater discharge bypasses the pond due to the broken pipe, and flows directly into Wetland 6 in a manmade channel. Repairing and maintaining the stormwater pond Page 8 August 18, 2017 will improve the water quality of stormwater by improving settling and infiltration in the pond prior to discharging to Wedand 6. Compensatory Mitigation Compensatory mitigation for the project impacts to the buffer of Wetland 6 is proposed. Approximately 21,100 square feet of existing degraded buffer will be enhanced to upland forest. A mitigation ratio of 2.1:1 is proposed. e Buffer averaging was considered as a form of compensatory mitigation for the proposed buffer impacts. Buffer averaging is frequently the preferred option for buffer mitigation so long as the proposed averaging does not result in adversely affecting wetland functions and values (Environmental Law Institute, 2008). During the mitigation planning process it was determined that enhancing existing degraded buffer areas was more beneficial to protecting water quality and habitat functions in Wedand 6 than averaging. The width of the wedand buffer south of the existing stormwater pond could be extended so that the aggregate area within the buffer would not be reduced. However, increasing the successional rate and development of forest habitat in the wedand buffer adjacent to where future cemetery development is proposed would better protect the wedand. Existing Conditions within the Buffer Enhancement/Mitigation Area The proposed buffer enhancement area is an upland grass lawn bordered by a hedge of Himalayan blackberry along the outer edge of forest at the top of a steep incline. Non-native grasses in the lawn habitat include a mix of bentgrass (Agrostis sp.), ryegrass (Elymus sp.), and fescue (Festaica sp.) as shown in Photo 2. The existing buffer in the mitigation area currently provides a minimal level of habitat functioning relative to Wedand 6 that is located at the toe of slope beyond the forest edge. The proposed buffer enhancement is intended to convert this lawn area to upland forest habitat to increase protection of the Wedand 6 habitat functions. Photo 2. View of the grass meadow habitat in the proposed Wedand 6 buffer enhancement area at the forest edge; view looking east-southeast. Page 9 August 18, 2017 Proposed Wetland 6 Buffer Mitigation Plan This section presents the Wetland 6 buffer mitigation plan, including goals and objectives and the performance standards by which to assess their achievement. A five-year monitoring and maintenance plan is proposed for the Wetland 6 buffer enhancement mitigation area. The monitoring plan in the following section outlines monitoring protocols and the reporting schedule to track the progress and success of the buffer enhancement areas for Wetlands 1 and 6. Maintenance plans include recommendations for irrigation for at least the first two years after installation, and specifications for removal of non-native invasive species, replacement of installed plants that fail, and other activities —including contingency actions that will be taken if the restoration areas do not satisfy performance standards. The effectiveness of this plan is substantially enhanced by the fact that the cemetery has full time on site staff that maintain the cemetery grounds. This Wetland 6 buffer mitigation plan proposes several actions to enhance approximately 21,100 square feet (0.48 acre) of the Wetland 6 buffer as shown on the attached Buffer Modification and Enhancement Plan for Stormwater Pond Mifigation (dated 8 / 11 / 17) plan sheet , including: • Removal of non-native invasive species • Installation of native woody species for an upland forest community within the buffer enhancement area Install fencing and signage around the mitigation area Buffer)Wdgation Goals and Objectives 1. Successfully remove invasive species from the existing wedand buffer enhancement area. 2. Restore and enhance native vegetation within the wedand buffer for a successional trajectory towards establishing a multi -strata forest habitat. 3. Install fencing to provide a barrier between the wetland buffer and developable areas on the property. 4. Provide signage notifying public of sensitive mitigation area for the purpose of keeping visitors out of the mitigation area and also to educate visitors about wetlands and buffers. JWtigation Timing The proposed mitigation shall be completed concurrently with project construction. The proposed Welland 6 buffer mitigation plan and associated planting, under the Cemetery Master Plan, will be executed prior to any alteration of the area required for the repair and maintenance of the existing stormwater pond. All activities associated with future grave and internment sites in the vicinity of the buffer enhancement will occur many years after the buffer enhancement area have been established and the subsequent monitoring period has been completed. Page 10 August 18, 2017 Mitigation Performance Standards Performance Standards are the means to quantify whether the Mitigation Goals and Objectives listed above are being met. The City of Federal Way typically requires monitoring for fivd years after installation to ensure success. The following parameters will be assessed for the required monitoring period: 1) Non-native Invasive Species • ALL YEARS: Throughout the designated planting areas, the following species must be eliminated: all species included in the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board Class A Noxious Weed List; non-native invasive knotweeds including Japanese, Boehemian, giant, Himalayan, and hybrids (Polygonum cuspadatuni; P. bohemicum, Psachalinense, and P. polystadyum); and other species as determined by the City of Federal Way and other agencies according to permit conditions. ALL YEARS: Throughout the designated planting areas, there will be less than 10 percent total aerial cover by non-native invasive species including:, field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) and morning glory (Calystegia sepium); Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius), bird's -foot trefoil (Lotus corniculcaus), English ivy (Hedera helix), policeman's helmet (Impatiensglandatlafera); yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus); yellow archangel (1-am asirrsrrlaaleobdolon); purple loosestrife (Lythrumsulicaria) and garden loosestrife (I.gsiwachia vulgaris); reed canarygrass (Phalaris anindinacea), Himalayan and evergreen blackberries (Bubus armeniacus and R laciniatus); bittersweet nightshade (Solanum duleamara); tansy (Tanacetum vulgare); and other species as determined by the City of Federal Way and other agencies according to permit conditions. 2) Survival of Installed Woody Plants • Year 1: there will be 100 percent survival of installed woody plants due to installation warranty. • Year 2: there will be at least 80 percent survival of installed woody plants. • Year 3: there will be at least 75 percent survival of installed woody plants. 3) Percent -Cover • By Year 1: There will be at least 30 percent cover by native woody species in the buffer mitigation area, including both installed species and desirable volunteer native species. • By Year 2: There will be at least 40 percent cover by native woody species in the buffer mitigation area, including both installed species and desirable volunteer native species. By Year 5: There will be at least 60 percent cover by native woody species in the buffer mitigation area, including both installed species and desirable volunteer native species. 4) Plant Health • ALL YEARS: There will be visual evidence that installed plants are vigorous (eg. new growth and few visible signs of stress). Page 11 August 18, 2017 5) Establi h and Maintain 5 e! i Diversi • Years 3-5: At a minimum, a total of five (5) native woody species will be established in the designated planting areas. To satisfy this Performance Standard, a particular species only has to be established in the mitigation site, and desirable native volunteer species can be counted. Non-native Invasive Species Removal Himalayan blackberry within the existing wetland buffer shall be removed by Gethsemane Cemetery staff using their preferred method. Removal is recommended to be completed during construction and before planting with native species. Recommended removal strategies include the following: • Removal by hate. Cut the stalks, remove the root crowns, and dispose of the plant material off - site. This control method can be implemented in the spring/summer prior to or concurrent with construction. Herbicide treatment. Cut the canes and dab a glysophate-based herbicide on the cane stump immediately after cutting. Remove the canes once dead and dispose of the plant material off -site. This control method is, most successfully implemented in the fall. Plant Species Selection and Specifications A variety of native species are included in the buffer mitigation plan plant palette shown on the Mitigation Plan Sheet included with this memo. The palette includes a total of 15 native shrub or small tree species, four native conifer tree species, and four native deciduous tree species. Native plant species were chosen for the following characteristics: • native to the Puget Sound area; • established presence of source populations at the project site; • suitable for expected site hydroperiod, light, and soil conditions; • known plant community associations in the native forest climax community in the Puget Sound lowlands ecoregion; • ability to provide structural complexity, food, and shelter for wildlife; • availability from local sources; and • aesthetic appeal. Plants will be purchased from reputable regional nurseries that provide local genetic ecotypes of plants native to western Washington and the Puget Sound area. Plant Installation and Specifications Plants will be installed according to planting plan diagrams and schedules specified in the Mitigation Plan Sheet and the following recommendations: • Amend the designated restoration planting areas by tilling in a minimum of six (6) inches of compost into the top twelve (12) inches of soil. • The planting hole should be no deeper than the rootball, and the bottom of the football should rest on undisturbed soil. The planting hole should be a minimum of three (3) to four (4) times the width of the rootball. • Spread the roots and straighten circling roots as possible. Page 12 August 18, 2017 • The top of the rootball should be at, or approximately'/a inch above, the soil surface. • Backfill the hole with the excavated amended soil. • Apply four (4) to six (6) inches of arborist mulch or wood chips to the designated restoration planting areas. Pull mulch four (4) inches away from stems - mulch shall not touch plant stems or trunks. Best Management Practices To minimize potential impacts to critical areas and critical area buffers, best management practices (BMPs) will be followed, including strict adherence to Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) measures during construction of the project. Bl\/IPs include flagging all clearing limits and installing silt fences before the start of any grading activities adjacent to critical areas. After project construction and plant installation is completed and the site has stabilized, all silt fences and any other temporary erosion protection structures will be removed. Fence and Sign Installation Following installation of native plants in the enhanced buffer, fencing will be installed around the outer extent. The purpose of the fence is to provide a barrier between the wetland and wetland buffer mitigation area and visitors to the cemetery. The fence will be installed on the outside border of the proposed mitigation planting area. Up to three metal signs are recommended for installation along outer edge of the buffer enhancement area for Wetland 6, indicating that the buffer is a mitigation area and entry beyond the fence is prohibited. The signs may be installed on fence posts or the fence itself. Ecological Lift Provided by the Proposed Buffer Mitigation The ecological lift provided by the proposed Wetland 6 buffer enhancement includes converting 0.48 acre of upland lawn habitat to native forest to offset impacts from clearing 0.23 acre of successional alder forest habitat. The short term effects of clearing 0.23 acre of deciduous forest habitat are intended to be offset by accelerating the successional development and trajectory of 0.48 acre early successional grass habitat towards the native climax forest community dominated by conifers. Lawns and other grass habitats if left alone take longer to develop towards a coniferous forest compared to managed/planted areas (Van Pelt, 2007). And in some cases, early successional areas overrun by aggressive shrub species (i.e., Himalayan blackberry) can prevent or greatly delay the establishment of any forest canopy cover at all (Harrington, 2006) . The long term ecological benefits provided by the proposed Wetland 6 buffer enhancement plan include a net gain of 0.25 acre of climax forest habitat within the Wetland 6 buffer and the aquatic system along West Hylebos Creek. Increased forested buffer habitat to Wetland 6 will improve protection of the habitat functions provided by Wetland 6 for certain wildlife species, and increase the quality of wetland vegetation (Hruby, 2013). The additional 0.25 acre of buffer enhancement is proposed to offset the temporal loss of functions while the new forest habitat establishes, and address the potential risk of failure for any portion 111 Page 13 August 18, 2017 of the enhancement area. The proposed 2.1:1 mitigation ratio is analogous to wetland mitigation ratios stipulated in the Best Available Science from Ecology et al. (2006a,b). As noted previously, the proposed project will improve water quality from existing conditions. The proposed plan will restore the water quality functions that were originally provided by the stormwater pond. Restoring the stormwater pond will improve water quality discharging to Wetland 6 because detaining the surface water flows will allow particulates collected in the runoff to drop out of the water column. Stormwater currently discharges directly to Wetland 6 because the inlet to the stormwater pond is broken. The stormwater pond will not be lined, and water will be allowed to infiltrate to support groundwater levels in Wetland 6 at the toe of slope. Additionally, increasing the amount of forested buffer to Wetland 6 will generally increase water quality protection for Wetland 6 (Hruby, 2013). Proposed Wetland 6 Buffer Mitigation Monitoring Plan The purpose of monitoring is to determine whether Performance Standards are being satisfied, whether the mitigation area is being maintained properly, and if contingency actions are necessary. The mitigation areas in the buffer enhancement area will be monitored for a minimum of five growing seasons after the plants are installed. Monitoring visits will occur according to the schedule below. Vegetation Monitoring Plots A minimum of four permanent monitoring plots are recommended to be established to accurately reflect the conditions of the communities. Metal fence posts or other permanent markers may be installed to establish the permanent monitoring plots during the as -built site visit. It is recommended that rectangular monitoring plots be used, five meters by five meters in size. All installed woody plants will be flagged to track plant survival during the first three years after installation, and to distinguish between installed woody plants and volunteers from rhizomes, seeds, etc. During each monitoring visit, data will be collected from the plots including: which species are present (including volunteers); percent aerial coverage by species; and the condition and vigor of plants. Survival of installed plants as required by Performance Standards will also be determined. In addition to presence and percent cover by non-native invasive species in the plots, their general locations and extent of cover throughout the mitigation area will be estimated and noted. General conditions of the entire buffer mitigation area, as well as the surrounding habitat, will be noted. Photo Points Photographs provide an important visual record. A minimum of four permanent photo -points will be established to accurately show the vegetation and habitat status of the mitigation areas. Metal fence posts or other permanent markers will be installed to establish the photo -points. Photographs will be taken during each vegetation monitoring visit, and they will be labeled with photo station location, date, and compass bearings. Page 14 August 18, 2017 Wildlife Presence Wildlife presence and use of the mitigation area will be noted during the monitoring visits. The monitoring staff will record any species present, as well as wildlife indicators such as scat, prints, nests, holes, browsing marks, etc. Maintenance/Contingency Observations Observations on the need for and extent of maintenance/contingency actions will be noted during each monitoring visit and reported immediately to the appropriate maintenance staff at Gethsemane Cemetery and/or the Director of Cemeteries at the Associated Catholic Cemeteries. Maintenance actions may include (but are not limited to): repairing any damage from vandalism; removing trash; replacing/repairing buffer signs; augmenting irrigation; replacing mulch; weeding; removing non-native invasive species; and, replacing plants. Monitoring and Reporting Schedule Monitoring visits will occur for a minimum of five growing seasons after installation to determine whether the Performance Standards are being met. An As -Built report will be completed following installation of the mitigation plantings. The monitoring schedule may be adjusted accordingly to match construction of the mitigation project and installation of mitigation plantings: • Following construction and installation of mitigation plantings. • Year 1: vegetation monitoring near the end of the growing season of the first year after installation (August/September). ■ Year 2: vegetation monitoring near the end of the growing season of the second year after installation (August/September). ■ Year 3: vegetation monitoring near the end of the growing season of the third year after installation (August/September). ■ Year 5: vegetation monitoring near the end of the growing season of the fifth year after installation (August/September). Monitoring reports will be submitted after each monitoring visit to the Associated Catholic Cemeteries and the City of Federal Way. These reports will describe the conditions on site, the level of success of the mitigation plan in satisfying the Performance Standards, whether contingency actions are warranted, and recommended maintenance actions. The reports will include: data collected on plant species present, and their percent cover and vigor; survival of installed plants and probable causes for any losses; percent cover by non-native invasive species; photographs from the permanent photo -points; wildlife usage of the restored areas; a list of recommended maintenance actions; and observations of general site conditions. A final monitoring report shall be submitted to the City of Federal Way Community Development Director for review upon completion of the mitigation activities in Year 5. Page 15 August 18, 2017 Maintenance, Contingency, and Long-term Management Maintenance The designated mitigation planting areas will be maintained for a minimum of five growing seasons after installation by full time maintenance staff at the cemetery. Having full time maintenance staff at the cemetery will ensure that project goals are achieved during the monitoring period and for the long-term. Maintenance activities are specified below, but generally, maintenance will include irrigating, removing non-native invasive species, replacing mulch, and installing plants as necessary to achieve the Performance Standards. Maintenance will also include replacing/repairing buffer signs, repairing the fence, removing trash, etc. Maintenance is expected to be performed by the maintenance staff employed at the cemetery. Irrigation Watering is critical for plant survival and establishment, especially at planting time and for at least the first summer after installation. If possible, all plantings in the designated mitigation planting areas should be watered at a rate of at least one inch per week during the dry season (approximately June through September) for the first year after installation at a minimum. Under especially hot and dry conditions, the plantings may require more water. Any replacement plants installed subsequent to the initial installation, or plants that are installed in the designated restoration planting areas as the result of maintenance or contingency actions, will require irrigation until they become established. Watering frequency may be tapered off during the second year after installation. If installed, temporary irrigation systems may be removed after Year 2. Plant Replacement Plants will be replaced or additional plants will be installed as required to satisfy Performance Standards for percent survival, percent cover, and vigor in the designated mitigation planting areas. Plant species appropriate to the conditions will be selected from the mitigation plan plant palette shown on the Mitigation Plan Sheet. Non-native Invasive Species Control The non-native invasive species listed in the Performance Standard will be controlled throughout the designated restoration planting areas. At a minimum, control efforts will satisfy the Performance Standards of either no cover or less than 10 percent cover for the specific species. Control will occur a minimum of two times per year (in the spring and late summer) for Years 1 through 5. More frequent maintenance will prevent non-native invasive species from becoming established (or re-established in the case of Himalayan blackberry). Infestations around the edge of the mitigation areas will also be controlled to prevent encroachment and establishment within the buffer enhancement area. Invasive plants (including roots and crowns) will be removed by hand or with manual tools. All cut and pulled non-native vegetation will be removed from the mitigation area and disposed of properly offsite. If manual control methods prove to be ineffective for certain species (e.g. Japanese knotweed, Himalayan blackberry, etc.), herbicide use may be necessary. Only herbicides approved for use in or near aquatic areas (e.g. Rodeo®, AquaMaster) may be used, and only licensed applicators with endorsements for aquatic pest Page 16 August 18, 2017 control shall apply herbicides. Herbicide application methodologies should be those recommended by the City of Federal Way. Application techniques include: cutting the invasives and dabbing stems; foliar wiping; etc. Stem injection is not recommended. The least amount of herbicide necessary should be applied at the most effective time(s) of year, and adjacent desirable native species must not be damaged. Other Maintenance Actions Repair any damage from vandalism and remove trash from the designated mitigation planting areas. Repair and/or replace any damaged signs or fence segments. Repair/replace habitat features as necessary. Contingency Actions Based on the monitoring data and photographic record, it may be necessary to implement contingency measures to ensure that the Performance Standards are met. The proposed restoration plan can fail under certain circumstances such as unplanned human activity; fire; extreme cold, heat and/or drought; plant loss by disease and/or insect attack; browsing by deer; etc. The monitoring reports will include observations of which plants are lost and the probable cause for the loss. If necessary, plants will be replaced during the dormant season. Care will be taken to correct for the cause of the loss (e.g. providing better maintenance or increased irrigation); replanting species better adapted to actual site conditions; replacing diseased plants with resistant native species; installing herbivory protection devices; etc. Any damages caused by erosion, settling, or other geomorphological processes will be repaired. Long-term Management The purpose of the Master Use Pan is to ensure that no new encroachments into critical areas or their buffers on the Gethsemane Cemetery will occur as the site is developed. The Gethsemane Cemetery employs full time on site maintenance staff that currently performs grounds maintenance and landscaping duties as part of their overall responsibilities. The maintenance staff will ensure that the goals of the buffer mitigation areas will be achieved in longevity after the 5 year monitoring and reporting period has ended by including the buffer mitigation areas in their regular maintenance activities. References Deal, R.L. 2006. Red alder stand development and dynamics. Published in Red Alder — State of Knowledge, Deal, R.L. and C.A. Harrington (eds.). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-669. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Environmental Law Institute. 2008. Planner's guide to wetland buffers for local governments. 25 pp. ISBN 978-58576-137-1. Franklin, J.F and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Harrington, C.A. 2006. Biology and ecology of alder. Published in Red Alder — State of Knowledge, Deal, R.L. and C.A. Harrington (eds.). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-669. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Page 17 August 18, 2017 Hruby, T. 2013. Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report, October 2013. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #13-06-11. Van Pelt, R. 2007. Identifying Mature and Old Forests in Western Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. 104 p. Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. 2006a. Wletland Mitigation in W laskg1on State - Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidelines (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06- 011 a, Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. 2006b. Wetland Mitigation in W lashington State -Part 2: Developingtlrlitigation Plans (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06- 011 b, Olympia, WA. PO ERT ET To: Jim Harris, Planner, City of Federal Way PERTEET.COM 2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900 EVERETT. WA 98201 425.252.7700 From: Bill Kidder, Lead Ecologist, Perteet Jason Walker, PLA, PWS, Environmental Manager and Wetland Ecologist, Perteet Date: March 24, 2017 Re: Gethsemane Cemetery —Critical Areas and Impacts Mitigation Plan Review Perteet Inc. conducted a critical areas review of the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan expansion located at 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, Washington. The cemetery is situated across tax parcels: #322104- 9025, #322104-9020, #218820-4560, #218820-4281, and #218820-4365. The Cemetery is situated about %2 mile west of Interstate 5 next to the Pierce County boundary at the south end of the City of Federal Way in Section 32, Township 21 North, Range 4 East. West Fork Hylebos Creek flows through center of the subject property. The applicant is proposing to create a Cemetery Master Plan that would guide phased build out over several decades. The Master Plan requires City land use approvals that include a critical areas assessment. The critical areas review is being completed using the Federal Way Municipal Code (FWMC) current on March 17, 2017. Perteet ecologists completed a site visit and critical areas review of the subject property and the proposed• project plan on March 13, 2017. Weather was overcast and raining. Much of the site contained puddles of standing water throughout. The cemetery's stormwater system was actively flowing and draining untreated to an outfall upslope of Wetland 6. Wetlands had standing and flowing water at least 6 inches deep in many places. Perteet met the applicant's representatives at the end of the site visit to discuss observations, provide project background, and answer questions. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED The following documents and resource information websites were reviewed by Perteet prior to the site visit: • Wetland and Stream Delineation Reportfor and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan, Gethsemane Cemetery, Federal Way, WA. Prepared for Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, prepared by Otak, Inc., dated January 27, 2017. • Gethesamane Cemetery No. 2 Site Plan, Drainage, and Topogrnhic Survey Permit Drawings, August 31, 1972. Prepared for Archdiocese of Seattle. • King County Online Parcel Viewer(hiip://www.kinc , accessed March 21, 2017. ■ City of Federal Way Critical Areas maps (1-,tto,//ww-vv.ci-t.,Ioffederolway.com/ouge/ma s , accessed March 21, 2017. ■ Google Earth Pro with historic imagery from 1990to present. • Current (2015) EPA Approved Water Quality Assessment for Washington state (h t_ ://www,e .wa. ov roar m w I O3dlturrentossessmt.html , accessed March 21, 2017. • King County Public Health sewage plans search system (http:liwww.kincxcountY c�ovldepts(hetilth�enyirnnmentol-heolthlpipin�lansite�sewac}e- s stems records/as-built-drowin s.as x , accessed March 21, 2017. EXHIRIT PAGE- _._0F.�.. 2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900 EVERETT, WA 98201 425.252.7700 FINDINGS 1) On -site wetland delineation mapped boundaries and data forms west of Hylebos Creek are consistent with FWMC 19.145.410(1) Wetland/Dano'o'elineation, the 1988 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2010 Corps Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Regional Supplement. Perteet did not inspect the subject property east of Hylebos Creek as no land use development is currently proposed for that portion of the property. Wetland 2 developed in an artificially created roadside ditch constructed through uplands and is determined to be exemptfrom FWMC 19.145 pursuant to FWMC 19.145.110(3). 2) One off -site ponded area with emergent vegetation was observed on the adjacent parcel (Parcel 3221049065) to the south that corresponds to a 1998 City Survey" wetland depicted on the City of Federal Way's Critical Areas Map dated May 2016 (Figures 1 through 3; www.,citvoffederalway.com/sitesydefoult,'files/rnoos/sensitive-2QlS.pdO. The Critical Areas Map and the ponding-present during the site visit extended up to the subject property fence. This feature is not present on other publicly available data sources. A copy of this feature as recorded in the city's 1998 survey report is attached to this memo. Per FWMC 19.145.410(2)e Evaluation, "identify and characterize all wetlands and buffers within 225 feet of the subject property. For off -site areas with 'limited or no access, estimate conditions using best available information." Update the Delineation Report to evaluate and document the off -site ponded area with best available data and observations. Contact the land owner so see if perrnissi n can be granted to perform an onsite evaluation of soils, vegetation, and hydrology. If permission to enter the property is not granted, provide an off -site characterization of the observed field conditions from the project site boundary and provide a summary determination of the feature based upon observable components of Corps delineation methodology to evaluate the potential for wetland characteristics. Figure 1. Off -site 1998 City Survey wetland adjacent to project on neighboring parcel. �•t- EXPRIURIT IP_� 10 P E RT E Ewe PERTEET.COM 2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900 EVERETT, WA 98201 425.252.7700 3) Three streams were mapped and characterized by Otak. The first, West Fork Hylebos Creek, receives a 100 foot buffer as reported. The second is a roadside ditch draining Wetland 2 to Wetland 1 flows into a natural stream channel within Wetland 1 Unit 1 that is clogged with vegetation. The natural channel within Unit] has not been mapped. A third stream discharges from a stormwater culvert onto the slopes above Wetland 6 (Figure 4). If the stormwater system and outfall were removed no natural stream would likely be present in XIFTT PER i EA: r-CUW- 2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900 EVERETT, WA 98201 425.252.7700 similar format this location. Perteet observed that the roadside ditch between Wetland 2 and Wetland 1 andthe stream upslope of Wetland 6 next to the stormwater pond meet the definition in FWMC 19.05.190 Stream subpart (3) ditches and are exempt from FWMC 19.145 pursuant to FWMC 19.145.110(3). 4 � RAGE .g__- O PERTEET P E RT E E - E900 GC. 2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900 _.r �..�+.;,;• n5,,;y.i2<;;;n EVERETT, WA 98201 425.252.7700 4) Three watercourses or streams were observed that were not mapped and characterized in the Delineation Report that may meet the definition of stream in FWMC 19.05.190 SDefinitions. One small watercourse was observed to follow the natural slope contours in the south central corner of the parcel east of Wetland 14 along a shallow drainage (Figure 2). Multiple watercourses were identified draining from culverts and roadside ditches into Wetland 1 Unit 1 that flowed through Unit 2 before draining into Unit 3 (Figure 5). The culverts are documented in the Delineation Report figure 7A. The two watercourses flowing through Wetland 1 Units 1 and 2 were obscured by overgrown emergent vegetation clogging the channels and would be difficult to locate when not flowing full of water as they were during Perteet's site visit on March 13, 2017. All Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, including streams and other waters, shall be mapped and characterized pursuant to FWMC 19.145.260 through .340 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. Please identify and characterize these watercourses. 5) The Delineation Report rating forms direct viewers to Ecology's WRIA 10: Puyallip— White websitefor question D3.3 / R33 / S3.3 pertaining to watershed water quality. Commencement Bay, with its constituent streams and rivers, is listed on this web page as a waterbody within WRIA 10 that contains a TMDL and Cleanup Action Plan. Hylebos Creek is listed on the Commencement Bay web page as an input water body. httl2://www ecv wo.goes/program~slwq/tmdl/C-ommenceBayTMDL.himl Hylebos Creek downstream of the subject property has been an active element of -the. EPA and Ecology Commencement Bay cleanup efforts_ All wetland ratings should be adjusted for. question D3.3 / R3.3 / S3.3 to include points for the Commencement Bay TMDL. Update buffers as necessary. 6) Weflandl (Units 1 and 2) rating should be Category II based on points. Question O1.l, D4.1, and H1:2 should be two points each to include intermittently flowing streams and occasionally flooded areas as observed by Perteet in Unit 1 during the site visit. Question D4.2 should be 3 points to ponding greater than 6 inches as observed in several places in Unit 1 by. Perteet during the site visit. Question H1.5 should include large downed woody debris within the wetland for 2 points. Question D2.3 should be one point (similar to Otak's selection for Wetland 1 Unit 3) as the two parcels immediately to the. north are listed by the tax assessor to use private septic systems. Records from King County Public Health Onsite Sewage Systems are not available for Parcel: 3221049019, but records pulled for Parcel: 3221049.087 show fhe,septic to be within 250 of all three wetland units'(Figure 5). Additionally, question D2.4 should be one point for the presence of many abandoned cars, trucks, and boats parked immediately adjacent to the wetland units. Abondoned vehicles are a common source of pollutants. Please update the Wetland 1 ratings and buffers accordingly. 7 Wefland I Unit uestion H2.3 gives "-Z' points but the hand calculation on the data form totalin 48% illustrates the question should get "0" points for <50% high intensity land use_ Please update the Wetland 1 Unit 3 rating and buffers accordingly. 8) Wetland and stream buffers characterized in the current reviewed version of Delineation Report are determined to meet the appropriate FWMC 19.145.270 Stream Buffers and 19.145,420 Wetland Rating and Buffers. The proposed wetland buffers may change after updates to the wetland rating forms and buffers recommended by this review. 9) The proposed Master Cemetery Plan is avoiding impacts to wetlands pursuant to FWMC 19.145.1300) Mitigation Sequencing, Avoidance and FWMC 19.145.430 Development within wetlands. E� I EJET P<, '^ . U.., 2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900 EVERETT, WA 98201 425.252.7700 10) The proposed Master Cemetery Plan is proposing intrusion into wetland buffers at Wetland 1 on the north side of the subject property and is requesting buffer reduction with enhancement pursuant to FWMC 19.145.440(6) Buffer reduction with enhancement. Perteet has determined the proposed buffer reduction at Wetland 1 currently meets 19.145.440(6). Please revise the buffers and buffer enhancement plan as necessary to reflect any new rating and buffer updates proposed by this memo for Wetland 1. 11) (Connected to item 12 below) The proposed Master Cemetery Plan is requesting buffer exemption under FWMC 19.145.110for a previously constructed stormwater pond that is not operating correctly (not providing flow control and water treatment functions) and has become vegetated with native and volunteer species presently in a forested condition (Figure 6): The. existing stormwater system presently bypasses the stormwater pond directly to an owfall and drains untreated into -a stre.arin-thot flows into Wetland 6 downslope of the stormwater pond. The existing stormwater. system piping with the bypass is illustrated on the applicant's construction plan drawings and on a set of cemetery construction plan permit drawings dated 1972. FWMC 19.145 Critical Areas and FWMC Title 16 Surface Water Management do not provide clear guidance regarding any critical areas exceptions or exemptions for existing but apparently abandoned facilities for site redevelopment. Perteet requests the City Planner and Surface Water Engineer review the stormwater pond proposal element and provide a determination whether the previously constructed stormwater pond shall b'e exempted from current wetland buffers or perhaps for the proposed action to be considered as a maintenance measure to restore the stormwater function to this feature as it was originally designed. A re-resubmittal related to the City's above -mentioned determination is needed, and any necessary restoration of buffer habitats associated with the -stormwater pond decision and updated -design will be -required -for subsequent evaluation. Figure 6. Previously constructed but non-functional stormwater pond that has naturalized with native forest cover. 12) (Connected to item 11 above) The proposed Cemetery Master Plan proposes to request exemption of a repurposed stormwater pond that would "become an artificial wetland overtime" within the stormwater pond. Perteet requests the City Planner and Surface Water Engineer review the stormwater pond 6 EX- 11 IT p; r—) 10 l E TEET Bate:)y i PERTEET.COM 2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900 EVERETT, WA 98201 425.252.7700 proposal element in item 11 above. Perteet recommends the City determine future exemptions related to this question during subsequent project review. 13) The Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan proposes to revegetate with a native tree and shrub community the outer portion of the Wetland 1 buffer on the subject property at a 1:1 ratio. The proposed mitigation to address permanent buffer reduction to the Wetland 1 buffer width has been determined to meet the FWMC 19.145.130 Mitigation sequencingand FWMC 19.145. 140 Mitigation Plan Requirements. 14) The proposed buffer mitigation performance standards, monitoring, maintenance and contingency standards to address permanent bufferreduction to the Wetland 1 buffer width adequately meet the FWMC 19.145.140. However, the applicant must update these elements to incorporate other items presented in this review memo. 15) Signage and fencing pursuant to FWMC 19.145.180 is provided along the reduced wetland buffer edge along the Wetland 1 buffer. enhancement area. No signage or fencing is proposed for other critical areas buffers associated with Wetlands 2 through 14. Perteet recommends the. proposed project update the:proposed project Buffer Mitigation Plan and the construction plan drawings to incorporate suitable Signage' and fencing pursuant to 19.145.180 for all on -site critical areas buffers and to halt mowing/clearing .to allow buffer areas to return to a native vegetative state that.prov.ides adequate fish and wildlife conservation habitat. Perteet suggests using -an easy installation and maintenance fence similar to an open. rail fence that allows for rapid replacement of rails without disturbing the fence posts. The. City Planner shall determine if critical areas Signage or fencing is necessary along the -west and north edges of Wetland 1 and at Wetland 14 along the property lines of the subject property to discourage buffer intrusions. 16) Pursuant to FWMC 19.145.190 Physica/,Barrlers, please update pertinent construction plan drawings and specifications to include a "physical barrier during or after construction to prevent direct runoff and erosion from any disturbed area onto or into a critical area.-" Perteet recommends construction silt fencing along the Wetland buffers where construction is expected. All cemetery storm drains shall receive silt clothe socks during construction pursuant to the current stormwater manual. 7 EXP R IT VA r, F PERTEET Beer cam1%1.,:; c. uy ; e f ' City of Federal Way Wetland Inventory Field Form Wetland Number �2t+ �`� -LC 1/4'aacilTWrVRng, 4-kJ Location [addruss�aoss streaujr�.9r ef� %Jr ,� JC. ,f ✓ S Team Members, IFIC Date RjDld Check: '1 I Erase Map #: Windshield Acce 11 Site Not Accessed FJF-LD DATA Cowardin Class Dominant S % total W.L IYi a. TU. ar_V °d Notable WMIi16 Fea ores h0 Snags.,Ws 2:6" 2!12" 2:.24" Heights: f 1- Inlet present: Y N; width` ' flow_ Y N / Outtef present:2N; width �u� flow: Y �X e clue None Observed i U c Sources (YIN) stream culvert: (diam) sheet ila floodplain seeps Human Disturbances: Buffer Conditions: OFFICE DATA MRCS Soil Unit: p V�42WL Rating r r $pp[dXirnafa Sisa• lnr� � +r .3 5a 2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900 EVERETT, WA 98201 425.252..7700 500 to-e, 2,500 sq.ft 21 acre,- 2 acre a2 500 sl, S % acre z2 acre,- 5 acre aYz acre,- 1 a 25 acre z j C014MENTS/OBSERVATIONSn ed Q'W�E 5 des lilt �- fn (rC�lnt+ C)pc.G r 1 U aC 1J ell +AC,41A: END OF MEMO 8 E.P° i r F RESUBM17rED _. OM E RTE E PERTEETE 900 GC ��� +j (y ���� 2707 COLEY AVENUE, SUITE 900 [ LI EVERETT, WA 98201 425.252.7700 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY GOMML]NITY DEVELOPMENT To: Jim Harris, Planner, City of Federal Way From: Jason Walker, PLA, PWS, Environmental Manager and Wetland Ecologist, Perteet Date September 26, 2017 Re: 16-101141-00-SE &16-101140-UP Gethsemane Cemetery Critical Areas and Impacts Mitigation Plan —Second Review Perteet Inc. conducted a follow-up review of resubmitted information to address findings stated in our March 24, 2017 memo. A meeting was also held at the City of Federal Way on August 8_, 2017 with city staff, the applicant, and their wetland consultant. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED The following resubmitted documents were reviewed by Perteet: • Technical Memorandum: Gethsemane Cemetery— Response to 3rd Party Review of Critical Areas and Impacts Mitigation Plan prepared by Otak, Inc, dated July 11, 2017. • Technical Memorandum: Addendum to Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan for Gethsemane Cemetery, prepared by Otak, Inc., dated August 18, 2017. FINDINGS 1) Perteet accepts Wetland 1 (Unit 1) was revised from a Category III to a Category II classification pursuant to our prior memo and the accompanying responses to our otherfindings relating the to the probable off -site wetland feature, comments on ratings, and observations made at probable watercourses. These items are addressed and acceptable pursuant to the recent response submittal items cited above. 2) The buffer mitigation approach proposed for the stormwater pond is also acceptable with a few exceptions listed below. The mitigation provides more area (21,000 square feet) than the area of buffer impact (10,100 square feet) to address common risks associated with the success of permittee-responsible mitigation and occurs in a landscape position that will be functional to the adjacent natural system (restoring a buffer area that is presently a mowed lawn with native plant species that are appropriate for buffer restoration). Sufficient information has been provided to address FWMC 19.145.140 (Mitigation Plan Requirements) except as noted below. a. Address permanent protection of all critical areas on the site (inclusive of buffers) pursuant FWMC 19.145.150 and 19.145.170, as determined to be applicable by the City for this action. b. Pursuant to FWMC 19.145.180 —Critical area Markers, Signs, and Fences. Fence and sign installation should occur at the outer edge of all buffer areas on the property for critical areas demarcation and protection. Depict signs and fencing on the mitigation plan drawing and/or Page l of 2 XH I R IT PAGE-„l_4F® PERTEET 2707 COLBV AVENUE, SUITE 900 E-VERETT,-WA-98201 425.252.7700 site plan drawings. Describe the proposed fencing method. A two- or three -rail (open rail) 4- foot high wood fence is standard. Signs can be part of the fence on fence posts that extend to 5 or 6 feet in height at sign locations. Signs should occur at approximately 100 foot minimum intervals pursuant to common best practices. c. Pursuant to FWMC 19.145.140(7)(c) —Erosion and Sediment Control and to avoid probable water quality risks pursuant to FWMC 19.145.200, clearing and soil disturbance (grading, sod stripping, and soil conditioning) in the buffer impact and mitigation areas should be limited to the dry summer months. Pursuant to FWMC 19.145.140(7)(c) and 19.145.200, the site should also be stabilized (e.g. seeded and/or mulched) during the summer growing season with appropriate BMPs, presumed mostly to include seeding and mulching (precluding use of straw that can re -seed) and silt fencing at the disturbance limit. Mitigation planting should occur after soil work and seed stabilization in the wet winter dormant season. For appropriate germination, seeding should occur no later than mid -September. Provide the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESL) Plan depicting and describing these items and the sequence and timing of construction activities on that plan sheet. Coordinate preparation of the TESC plan with the Best management Practices section on Page 12 of the July 11, 2017 Mitigation Plan (report). e. Indicate mulching of plantings with wood chips or arborist mulch on the mitigation planting plan drawing. Describe a minimum of a 3 foot diameter by 4"-6" depth mulch ring around each plant with mulch held -back from contacting the plant stems by 4". This information is partially complete in the report but not clearly shown and also conflicting on the mitigation planting plan drawing. f. Indicate irrigation by an automated temporary system on the mitigation planting plan drawing in the "Irritation Within Buffer" notes. g. Tall -growing grasses specified in the Upland Seed Mix table on the mitigation planting plan drawing are a concern. it is recommended to use Meadow Seed Mix pursuant to the Ecology 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume II - Chapter 4 - Page 282, and as included in previous Ecology manual versions and used region -wide as a common best practice method for areas where colonization by native plants is desirable: Table 11.44.7 Meadow Seed Mix %Weigh %Pkl' %Genuinafien Redt4p Drvregon Uentprass 20 92 85 gmft alba or A/gIDMzoi'8 onens1 Rod rescue 70 98 90 ,Fesfuca rubra While dutch Clover 50 98 90 7•ri'16f{urr::apens a. Address FWMC 19.145.14000) —Financial Guarantees. Provide and address these requimrents pursuant to code as directed by City when requested. End of Memo Page 2of2 IPA 8 1i'� III 49 ! 2 CIT � Federal Way November 15, 2017 Mr. Richard Peterson Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle 710 — 9"' Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www cityoffederalway.. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor rich m catholiccemete .or Re: File #17-105494-AD; CRITICAL AREA EXEMPTION APPROVAL Gethsemane Cemetery Stormwater Maintenance, 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Peterson: The City of Federal Way received a June 22, 2017, request for Administrative Decision for a Critical Areas Exemption from J.A. Brennan for proposed stormwater facility maintenance within a wetland buffer at the above listed address. Additional information supporting the exemption request was submitted to the City in an Otak Inc. Wetland Report Addendum dated August 18, 2017. Per Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145.110: 19.145.110, "Exemptions" "The following activities and developments are exempt from the provisions of this chapter. All exempted activities shall use reasonable methods to avoid potential impacts to critical areas. An exemption from this chapter is not an endorsement to degrade a critical area; ignore risk from natural hazards; or otherwise limit the ability of the director to identify and abate such actions that may cause degradation to a critical area." "(2) Operation, maintenance, or repair of existing public improvements, utilities, public or private roads, parks, trails, or drainage systems if the activity does not further alter or increase impact to, or encroach further within, the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed operation, maintenance, or repair, and no new clearing of native vegetation beyond routine pruning." The project description is as follows: Near the south central area of the existing cemetery site, there is an existing storm drainage facility, which is located within the outer portion of the 165-foot buffer of wetland No. 6. The applicant has proposed maintenance, repair and upgrades to the existing storm drainage facility and proposed compensatory mitigation to wetland No. 6 buffer. The existing storm drainage facility was approved by King County on engineering plans dated August 31, 1972 on file with the City. A portion of the proposed maintenance and repair of the existing stormwater pond is within the buffer -of wetland 6, as discussed -in the Otak Inc. technical memo dated August 18, 2017. The proposed work includes clearing vegetation from the inside slopes of the pond, installing a bentonite slurry cutoff wall to prevent seepage and slope failure with the existing berm, in� EP1,IT . e November 15, 2017 ge --pa2 - - - - — a new catch basin and pond inlet, installing a 12-foot-wide gravel access road adjacent to the buffer, and installing 12-foot-wide emergency overflow spillway at grade. Most of the maintenance and repair identified above is proposed outside the wetland buffer. The bentonite slurry wall, removal of trees from the interior side slopes of the drainage facility, and a small area of grading (<50 square feet) for the access road is proposed within the wetland buffer and is needed to tie into existing grades. The existing stormwatef facility receives some storrnwater from Gethsemane Cemetery, but the quantity of stormwater discharging into the facility is limited due to a broken 'inlet pipe. Since the existing stormwater facility is located within a wetland buffer, the October 6, 2017 MDNS for the proposal includes a condition to mitigate potential impacts resulting from the proposed stor;l7wate a.ciiiiy- iiiSinicnance and repair as fbollov,,s. In order to compensate for potential impacts to the buffer of wetland -No. 6 resulting-5•om storm drainage facility ;maintenance and repair, wetland buffer enhancement of the wetland buffer shall be provided at a ratio of approximately 2.1:1. Buffer impact mitigation shall be provided as generally outlined in the Otak Inc. Addendum to Wetland and Stream Delineation Report dated August 18, 2017. The final mitigation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of any development and/or grading permits. CONCLUSION The city reviewed the request and supporting materials along With applicable -sections of FWRC 19.145 In accordance with FWRC 19.145.110.2, the above described activity qualifies for a Critical Areas Exemption and is hereby approved. This approval does not exempt the project from other local, state, and federal permit requirements. Should you have any questions about this letter contact Senior Planner Jim Harris, 253-835-2652, or'im.harriseci offederalwa .com. Sincerely, Brian Davis Community Development Director c: Jim Harris, Senior Planner Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer Jim Brennan, Jim@jabrennan.com John Hempelmann, Juempelmann[aCairncross.com 1, 10,549,1 PAGE-_�__�� a Doc 1 D 76864 RESUBMITTED P E RTE E, [��I [: ?ERTEET.COAA �� ���� 2707 COLEY AVENUE, SUITE 900 y7 4 V EVERETT, WA 98201 425.252.7700 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPtdENT To: Jim Harris, Planner, City of Federal Way From: Jason Walker, PLA, PWS, Environmental Manager and Wetland Ecologist, Perteet Date: September 26, 2017 Re: 16-101141-00-SE & 16-101140-UP Gethsemane Cemetery Critical Areas and Impacts Mitigation Plan —Second Review Perteet Inc. conducted a follow-up review of resubmitted information to address findings stated in our March 24, 2017 memo. A meeting was also held at the City of Federal Way on August 8, 2017 with city staff, the applicant, and their wetland consultant. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED The following resubmitted documents were reviewed by Perteet: • Technical Memorandum: Gethsemane Cemetery — Response to 3rd Party Review of Critical Areas and Impacts Mitigation Plan prepared by Otak, Inc, dated July 11, 2017. • Technical Memorandum: Addendum to Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan for Gethsemane Cemetery, prepared by Otak, Inc., dated August 18, 2017. FINDINGS 1) Perteet accepts Wetland 1 (Unit 1) was revised from a Category III to a Category II classification pursuant to our prior memo and the accompanying responses to our otherfindings relating the to the probable off -site 'wetland feature, comments on ratings, and observations made at probable watercourses. These items are addressed and acceptable pursuant to the recent response submittal items cited above. 2) The buffer mitigation approach proposed for the stormwater pond is also acceptable with a few exceptions listed below. The mitigation provides more area (21,000 square feet) than the area of buffer impact (10,100 square feet) to address common risks associated with the success of permittee-responsible mitigation and occurs in a landscape position that will be functional to the adjacent natural system (restoring a buffer area that is presently a mowed lawn with native plant species that are appropriate far buffer restoration). Sufficient information has been provided to address FWMC 19.145.140 (Mitigation Plan Requirements) except as noted below. a. Address permanent protection of all critical areas on the site (inclusive of buffers) pursuant FWMC 19.145.150 and 19.145.170, as determined to be applicable by the City for this action. b. Pursuant to FWMC 19.145.180 —Critical area Markers, Signs, and Fences. Fence and sign installation should occur at the outer edge of all buffer areas on the property for critical areas demarcation and protection. Depict signs and fencing on the mitigation plan drawing and/or Page 1 of 2 PERTEET.C'OM PL TE ET 2707 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 900 EVERETT, WA 98201 425,252.7700 site plan drawings. Describe the proposed fencing method. A two- or three -rail (open rail) 4 foot high wood fence is standard. Signs can be part of the fence on fence posts that extend to 5 or 6 feet in height at sign locations. Signs should occur at approximately 100 foot minimum intervals pursuant to common best practices. c. Pursuant to FWMC 19.145.140(7)(c) — Erosion and Sediment Control and to avoid probable water quality risks pursuant to FWMC 19.145.200, clearing and soil disturbance (grading, sod stripping, and soil conditioning) in the buffer impact and mitigation areas should be limited to the dry summer months. d. Pursuant to FWMC 19.145.140(7)(c) and 19.145.200, the site should also be stabilized (e.g. seeded and/or mulched) during the summer growing season with appropriate BMPs, presumed mostly to include seeding and mulching (precluding use of straw that can re -seed) and silt fencing at the disturbance limit. Mitigation planting should occur after soil work and seed stabilization in the wet winter dormant season. For appropriate germination, seeding should occur no later than mid -September. Provide the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan depicting and describing these items and the sequence and timing of construction activities on that plan sheet. Coordinate preparation of the TESC plan with the Best management Practices section on Page 12 of the July 11, 2017 Mitigation Plan (report). e. Indicate mulching of plantings with wood chips or arborist mulch on the mitigation planting plan drawing. Describe a minimum of a 3 foot diameter by 4"-6" depth mulch ring around each plant with mulch held -back from contacting the plant stems by 4". This information is partially complete in the report but not clearly shown and also conflicting on the mitigation planting plan drawing. f. Indicate irrigation by an automated temporary system on the mitigation planting plan drawing in the "Irritation Within Buffer" notes. g. Tall -growing grasses specified in the Upland Seed Mix table on the mitigation planting plan drawing are a concern. It is recommended to use Meadow Seed Mix pursuant to the Ecology 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume II - Chapter 4 - Page 282, and as included in previous Ecology manual versions and used region -wide as a common best practice method for areas where colonization by native plants is desirable: TjI.Is III-d_1.7 Meadow Seed Mix %weight%Pu' :Germination Redlnp orcuegOn i>enigrass 20 92 85 gmnsSs alba or AgrOMS Omg* ensi Red tescue 70 98 90 FesluCa rubs _77] nrrniie dutch Clover 10 98 F Tnloirummperns a. Address FWMC 19.145.14000) — Financial Guarantees. Provide and address these requimrents pursuant to code as directed by City when requested. End of Memo Page 2 of 2 R E S U 5 i ir`I, VI1 ED JUI 2 '� 2017 Memo CfTY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Jim Harris, Planner; City of Federal Way To: Doc Hansen, Planning Manager; City of Federal Way Date: ;"/I�v �.a. brennanPLLC landscape architects & planners 2701 First Avenue I Suite 510 1 Seattle, WA 98121 t 1206.583.0620 1 w I jabrennan.com 6/22/2017 From: Jim Brennan, RLA, J.A. Brennan Associates Project: Gethsemane Cemetery Re: Stormwater Pond FWRC exemption request and design update Mr. Harris and Mr. Hansen, In response to your letter on April 20, 2017 "RE: File No's 16-101141-00-SE & 16-101140-UP; PLANNING DIVISION 2ND TECHNICAL REVIEW; Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Range Master Plan; 37600 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way" and our meeting with you at your office on June 15, 2017, this letter seeks to clarify the design of Gethsemane's stormwater pond and applicable exemptions for the facility in FWRC critical area regulations. Exemption Request We believe use of the pond and repair of the pond structure should be exempt from the critical area code and allowed by FWRC 19.145.110(2): Operation, maintenance, or repair of existing public improvements, utilities, public or private roads, parks, trails or drainage systems if the activity does not further alter or increase impact to, or encroach further within, the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed operation, maintenance, or repair, and no new clearing of native vegetation beyond routine pruning. Ongoing Use The design intent is to improve and continue use of an existing drainage facility. Using this facility, which was designed by RCA Landscape Architects and Engineers in 1972, permitted by King County, and built in 1975 is a sustainable land use approach. The site design, permitting, and development used considerable public and private resources and still has value in modern design and engineering. While it was designed in the 1970s, the original designers provided extra capacity for future phases of cemetery burials. Cemeteries are inherently long term, multi -phased land use properties which function as open space while providing a cultural connection to nature and history. J.A. Brennan Associates has been providing consulting services with the Catholic Cemetery since 2004 and since the first site visit and meeting with Director Rich Peterson, we have been recommending the continuous use of Gethsemane's drainage facility. Please note that the facility was noted on the 2004 site analysis plan attached. We are proposing maintenance and repair of the existing facility and the work includes pruning of vegetation inside the existing facility. Vegetation was previously cleared from the facility when it was constructed. There will be no new clearing of vegetation outside of the existing drainage facility. Please see 3 attached documents establishing ongoing use of the pond facility: • 1972 Gethsemane Permit Set Plan Sheets (A-1, A-2, A-3, A-19) ■ 2004 Suitability Plan ■ Site photos of facility taken on January 8, 2016 Pagel of 3 Master Plan Oesi n Update for 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual Standards Please see the revised site plans 3.1 and 3.3 which demonstrate how the existing drainage system maintenance and repair will bring the facility up to 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) standards while not further altering or increasing impact to, or encroaching further within the critical area buffer. There will be no increased risk to life or property as a result of these repairs. Vegetation removal and pruning will occur within the existing footprint of the drainage facility as is typical of drainage system maintenance. The design proposes to install a bentonite slurry cutoff wall approximately 8' deep on the top of the berm. This design will provide additional slope stability when the pond fills with water, and enhance flows to the wetland. See attached design concept section and Geotechnical analysis memo for more detailed information on the bentonite slurry cutoff wall. Other repairs to the stormwater pond include: • Access road extending to a point 4.0' above the bottom of the pond. ■ Access road with 12' width on straight sections, 15'width on curves, and 40' outside radius on curves. • Max 12% access road grade for gravel, max 15% grade for pavement. ■ No trees within the pond (requires tree trimming down to stumps). • Geotechnical approval for pond berm stability. (Addressed by bentonite slurry cutoff wall in berm. Depth, width, and slurry specifications will be provided by the Geotech.) To address City staff's concern at the June 15, 2017 meeting about short-circuiting with the close -proximity of the inlet and outlet to the pond, the revised design includes the following changes. These grading updates will occur within the footprint of the existing pond facility and outside of the 165' critical area buffer. • A closed -cell depression to promote settling between the pond inlet and outlet. • Pond outlet extending centrally in the pond to provide additional distance from the inlet and outlet to reduce the potential for short-circuiting. The pipe is also lower in the pond, which provides ease of maintenance for draining the pond from the new control structure. Work within the existing stormwater pond facility that would also fall within 165' of the wetland (currently shown as a critical area buffer) includes: • Installation of the bentonite slurry cutoff wall in the berm • Installation of the pond outlet from the control structure to the center of the pond. • Abandoning existing outfalls in the pond. • Removal of trees in the pond (cutting trees down to stumps close to grade). • Very minor grading to tie in the terminus of the access road. Please see 3 attached documents for updated design drawings of the pond facility: • Site plans 3.1 and 3.3 • Cutoff wall concept section • Geotechnical engineering report 6/20/2017 Vegetation Management As mentioned above, vegetation management will occur within the existing drainage system. As shown on the original 3/7/2016 submittal (sheet 7.1), the tree removal plan shows 60 small trees (99 tree units) will need to be pruned down to stumps within the pond in accordance with KCSWDM Section 5.3.1 Detention Ponds and Section 6.4.1 Wetponds. Vegetation on the berm will need to be pruned for installation of the bentonite slurry cutoff wall. Sheet 7.1 also shows that the Gethsemane Cemetery master plan provides 2024 tree units, vastly exceeding FRWC requirement of 1397 tree units. In addition, the North Arm wetland mitigation proposal submitted 1/30/2017 shows additional tree planting enhancement above and beyond FWRC requirements: 101 new trees planted, 0 trees removed. Please see 1 attached document for tree removal proposed in the existing drainage facility: • Tree Retention Plan 7.1 (3/4/2016) Page 2 of 3 Wetland & Creek Health The stormwater pond bentonite slurry cutoff wall installation on the existing pond berm is proposed to occur approximately 50' from the closest edge of Wetland 6 and 360' from Hylebos Creek OHW. There are no proposed impacts to the wetland buffer, wetland, or creek. Updates will only occur in the existing footprint of the exempt drainage system. There will not be any negative impacts to groundwater as a result of this action. The proposed design will upgrade the entire cemetery to current stormwater design standards while slowing water flow and feeding the wetland more continuously than the existing pipe outflow condition. The proposed design will allow for continuous water seepage which will enhance the ecological function and down -gradient hydrology of wetland 6 and its buffer. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jim Brennan, RLA Page 3 of 3 Technical Memorandum + To: Jim Harris, Planner City of Federal Way From: Kevin O'Brien, Senior Ecologist 11241 Willows Road NE Jeff Gray, Senior Wetland Biologist Smite 200 Copies: Redmond, WA 98052 Phone (425) 8224446 Date: July 11, 2017 Fax (425) 827-9577 Subject: Gethsemane Cemetery — Response to 3`d Party Review of Critical Areas and Impacts Mitigation Plan Project No.: 32655 This memo is provided in response to the third party review memo titled "Gethsemane Cemetery — Critical Areas and Impacts Mitigation Plan Review" from Perteet, dated March 24, 2017. We offer the following information and responses regarding the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan and critical areas assessment [Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan (Otak 2017)] relative to Perteet's review of the application materials. We appreciate the thorough review by the City to ensure the proposed 50 Year Master Use Plan for the Gethsemane Cemetery complies with the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). In summary, no changes to wetland or stream boundaries or buffer widths are required, and the buffer reduction with enhancement plan meets the requirements of FWRC 19.145.130 Mitigation Sequencing), FWRC 19.145.140 (Mitigation Plan Requirements), and FWRC 19.145.440(6) (Buffer Reduction with Enhancement) as proposed. It is our opinion that the proposed maintenance and repair of the previously constructed stormwater pond within the buffer of Wetland 6 meets the criteria for an exemption from FWRC 19.145 (Environmentally Critical Areas) per FWRC 19.145.110(2). The activity will not further alter or increase impacts to, or encroach further within, the wetland buffer as no grading or new vegetation clearing outside of the existing pond footprint will be required. See responses to Items #11 and #12 below for more project details about use of the existing stormwater pond. The detailed responses below correlate with the numbered items in Perteet's memo. Item #1 Response: No response. Jim Harris, City of Federal Way Page 2 Gethsemane Cemetery — Critical Areas Report Review Response July 11, 2017 Item #2 Kesponse: We agree that this area likely has wetland characteristics. However, we refrained from estimating the extent during the November 2015 field investigation because the property owner manipulates the water levels using a stand pipe and wood slats in order to use a homemade stationary rowing machine near the outlet. The wet area visible on aerial imagery is located in a grass swale that slopes west towards the stand pipe along the western property boundary and away from the cemetery. This artificial and manually controlled hydrologic regime would make any formal wetland boundary delineation difficult for determining normal hydrologic conditions for delineation purposes per the 1987 Corps Delineation Manual (USACE 1987)and the 2010 Regional Supplement (USACE 2010). The property was formerly used to raise cattle, and the agricultural fields are now only mowed. The manual water manipulation also raises the possibility that this wetland was created purposely as a farm pond to support raising cattle, and possibly does not meet the definition of a wetland per FWRC 19.05.230 that excludes "...irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities...". After visiting with the property owner and observing this area in person in November 2015, it is my opinion that this wetland area is much smaller than what is shown on the 1998 City Survey and the current City critical areas maps if the stand pipe were removed and the site allowed to drain as it has since 1920 per the Wetland Inventory Form from 1998. No standing water was observed in November 2015. The wetland area near the stand pipe would be rated Category III per Ecology's Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — 2014 Update (Ecology Publication No. 14-06-02) and as required by FWRC 19.145.420. The wetland area per FWRC 19.145.420 would be afforded a 60-foot buffer due to low habitat score (3), and the buffer would not extend onto the Gethsemane Cemetery property (Figure 1). Available published information was also reviewed. No wetlands are mapped at this location in the National Wetland Inventory (USFWS 2017). Based on a review of aerial photography on Google Earth Pro from 1990 to present, the area of ponding water and saturated soils varies greatly from year to year. The area is described on the Wetland Inventory Form from 1998 City Survey as draining through a 2-foot culvert. The estimated boundary is shown on City critical areas map, which is provided for illustrative purposes and used for planning level purposes only. The ponding shown in the photographs in Perteet's memo reflect an unusually wet winter with wetter than normal conditions prior to the March 13, 2017 field visit, with abundant precipitation on the day of (0.68 inches) and above normal precipitation for the 1.5 months preceding the field visit (12.61 inches). Climate data for this period documents the wetter than normal conditions as explained below. Jim Harris, City ofFederal Way Page 3 Gethsemane Cemetery — Critical Areas Report Review Response July 11, 2017 WETS Tables are commonly used to determine whether the amount of rainfall that occurred in the 2 to 3 months preceding the site visit was normal, above normal, or below normal (USACE 2010). WETS Tables are developed by the NRCS National Water and Climate Center, and calculated from 30-year weather records to help evaluate field conditions for wetland delineations. Normal precipitation in WETS Tables is identified by month as the interval between the lower 30% value and the upper 30% value over the 30-year period. The WETS Table (Table 1) below was completed for the previous three months for years 1986 to 2016 based on historical precipitation data from National Weather Service (NWS) weather station (ID TACW1) located approximately 3.9 miles west of the Gethsemane Cemetery along the Puyallup River in the City of Tacoma. Table 1. WETS Table for the Gethsemane Cemetery Location from 1986 to 2016 Month 30% chance less than Average 30% chance more than 2017/2016 Rain fall Comparison to Normal Range February 2.37 3.78 4.57 9.24 Above normal January 4.70 6.08 7.05 2.93 Below normal December 1 4.29 5.81 6.82 3.75 Below normal The year- and month -to -date observed precipitation amounts also exceeded normal conditions prior to March 13, 2017 (Table 2). Precipitation on the day of the site investigation measured 0.68 inches. Precipitation for the month was 3.37 inches, which was 191% of normal. Precipitation for the year was 15.54 inches, or 135% of normal (MRCS 2017). Table 2. Precipitation Summary for March 13, 2017 from NWS Weather Station TACW1 Precipitation Observed (inches) Normal (inches) Percent of Normal 03/13/17 0.68 - - Month -to -Date 3.37 1.76 191 % Year -to -Date 15.54 11.55 135% Note: Precipitation data from NWS Station TACW1, available at: iirtne•ll�y�vty.wcC.nrrti.c�sda.�;a�.:Iclimatclnari�are wetx.html For the reasons listed above, it is our opinion that the wetland buffer from this offsite wetland area does not extend onto the Gethsemane Cemetery property as shown in Figure 1. Jim Harris, City of Federal Wray Page 4 Gethsemane Cemetery — Critical Areas Report Review Response July 11, 2017 Offsite Wetland Location and Area Map Legend F1GU R E 1 Estimated Boundary of OfWe Wetland GeShsemane Cemetery boundary along ~ £" r� 1 Figure 1. Estimated offsite wetland area and illustration depicting potential 60' wetland buffer not encroaching on the Gethsemane Cemetery property. Item #3 Response: See response to Item #4 below. Item #4 Response: We do not agree that the three watercourses mentioned in Perteet's memo meet the definition of stream per FWRC 19.05.190. The flow paths in Wetland 1 (Unit 1) are typical of flow - through depressional wetlands that receive point discharges. The wetland flow paths identified in Figure 5 in Perteet's memo were observed during the field investigation in November 2015 (see Figures 2 and 3 below). The culverts shown on Figure 7A are not observable on the ground surface, and were assumed to be historical and buried due to deep (3-5 feet water depth) pits at both locations at the toe of slope along the Highway 99 embankment. They may simply be concentrated Jim Hari -is, City of Federal Way Page 5 Gethsemane Cemetery — Critical Areas Report Review Response July 19, 2017 groundwater seeps flowing through the road subbase. However, what distinguishes stream from wetland habitat is the presence of vegetation. The flow paths are clearly and heavily vegetated and do not provide stream habitat, nor do we agree that they should be classified as streams. All of the flow paths occur within the boundary of Wetland 1 (Unit 1), which has a 165-foot buffer, and the largest buffer for any stream per FWRC 19.145.270 is 100 feet. Even if the City determines the flow paths to be streams the wetland buffer would supersede any stream buffer. Figure 2. View of flow path along the southern boundary of Wetland 1 near Highway 99. The flow path is overgrown and vegetated with Sitka willow, reed canarygrass, and horsetail. The flow path is indicated by the blue line in the photograph. Jim Harris, City ofFederal Way Page 6 Gethsemane Cemetery — Critical Areas Report Review Response July 99, 2097 Figure 3. View of flow paths near the center of Wetland 1 in palustrine emergent wetland habitat. The wetland flow paths are overgrown with reed canarygrass, and do not provide stream habitat. The flow paths are indicated by the blue lines in the photograph. The flow paths coalesce near the eastern boundary of Wetland 1 (Unit 1), and flow in an incised, straight -lined ditch at the property boundary. The ditch was believed to be off property at the time of the field investigation. The ditch flows along the northern edge of Wetland 1 (Unit 2) for approximately 150 feet before discharging into Wetland 1 (Unit 3) beyond a barbed wire fence. The ditch was likely manmade to drain the upslope wetlands in the past as remnants of clay tiles were observed in the ditch. Ditches created in uplands are excluded from regulation as streams per FWRC 19.05.190, similar to the roadside ditch that drains from Wedand 2 to Wetland 1 and the stormwater discharge channel that flows into Wetland 6 near the previously constructed stormwater pond. The Wedand 1 boundary on the Gethsemane Cemetery property is located much further south from the ditch, and any regulatory boundaries that may be associated with the ditch are superseded by the wider Wetland 1 boundary. The intermittently flowing ditch is shown on the Wetland 1 (Unit 2) rating form in Appendix B of the wetland delineation report because, regardless of its classification under FWRC, the Ecology rating form acknowledges the different hydrologic regime in its wetland rating formula. During the November 2015 field investigation, a stream was not observed in the south central corner of the Gethsemane Cemetery property east of Wetland 14. The shallow drainage flow path was dry, and it was determined at the time that it did not have defined bed and banks, gravel sorting, Jim Harris, City of Federal Way Page 7 Gethsemane Cemetery — Critical Areas Report Review Response July 11, 2017 or other indicators of an ordinary high water mark (OH`M) that would indicate more than ephemeral flows in response to precipitation events. The drainage is located at a topographical highpoint with no obvious contributing basin. The flows observed during the March 13, 2017 site investigation were likely the result of concentrated surface runoff from the heavy precipitation occurring along the natural slope contours as suggested by Perteet. Item #5 Response: Question D3.3/R3.3/53.3 of Ecology's rating system (Hruby 2014) asks whether the wetland being rated has been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality. The rating form and manual indicate an affirmative response to this question if the basin in which the wetland is found has a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan developed for it. The TMDL developed for Commencement Bay in 1992 is for dioxin because the Simpson - Tacoma pulp mill was found discharging dioxin into inner Commencement Bay (Ecology 2017). The TMDL set a waste -load allocation for the amount of dioxin that the Simpson Mill at Tacoma could discharge. Palustrine wetland water quality functions typically would provide no amelioration for downstream contaminants that are largely associated with sediment adsorption and direct discharge into marine waters. If this question on the rating form is interpreted in the most literal sense then every wetland in the 12`' field hydrologic unit code (HUC) would rate high for the value of the water quality functions provided to society relative to the permitted Simpson Mill waste -load allocation amount for dioxin. Regardless, Wetlands 1 (Units 1, 2, and 3), 2, 3, 6, and 14 are already rated high because they discharge to the West Fork Hylebos Creek that is on the 303(d) list. The riverine wetlands (45, 7-13) ratings and their buffers would not change (Category I1) if the Commencement Bay TMDL were to be considered. No alterations to any of the Gethsemane wetland ratings or buffers would result, even if the Commencement Bay TMDL is considered as a component in wetland rating scores. Item #6 Response: We agree that Wetland 1 (Unit 1) should be rated Category II based on points due to the septic system on Parcel 3221049087 within 250 feet of the wetland boundary. However, the buffer width remains 165 feet for Category II wetlands with a habitat score of 6 points as the habitat score does not change even if all of the other requested revisions were incorporated. The comments listed for Wetland 1 (Unit 2) are not relevant because this unit was rated as a slope wetland. The wetland flow constriction caused by the ditch along the northern property line between Units 1 and 2, along with the drop in elevation, justifies rating these wetlands as separate units per Amy Yahnke at Ecology (personal communication on December 21, 2015). Ms. Yahnke is Ecology's lead trainer for using the 2014 rating system. Wetland 1 (Unit 2) remains a Category III wetland with a 105-foot buffer. Jim Harris, City of Federal Way Page 8 Gethsemane Cemetery — Critical Areas Report Review Response July 11, 2017 Item #7 Response: We disagree with the requested change, and would refer the third party reviewers to reexamine question H.2.3 and the preceding questions H.2.1 and H.2.2. The 48% listed on the rating form for this question pertains to total undisturbed, moderate, and low intensity habitat. The remaining 52% of land use within the 1km polygon is in high intensity and scores a -2, which results in "0" points for Section H2.0 for Wetland 1 (Unit 3). Item #8 Response: No changes to the wetland buffers are required. Only Wetland 1 (Unit 1) has been revised to Category II as suggested, but the buffer width remains 165 feet because the habitat score remains a 6. Item #9 Response: No response. Item #10 Response: Perteet acknowledges that the proposed buffer reduction with enhancement meets the requirements of FWRC 19.145.440(6). Because no changes to buffer widths are required per the contents of this response memo, the buffer reduction with enhancement plan is considered complete as it meets the requirements of the FWRC. Item #11 Response: Based on recent communications with the City of Federal Way Planning Division, it is our opinion that the proposed maintenance and repair of the previously constructed stormwater pond within the buffer of Wetland 6 is exempt from FWRC 19.145 per FWRC 19.145.110(2): Operation, maintenance, or repair of existing public improvements , utilities, public orprivate roads, parks, trails, or drainage systems if the activity does not further alter or increase impact to, or encroach further within, the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life orproperty as a result of the proposed operation, maintenance, or repair, and no new cleafiig of native vegetation beyond rosetine pruning. A memorandum from J.A. Brennan and Associates dated June 22, 2017 specifically addresses the stormwater pond design update and FWRC exemption. The proposed activity will not further alter or increase impacts to, or encroach further within, the wetland buffer, and no new clearing will occur outside of the existing pond footprint. The drainage system needs repair to correct the flows back into the pond structure to improve water quality as originally designed. No grading within the buffer is proposed. The proposed bentonite slurry cutoff wall will be installed within the current profile of the existing berm. The pond inlet will be located outside of the existing buffer, and the previously proposed rock -lined spillway has been replaced with a water quality settling cell outside of the existing buffer. Woody vegetation that has established Jim Harris, City of Federal Way Page 9 Gethsemane Cemetery — Critical Areas Report Review Response July 11, 2017 on the pond bottom and the interior side slopes will be cut and their stumps left in place as required by the 2009 King County Stormwater Design Manual (KCSWDK. Repairing the previously constructed stormwater pond will improve water quality in surface water discharging to Wetland 6. Currently, stormwater is collected in catch basins from the cemetery property and discharges without any flow control or water quality treatment because the inlet pipe to the pond has become detached. Repairing the inlet pipe and redesigning the outlet flows in accordance with the 2009 KCSWDM, all within the footprint of the existing structure, will benefit water quality conditions within Wetland 6. The preferred bentonite slurry cutoff wall, relative to a pond liner, will allow stormwater in the pond to infiltrate and support groundwater levels in Wetland 6 down slope. The proposed design includes activities within the wetland buffer and outside of the buffer. Activities within the buffer have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable following comments received in recent correspondence and at our meeting with City staff on June 15, 2017. Proposed activities within and outside of the buffer necessary to use the existing stormwater pond in accordance with the 2009 KCSWM include: Activities outside of the buffet • Install catch basin type 2 with flow control structure ■ Abandon existing outfall • Install 12" pond inlet • Abandon 2 existing SD lines • Install and grade 12' wide gravel access road ■ Install 12' wide emergency overflow spillway at grade (partially outside buffer) Activities within the buffer • Install bentonite slurry cutoff wall in the berm • Very minor grading (<50 SF) to tie in the terminus of the access road ■ Clear trees from interior side slopes and basin bottom within the existing pond footprint • Install 12' wide emergency overflow spillway at grade (partially within buffer) Item #12 Response: See response to Item #11 above. Item #13 Response: Perteet acknowledges that the proposed actions for the 50 Year Master Plan described in the Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan meets City requirements for mitigation Jim Harris, City of Federal Way Page 10 Gethsemane Cemetery — Critical Areas Report Review Response July 11, 2017 sequencing and mitigation plan requirements. The buffer reduction with enhancement plan is considered complete. Item #14 Response: The performance standards, monitoring, maintenance, and contingency standards do not need to be updated because no changes to wetland buffer widths or the wetland buffer reduction with enhancement plan are required. These portions of the buffer reduction with enhancement plan are considered complete. Item #15 Response: A fence is proposed along the reduced buffer edge along Wetland 1 in the northern corner of the property, and will include signs that state "Protected Wetland Buffer" per FWRC 19.145.180(3). The purpose of the 50 Year Master Plan is to establish development boundaries so no additional intrusion into critical areas will occur during that time period. Construction plans will incorporate signage along critical area buffers on the property as needed to prevent future intrusions into critical areas during normal maintenance activities. Item #16 Response: A construction stormwater general permit will be required for the major land disturbing activities proposed under the 50 Year Master Plan. Protection of critical areas and their buffers through the use of physical barriers, such as construction silt fencing, silt cloth socks on storm drains, and other Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be employed to protect sensitive areas from runoff and erosion during construction as part of the soil erosion and sediment control plan developed for the project. Jim Hattis, City ofFedetal [may Page 11 Gethsemane Cemetery — Critical Areas Report Review Response July 11, 2017 References. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wedand Rating System for Western Washington — 2014 Update. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-029. Olympia, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2017. Agricultural Applied Climate Information System for Pierce County, weather station Tacoma #1 [Coop ID 458278, GHCN ID USC00458278, NWS LI ID TACW1]. United States Department of Agriculture. Accessed on April 17, 2017, and available at: hrr12://ftg cia s.rcc7 acis.oga;,fps=53053 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wedand Delineation Manual. Technical Report. Y- 87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wedand 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, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. Available at: ww%v.fivs. ov wetlands Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2017. Water Quality Improvement Project, Commencement Bay Area: Dioxin. Accessed on April 17, 2017, and available at: 17�• tiv«�4 et'y.�dx+nvlprns�,ramslwc�ltmrlllCnmmcnceRayT'1Fi]I..hrml N Q w N W 0 A w "T7 C7 p � W az LU DE 1 8 X m Z Q d H Q w m w w to w "0 D m C CC J J V) J W Q W ~ N Z IL O w a�- 0 m w D a m U w�QQ Q LL O 0 a lm70OZ Lu l7 0 m O Z Q N Z N U O w LuS<tAi 0 Z w N k7 Z oc 0 < cr- w m Lu a 0 0 Z a0. w to V Q OLL m D d N 0 Z Q J W2 O 0 a z tD2tLnuz zv cr- - NO< w a 0 v J V V) O 1 c O N Q E cu V in O c cn � V i c o 'x W QJ a--+ 4.5 M N i Q� O CC Ln tiJ I I Get, man' it Systern jaciu4ry8W,-I:6 to,takq: ast �Al iL J'A 11 ki IT'a I I rA t [ lip Yi fit V 7 r L' 1 3 Gethsemane Cemetery Drainage Sye�� Photo taken frotr�' p.s qrrrFvdIT eF�aFx;�l❑king;tiieat�9., - s • / 74 r ; `' y �?� '►y r .?i' ref �' •-�'� _-.� .�� / � � � � +f ���•� '• rye. - -.- � - � ■ 4— Gethsemane Cemetery'Drainagejy�fe3Aflj"ark M6—. _ Photo Nken Trorrgto wof ti�e�eOn aaokinc Seat i est, �L �_ ` 3 r �'V Site Suitability for Cemetery Use Grave srles, Mausoleums. Roads, Paths f High Suitability: These areas are planned to be largely developed for cemetery use. 1 Slopes are generally in the 2-8% range with no critically steep slopes. The soils are composec of silt t II r loam, which are moderately well drained, though a seasonally high water table may presido. These places are not within wetland buffers or stream buffers. r� I _.-. Moderate SuilHtiBily. These areas are planned to be selectively and partially developed for cemetery use, A variety of conditions exist. In some cases, moderately suitable Areas meet the cMeria of high suitability, except that they exist within wetland or stream buffers. In other cases, a possible high water table andia soils prone to slippage or with limited structural. strength create limitations for cemetery use. of lbVW { Low Sultabitily_ These areas will be developed only as permissable by law in order to accflmodate or access usable [Cys�' cemetery property. Wetlands, streams and sloped areas with slopes predominantly greater than 33%. 1 1 � ��t •Y 1 � 1 -- f� -�1 C) C:; A. brenna.n :1 /P Af�PCt;ICf rLLf: f 1 � f i r It WM'i C itvt`rPi {� •+r N 0 too 20D scole 1 "=200' Date May 6, 2004 Gethsemane Clemetery Site Suitability and Conceptual Development Plan Archdiocese of Seattle 'ROVE EX ACCESS ROAD — H 12' WIDE GRAVEL DRIVE • p � D . n v ❑ . p v p . • o P Q p O • p ' • D p D .0 . ..do — a Q. e o 4 .000..0 a'Q as .cap p vD o aQ a op • a v Q•atld q do • o vD • o vQ p 00.0 v D q a • a v 0.0 a D. n aq • a °Q .coo.. aO . o aD . p ' D . p o Q. 000. vD•pvp • n °D o op•ovp vp•p Qe CONNECT 12* PIPE p •page TO EX CB h ry • p Q• p IE=59.19 ao • p QD . G ° Q . n 1 TO REMAIN a D- a a Q °D • p vQ . •pvp•aa ° D • p v Q p°Q •pa D p v Q D p v 0. a°Q •av v EX CB TO REMAIN —° ' �'" (2) ABANDON EX SD EXISTING STORMWATER POND 1' ROCK —LINED SPIw Y ON EX SLOPE 1 tea° 1 D • p ° O • I ovDov p•pop• 1 v o .0 • 6 D• a v D• p vQ • Q vD .0,0.0 I vQ.pvDo o'-D ovD•o v p• p v Q o f . p° p• p a Q. p 1 e D• g °p.paD. [� oD•pvp•pvDe " ..iL 12 oD ve ABANDON J EX OUTFACE POND OUTFALL —' IE=55.0 EX ROCK —LINED CHANNEL EX. SITE DRAINAGE PATH TO CREEK EXISTING z WETLAND BUFFER Z a z TOP OF POND ELEV. 60.00' FrA r f POND INLEt ' IE=59.00 ' r FLOW COI)ROL INLET — CA�H. BASIN TYPE 2 W/ f i FLOW CON�L STRUCTURE --- } � l — 12' WIDE EMERGENCY OVERFLOW SPILLWAY IE=59.50 TOP OF FLOW CONTROL STORAGE (FLOW CONTROL RISER ELEVATION) ELEV. 59.00' TOP OF FLOW WETPOOL (FLOW CONTROL INLET ELEVATION) ELEV. 55.50' TOP OF SEDIMENT STORAGE (BOTTOM OF WETPOOL) ELEV. 47.00' BOTTOM OF POND EDGE OF / •' WETLAND IMPROVE EX ACCESS ROAD — WITH 12' WIDE GRAVEL DRIVE d • o ° O ° e o a O v D 00 • 0.0 p ° D • o ° °a•p°o• o n O• o° D . p°o•p 0 a. o v 0- o 10 • 0. d . o ° D • o .0 , 0.0 v°Dro° a • p v D . v D , o a ° . p°d.p vD".o°a • o °a o aa.p°o. CONNECT 12" PIPE o : o 00 TO EX CB • o'a o IE=59.19 a°' °° . p ao . p .0.0. ° • o a • O ° D . co D op °D.p 0. EX SD TO REMAIN p Dp' •aD• D o p v D o ° co EX CB TO REMAIN -- �lk (2) ABANDON EX SD ABANDON ---/ EX WTFALL EXISTING STORMWATER POND I / ROCK —LINED SPIL, Y ON EX SLOPE % I- I POND OUTFALL J IE=55.0 i EX ROCK --LINED CHANNEL EX. SITE DRAINAGE PATH TO CREEK z oasnwc � WETLAND BUFFER � TOP OF POND ELEV.60.00' r. TOP OF FLOW CONTROL (FLOW CONTROL RISER E ELEV. 59.00' (FLC \ ELEV POND INLEt\ IE=59.00 \ / TOP OF SEDIMEN' FLOW C0I4iR.O! INLET (BOTTOM OF WET ELEV. 47.00' CAIGR BASIN TYPE 2 W/ FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE 12' WIDE EMERGENCY OVERFLOW SPILLWAY 1E=59:50 BOTTOM OF POND ELEV. 46.00' (EX) SUBDIVISION Guarantee/Certificate Number: Issued By: � CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 0029719-06 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a corporation, herein called the Company GUARANTEES Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle herein called the Assured, against actual loss not exceeding the liability amount stated in Schedule A which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1. No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the identity of any party named or referred to in Schedule A or with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. 2. The Company's liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurance herein set forth, but in no event shall the Company's liability exceed the liability amount set forth in Schedule A. Please note carefully the liability exclusions and limitations and the specific assurances afforded by this guarantee. If you wish additional liability, or assurances other than as contained herein, please contact the Company for further information as to the availability and cost. l Chicago Title Company of Washington 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98104 Countersigned By r Sit Authorized Officer or Agent Chicago Title Insurance Company By: Attest: President ti- Secretary MAR- 0 7 2016 CITY OF FEDC-RAL WAY CDS Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 01.13.15 @ 08:03AM JPage 1 WA-CT-FNSE-02150,622476-SPS-1-14-0029719-06 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GUARANTEE/CERTIFICATE NO. 0029719-06 Liability $1,000.00 ISSUING OFFICE: Title Officer: Commercial / Unit 6 Chicago Title Company of Washington 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98104 Main Phone: (206)628-5610 Email: CTISeaTitleUnit6@cft.com Effective Date: December 30, 2014 at 08:00AM The assurances referred to on the face page are: SCHEDULE A Premium $2,500.00 Tax $237.50 That, according to those public records which, under the recording laws, impart constructive notice of matter relative to the following described property: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF Title to said real property is vested in: Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (also appearing of record as The Corporation of the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle), a Washington non-profit corporation subject to the matters shown below under Exceptions, which Exceptions are not necessarily shown in the order of their priority. END OF SCHEDULE A Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 01.13.15 @ 06:03AM Page 2 WA-CT-FNSE-02150.622476-SPS-1-14-0029719-06 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description Parcel A: All that portion of the plat of Gethsemane Cemetery 2, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume.93 of Plats, Page(s) 98 through 100, inclusive, in King County, Washington, lying Northwesterly of Primary State Highway No. 1 (SR-5), as conveyed to the State of Washington by deeds recorded under recording nos. 5052504 and 6441114; Except that portion thereof conveyed to The United States of America in Trust for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians by corrected statutory warranty deed recorded under recording no. 20040128000863 (being a correction/replacement of deeds recorded under recording nos. 8312290499 and 9505151737). Parcel B: All of the plat of Gethsemane Cemetery 3, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 138 of Plats, Page(s) 9 and 10, in King County, Washington. Parcel C All of the plat of Gethsemane Cemetery 4, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 196 of Plats, Page(s) 69 and 1 70, in King County, Washington. I I I I I J Subdivision GuaranteelCertificate Printed: 01.13.15 @ 08:03AM Page 3 WA-CT-FNSE-02150.622476-SPS-1-14-0029719-06 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GUARANTEE/CERTIFICATE NO. 0029719-06 SCHEDULE B SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to: Puget Sound Power & Light Company Purpose: Electric transmission and/or distribution system and appurtenances Recording Date: April_2; 1931 Recording No.: 2664485 Affects: A Northerly portion of Parcel A 2. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to: The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, a California corporation Purpose: One pole with wires, cables and appurtenances attached thereto Recording Date January 28, 1960 Recording No.: 5125956 Affects: A portion of Parcel C Note: The description contained therein is not sufficient to determine its exact location within the property herein described. 3. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Purpose: Water system and pipeline Recording Date: June 19, 1961 Recording No.: 5296910 Affects: The description contained therein is not sufficient to determine its exact location within the property herein described. 4. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Purpose: Ingress and egress Recording Date: April 13, 1971 Recording No.: 7104130518 Affects: A Southwesterly portion of Parcel A lying within a strip of land 15 feet in width 5. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington corporation Purpose: Electric transmission and/or distribution system together with all necessary or convenient appurtenances Recording Date: October 3, 1988 Recording No.: 8810030434 Affects: Portion of Parcel B lying within a strip of land 10 feet in width having 5 feet of such width on each side of the centerline of grantee's facilities as constructed or to be constructed, extended or relocated Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 01.13.15 @ 08:04AM Page 4 WA-CT-FNSE-02150.622476-SPS-1-14-0029719-06 I I CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GUARANTEE/CERTIFICATE NO. 0029719-06 SCHEDULE B (continued) 6. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to: The United States of America and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Purpose: Ingress and egress Recording Date: April 10, 1995 Recording No.: 9504100629 Affects: A Southeasterly portion of Parcel A lying within a strip of land 60 feet in width as described and delineated in document Note: A survey of said easement was recorded under recording no. 9502099004. 7. Public and/or private easements, if any, in existence over, under, along and across any portion of said premises lying within vacated roads. 8. Reservations and exceptions in United States Patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof. 9. Reservations and exceptions contained in the deed Grantor: Northern Pacific Railroad Company Recording No.: 6353 Reserving and excepting from said Lands so much or such portions thereof as are or may be mineral lands or contain coal or iron, and also the use and the right and title to the use of such surface ground as may be necessary for ground operations and the right of access to such reserved and excepted mineral lands, including lands containing coal or iron, for the purpose of exploring, developing and working the land. The Company makes no representations about the present ownership of these reserved and excepted interests. 10. Notice of claim to severed mineral interest Given by: Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company LP, a Delaware corporation (formerly known as Meridian Oil Production Inc.) Recording Date: January 25, 2003 Recording No-: 20030125002078 11. Notice of claim to severed mineral interest Given by: Glacier Park Company, a Delaware corporation (formerly known as Meridian Land and Mineral Company) Recording Date: Jaunary 25, 2003 Recording No.: 20030125002079 12. Notice of claim to severed mineral interests Given by: Glacier Park Company, a Delaware partnership, and a wholly owned subsidiary of ConocoPhillips Recording Date. December 9, 2008 Recording No.: 20081209000690 Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 01.13.15 @ 06:04AM Page 5 WA-CT-FNSE-02150.622476-SPS-1-14-0029719-06 �J CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GUARANTEE/CERTIFICATE NO. 0029719-06 SCHEDULE B (continued) 13. Covenants, conditions, restrictions, recitals, reservations, easements, easement provisions, dedications, building setback lines, notes, statements, and other matters, if any, but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth on the plat of Gethsemane Cemetery 2, recorded in Volume 93 of Plats, Page(s) 98 through 100, inclusive: Recording No: 7110290487 Affects: Parcel A 14. Covenants, conditions, restrictions, recitals, reservations, easements, easement provisions, dedications, building setback lines, notes, statements, and other matters, if any, but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth on the plat of Gethsemane Cemetery 3, recorded in Volume 138 of Plats, Page(s) 9 and 10: Recording No: 8707200801 Affects: Parcel B 15. Covenants, conditions, restrictions, recitals, reservations, easements, easement provisions, dedications, building setback lines, notes, statements, and other matters, if any, but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth on the plat of Gethsemane Cemetery 4, recorded in Volume 196 of Plats, Page(s) 69 and 70: Recording No: 20001207000638 Affects: Parcel C 16. Conditions, limitations, obligations and rights arising or existing by reason of dedication of said premises as a cemetery. 17. Rights of sepulcher in burial lots in said cemetery by reason of sale, conveyance or designation or appropriation to any person or family. 18. Restrictions imposed by law regarding the sale and disposition of said land. 19. Easements over any of the named or unnamed streets, roads, alleys, walks, paths, parks or parkways shown on the plat of said cemetery. Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 01.13.15 @ 06:04AM Page 6 WA-CT-FNSE-02150.622476-SPS-1-14-0029719-06 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GUARANTEEXERTIFICATE NO. 0029719-06 SCHEDULE B (continued) 20. Agreement Between: Harry F. Evans and Fern C. Evans, his wife And: King County Water District No. 100 J Recording Date: March 4, 1968 Recording No.: 6312240 --j Regarding: Water main connection and consent to formation of a local improvement district or utility local improvement district - , 21. Relinquishment of access to State Highway Number 1 and of light, view and air by Deed: 22 .1 23 I 24. 1 25. Grantee: State of Washington Recording Date: July 6, 1959 Recording No.: 5052504 Any rights, interests, or claims which may exist or arise by reason of the following matters disclosed by survey, Recording Date: November 6, 2000 Recording No.: 20001106900007 Matters shown: Disrepancies between property boundaries and the location of fence lines. Terms and conditions of Notice of Charges by water, sewer, and/or storm and surface water utilities, recorded under recording no. 8905120210. Note: Said notice superseded in its entirety that certain notice of tap or connection charges recorded under recording no. 8106010916. Special taxes for surface water management and/or other special charges: 1 st half delinquent May 1 st, 2nd half delinquent November 1 st: Year: Amount billed: Amount paid: Amount due: Tax Account Number: Levy code: Affects: 2015 Not available Not available Not available 322104-9025-05 1205 Parcel A Note: Taxes for 2014 in the sum of $94.30 have been paid. Special taxes for surface water management and/or other special charges: 1st half delinquent May 1st, 2nd half delinquent November 1st: Year: Amount billed: Amount paid: Amount due: Tax Account Number: Levy code: Affects: 2015 Not available Not available Not available 322104-9020-00 1205 Portion of Parcel B Note: Taxes for 2014 in the sum of $88.60 have been paid. Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 01.13.15 @ 06:04AM Page 7 WA-CT-FNSE-02150.622476-SPS-1-14-0029719-06 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GUARANTEE/CERTIFICATE NO. 0029719-06 26. 27 28. 29. 30. 31 SCHEDULE B (continued) Special taxes for surface water management and/or other special charges: 1st half delinquent May 1st, 2nd half delinquent November 1st: Year: Amount billed: Amount paid: Amount due: Tax Account Number: Levy code: Affects: 2015 Not available Not available Not available 218820-4281-08 1205 Portion of Parcel B Note: Taxes for 2014 in the sum of $2.10 have been paid. Special taxes for surface water management and/or other special charges: 1st half delinquent May 1st, 2nd half delinquent November 1st: Year: Amount billed: Amount paid: Amount due: Tax Account Number: Levy code: Affects: 2015 Not available Not available Not available 218820-4365-07 1205 Portion of Parcel B Note: Taxes for 2014 in the sum of $2.25 have been paid Special taxes for surface water management and/or other special charges: 1 st half delinquent May 1 st, 2nd half delinquent November 1st: Year: Amount billed: Amount paid: Amount due: Tax Account Number: Levy code: Affects: 2015 Not available Not available Not available 218820-4560-00 1205 Parcel C Matters which may be disclosed by an examination of the proceedings filed in King County Superior Court Cause No. 80-2-12306-8. Further information will be forthcoming by supplemental report. Please be advised that our search did not disclose any open mortgages or deeds of trust of record. If you should have knowledge of any outstanding obligation, please contact the Title Department immediately for further review. Any unrecorded leaseholds, right of vendors and holders of security interests on personal property installed upon the Land and rights of tenants to remove trade fixtures at the expiration of the terms. Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 01.13.15 @ 08:04AM Page 8 WA-CT-FNSE-02150.622476-SPS-1-14-0029719-06 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GUARANTEE/CERTIFICATE NO. 0029719-06 J I J �J SCHEDULE B (continued) 32. Your application for title insurance was placed by reference to only a street address or tax identification number. Based on our records, we believe that the legal description in this report covers the parcel(s) of Land that you requested. If the legal description is incorrect, the seller/borrower must notify the Company and/or the settlement company in order to prevent errors and to be certain that the correct parcel(s) of Land will appear on any documents to be recorded in connection with this transaction and on the policy of title insurance. Note: FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: The following may be used as an abbreviated legal description on the documents to be recorded, per Amended RCW 65.04.045. Said abbreviated legal description is not a substitute for a complete legal description within the body of the document: Portion of Gethsemane Cemetery 2, Volume 93 of Plats, Pages 98-100, and All of Gethsemane Cemetery 3, Volume 138 of Plats, Page(s) 9-10; and All of Gethsemane Cemetery 4, Volume 196 of Plats, Page(s) 69-70. Tax Account Nos.: 322104-9025-05, 322104-9020-00, 218820-4281-08, 218820-4365-07 and 218820-4560-00 Note: Any map furnished with this Guarantee/Certificate is for convenience in locating the land indicated herein with reference to streets and other land. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance thereon. END OF SCHEDULE B Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 01.13.15 @ o6:04AM Page 9 WA-CT-FNSE-02150.622476-SPS-1-14-0029719-06 REDACTED CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE GETHSEMANE CEMETERY PHASED LONG-RANGE MASTER PLAN FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON RECEIVED January 31, 2017 MAR 2 9 201? CJTy OF FEt7E� WAY GommijmTv SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS SEATTLE, WASHINGTON REDACTED CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE GETHSEMANE CEMETERY PHASED LONG-RANGE MASTER PLAN FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Report Prepared for The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle Z Sharon Boswell and Brandy Rinck January 31, 2017 Project Number 39393 Report Number 16-670 REDACTED SWCA Environmental Consultants 221 1st Ave W, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1 Project Location and Description............................................................................................ 1 RegulatoryContext................................................................................................................. 1 TribalCoordination................................................................................................................. 4 METHODS......................... ......... ---- .............................. ....................................................... 5 NATURALSETTING.................................................................................................................. 6 Geology.................................................................................................................................. 6 Flora....................................................................................................................................... 8 Fauna..................................................................................................................................... 8 CULTURALSETTING................................................................................................................ 8 Prehistory..............................................................................................................................10 Ethnography and Early Ethnohistory .....................................................................................10 LandUse History ...................................................................................................................12 Background on Indian Education ..... ...................... ................................ :..:........................ 12 Catholic Indian Boarding Schools......................................................................................13 Indian Education and Puget Sound ....................................................................................13 FatherPeter Hylebos.........................................................................................................14 InitialProperty Claims........................................................................................................15 Foundinga School.............................................................................................................17 Student Body and Programs...........................................................................•--................18 EarlyImprovements...........................................................................................................20 Burials and Cemeteries......................................................................................................22 Changesin Leadership......................................................................................................24 ANew Building Program ................................... ......................... ........................................ 24 SchoolClosure............................................................................................................ .....28 Potential Uses of the Site...................................................................................................28 Cemeteriesand Reburials..................................................................................................32 Post -War Uses...................................................................................................................32 PREPARATION FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND RESULTS......................37 Previous Investigations Summary ..........................................................................................37 Archaeological Sensitivity......................................................................................................39 FieldSurvey Results..............................................................................................................40 NorthArm..........................................................................................................................44 ForestGlade......................................................................................................................48 SedimentPond..................................................................................................................50 SWCA Environmental Consultants I January 31, 2017 RainierVista......................................................................................................................54 ForestKnoll........................................................................................................................55 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................55 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................57 APPENDIX A: CORRESPONDENCE.....................................................................................A-1 APPENDIX B: SHOVEL PROBE AND TEST PIT SUMMARY ................................................. B-1 APPENDIX C: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM..............................................C-1 APPENDIX D: INADVERTENT DISCOVERY PLAN............................................................... D-1 SWCA Environmental Consultants 9i January 31, 2017 Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5, Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10 Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. LIST OF FIGURES Projectlocation . ................................. ........................................................................................ 2 Projectplans.............................................................................................................................. 3 Overview of shovel probe excavation, showing Shovel Probe (SP) 29 (foreground) and SP 30 (background), view east.............................................................................. ................ 7 Overview of test pit excavation, showing Test Pit (TP) 3 at the toe of the artificial berm, viewsouthwest.......................................................................................................................... 7 LiDAR image of the project vicinity, showing the artificial berm of fill at the south margin ofthe project.............................................................................................................................. 9 GLO map, 1868, showing project location .......................... ............16 Rev. Charles DeDecker, first superintendent of St. George's, ca. 1910.................................18 Students and staff at St. George's Industrial School, 1889.....................................................19 Snowball fight on the school grounds, ca. 1913......................................................................20 The land around the school was heavily timbered, and students not only cut wood, but also learned other "industrial" skills.........................................................................................21 St. George's students were taught agricultural practices, and the school grounds included gardens, an orchard, and outbuildings for the care of waterfowl, livestock, and other farm animals..........................................................................................................................21 The enrollment at St. George's grew with students from a number of tribes throughout theNorthwest ......................................................................................................................... 23 A survey of the school grounds conducted in September 1922 shows the buildings and other improvements at the site as well as the location of two cemeteries .............................. 25 ......................................................... 26 School superintendent Fa er John Govaert raised money for new buildings at the school and used student labor to begin construction................................................................................. 27 Construction of new buildings nears completion, ca. 1933.....................................................28 Historical aerial photograph, 1936, showing buildings s on school ro erty just before the school was closed as well as the farmstead ................................. 29 In preparation for the use of the St. George's ui tngs r government housing during WWII, improvements to the water system were made............................................................ 31 ......................... ........ ----... ......................................... .. Bled for wartime housing and then rented as 33 apartments in subsequent years............................................................................................. 35 Figure 21. By the early 1970s the buildings had fallen into disrepair. Photograph ca. 1971................... 35 Figure 22. Demolition of the buildings began in 1971.............................................................................. 36 Figure 23. Development plans from 1972 construction of Gethsemane Cemetery overlain on a MAR image of the project area......................................................................................................... 41 Figure 24. Shovel probes and test pits excavated during field survey around Gethsemane Cemetery..42 Figure 25. Shovel probes and test pits shown over 1936 aerial photograph and 1977 map overlay of the Indian School as it stood prior to cemetery construction in 1972..................................43 Figure 26. Pits that represent places where historical buildings have been removed are filled with brush........................................................................................................................................ 45 Figure 27. Built up platform of fill in the north east corner of the North Arm; view to the south...............45 Figure 28. West wall of TP 1 at 150 cmbs................................................................................................46 Figure 29. South wall of TP 2 at 100 cmbs..............................................................................................46 Figure 30. SP 18 excavated to 65 cmbs, showing fill overlying truncated glacial sediment....................47 Figure 31. Overview of foundation feature that is part of 45KI866, looking southwest ............................47 Figure 32. South wall of the foundation feature, which is about 6 inches thick, in 45KI866..................... 48 Figure 33. Area mined for sand and recently used for rubble disposal at the northwest edge of the Forest Glade Area 4; view to the north.................................................................................... 49 Figure 34. South wall of TP 3 at 215 cmbs............................................................................................... 50 Figure 35. South wall of TP 5 at 250 cmbs............................................................................................... 51 SWCA Environmental Consultants di January31, 2017 Figure 36. Examples of the scattered debris observed in the fill, 52 Figure 37. x�tian of SP 32, SP 36, and SP 37 alon the base of the artificial berm in the Sediment 9 Pond Area 1 b; view to the southwest...................................................................................... 52 Figure 38. Recently created silt pond between SP 33 and SP 34, showing excavation of SP 33 lookingeast .................................. ................................................... :.......................................... 53 Figure 39. South wall of TP 4 at 120 cmbs......................................................................................:........ 53 Figure 40. Excavation of SP 48 at 150 cmbs showing typical stratigraphy of fill over glacial soils .......... 54 Figure 41. East wall of TP 6 at 180 cmbs.................................................................................................55 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Previous Cultural Resource Investigations Within Approximately 1 Mile of the Project Area ...... 38 Table 2. Previously Recorded Sites Within Approximately 1 Mile of the Project Area ............................... 39 SWCA Environmental Consultants iv January 31, 2017 INTRODUCTION The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle is planning for expansion of the Gethsemane Cemetery in south King County. The Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan is intended to guide cemetery construction incrementally over the next 50 years. The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle hired J.A. Brennan Associates to assist with their long-range planning and SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) to complete a cultural resources assessment of lands surrounding the existing Gethsemane Cemetery that may be developed over the next 50 years. This report describes the pre - contact and historical land use of the project area and provides a summary of previous cultural resources work in the vicinity as background for an assessment of the potential for discovery of significant archaeological resources or human remains within the project boundaries. Methods and results of field investigation follow the contextual information. The results include a discussion of an historical foundation that was identified at Gethsemane Cemetery (45KI866). The report concludes with an assessment of project effects and recommendations for construction following an inadvertent discovery plan (IDP). Project Location and Description The Gethsemane Cemetery is at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington (Figure 1). The Gethsemane Cemetery property is 58 acres in total. The focus of master planning, as currently proposed, is the 38 acres west of Hylebos Creek, with site development limited to 13.35 acres, excluding — — the current cemetery, critical areas, and buffers. Future development would be staged in five phases (Figure 2). Each phase incorporates burials, driveways, shrines, and columbaria, and Phase 5 also includes construction of a mausoleum. In addition, the project would involve extensive landscaping to create an aesthetically pleasing, rolling topography. The phased construction approach reflects the ongoing relationship between the Catholic Church, their cemeteries, and the community. Long-term planning allows the organization to create an attractive and sustainable cemetery landscape that will be maintained for decades to come. Regulatory Context As part of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review for the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) requested that a professional archaeologist conduct an archaeological assessment. DAHP suggested that the assessment be structured by a project -specific research design to determine the most appropriate methods for comprehensive archaeological survey prior to project ground disturbance. SEPA requires project proponents to identify any places or objects listed on or eligible for national, state, or local preservation registers in the vicinity of the project, to present evidence for sites of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance in the vicinity, and to propose measures to reduce or control impacts to those sites. Other relevant Washington state laws address archaeological sites and Native American burials. The Archaeological Sites and Resources Act (RCW 27.53) prohibits knowingly excavating or disturbing prehistoric and historic archaeological sites on public or private land. The Indian Graves and Records Act (RCW 27.44) prohibits knowingly destroying American Indian graves and provides that inadvertent disturbance through construction or other activities requires re -interment under supervision of the appropriate Indian Tribe. DAHP reviewed project plans and the field approach prior to field work. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Figure 1. Project location. SWCA Environmental Consultants January31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan SW 374TH ST LEGEND: - �HASE BOUNDARY - - — PROPERTY LUJE ADJACENT PROPEFM uNE . _ OFUVE EDGE SIDe`� . -•-r n • • �' a t 1 ` — ETL A EDGE YW WE7LRND Et1FFER LINE YEGEfAI E.O PROPERTY BUFFER l Ij 7RADMONAL SURkAL AREA ' r MAUSOLEUM STRUCTURE LINE •�'%'� J ORi11HAAy N1GH 1yn7 ER mmi NORTH ARM , i -- --- (DOWNHILL) la NORTH ARM +f y¢ + (UPLAND) U ! 4-w 5a .. + Fc?REST aura 7fi1]141 r 7RUf5�' ' REPJsi 1-- ib N SCALE- 1' -1W 0" %00 2 0 ONE INCH AT F. LLSIZE '�F.'IO: OI�:E NCH SCALE ACCOHCINGL1 EXISTING CEMETERY 4 =OREST t >� 1 GLADE ti 1 b -- f SEDIMyy���P,,}T /41 i� 1d RAINIER �r VISTA / ws n AND I wye�.mlv.+cae h ,�weclecx hCLc •sW§v , � 1 Figure 2. Project plans. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Tribal Coordination Cultural resources representatives of the Puyallup Tribe, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Duwamish Tribe, Nisqually Tribe, Skokomish Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Lummi Nation, Suquamish Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe, Tulalip Tribes, and the Cowlitz Indian Tribe were contacted prior to fieldwork in order to solicit information and concerns about the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan. This correspondence was a technical inquiry only and does not replace government -to -government consultation that may be required for this project under SEPA. SWCA contacted a number of Tribes for this project because some students belonging to each of these Tribes attended St. George's School during its years of operation. Copies of the electronic correspondence are included in Appendix A of this report. The Puyallup Tribe, Suquamish Tribe, Nisqually Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe, and Skokomish Tribe responded to the initial inquiry for information and expressed interest in the project. After providing additional information about the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan to these Tribes, the Nisqually Tribe and Skokomish Tribe indicated that the Puyallup Tribe or other nearby Tribes could represent their concerns. However, Nisqually Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Annette Bullchild asked SWCA if she could review available lists of student attendees from school and church records. The Squaxin Island Tribe recognizes the significance of the old school area and would like to be updated as the project moves forward. The Tulalip Tribes did not provide a written response to SWCA's initial inquiry, but members of the Tulalip Tribes visited Gethsemane Cemetery to better understand the project area. Brandon Reynon, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of the Puyallup Tribe, also replied to the initial inquiry stating that the Tribe is aware that many Puyallup students attended the school and they have knowledge about the burial of Puyallup children in the Gethsemane Cemetery vicinity, likely at St. George's Cemetery . Mr. Jeffrey Thomas with the Puyallup Tribe also sent an email to SWCA stating that the school facility and related cemetery is an important place to the Tribe. Mr. Reynon would like to work with Gethsemane Cemetery as the project moves forward. SWCA informed cultural resources representatives of the Puyallup Tribe, Nisqually Tribe, Suquamish Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe, and Tulalip Tribes about the fieldwork schedule once representatives of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle authorized field survey. Cultural resources representatives of the Tulalip Tribes, Richard Young and Gene Enick, visited fieldwork on Thursday, December 15, 2016, to learn where the students who passed away while attending the school were buried. SWCA showed Mr. Young and Mr. Enick maps of the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan area and the location of the Indian School in relation to St. George's Cemetery . SWCA also informed Mr. Young and Mr. Enick that some, but not all, of the graves were moved from St. George's Cemetery to Calvary Cemetery in Tacoma as well as other cemeteries designated by relatives of the deceased. Annette Bullchild from the Nisqually Tribe visited fieldwork on Friday, December 16, 2016. Ms. Bullchild was interested in viewing the survey excavations, as well as discussing the location of the student burials. SWCA provided Ms. Bullchild with the same information as Mr. Young and Mr. Enick. Both the Nisqually Tribe and the Tulalip Tribes look forward to receiving a copy of this report upon completion, and they expressed continued interest in reviewing any additional lists of Indian School students and burial records that SWCA or the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle locates during future research for additional Tribal family names. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 5 METHODS The project was conducted in two phases at the request of representatives of the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. The first phase included background research, the development of historical context for St. George's School as well as nearby property, and a geoarchaeological review and preliminary assessment of archaeological potential in the project vicinity. Based on these findings and consultation with DAHP, a plan was developed for a second phase of work that included field investigations, recommendations, and the preparation of an IDP for use during future construction at the site. The results of these phased assessments were combined in this report. Background research on the area included in the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan provided contextual material for the development of a land -use history of the project vicinity. SWCA personnel began with a search of DAHP's Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database, which provided information on cultural resources projects and previously recorded archaeological and built -environment resources in the project vicinity. SWCA also examined property records, previously published ethnographic and historical accounts, historic maps and photographs, and other pertinent records, as available, to document and compile a reliable land -use history for the property. SWCA historian Sharon Boswell contacted or visited a number of repositories, libraries and historical societies to locate primary documents as well as additional research materials for the project. The archive at Marquette University Library, which contains the collections of the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions, provided historic photographs, maps and reports of the yearly activities at St. George's School, but also has more extensive resources about the school that were not accessed. The archive maintained by the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia preserves some of the records of the sisters who served at the school. Their archivist located correspondence, photographs, biographies and memoirs of sisters at St. George's School as well as copies of related articles and reports. The major repository visited for the project was the archival facility of the Archdiocese of Seattle. These extensive collections included correspondence, school ledgers and annual reports, photographs, building and site plans, maps and a variety of other primary and secondary sources related to the history of St. George's School, the priests who served there as well as the cemeteries on the site. The SWCA historian conducted additional research at the Washington State Historical Society, the Federal Way Historical Society, the Tacoma Public Library, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) facility in Seattle, the Puget Sound Branch of the Washington State Archives in Bellevue, the King County Archives, and the University of Washington libraries in Seattle. She compiled historic site plans, school records, government documents, pertinent correspondence, photographs, maps, and later building construction information to provide an understanding of the land use history of the property and to assess whether any potentially sensitive sites may remain within the project area. SWCA geoarchaeologist Brandy Rinck reviewed the results of previous cultural resources investigations and known archaeological site data to understand the potential for encountering buried archaeological resources in the project area. She also reviewed previous geotechnical studies, as well as other related natural history and ethnographic sources in order to develop a site formation history of the property. The results of geoarchaeological background review were used to plan field investigations. SWCA received approval for the field plan from Gretchen Kaehler at DAHP prior to site investigation. Sharon Boswell and Brandy Rinck participated in an initial site visit on July 27, 2016, in order to verify field conditions and to better understand the existing modern landscape modifications that have occurred as SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan well as the proposed modifications associated with Phases 1 through 5 of the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan. Field work consisted of shovel probing and mechanical test pit excavation (Figures 3 and 4). Shovel probes were excavated in areas that are likely to be affected by future ground disturbing activities within unpaved and accessible portions of the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan area. Probes were excavated at 20- to 30-m (66- to 98-foot) intervals, depending on the likelihood of encountering buried archaeological materials based on historical photographs and plan drawings of the vicinity. Spoils from the 40-cm-diameter (1.3-foot-diameter) probes were screened through %-inch mesh in 20-cm (8-inch) levels. The test pits were excavated with a New Holland B95 backhoe using a 1-m-wide (3-foot-wide) toothed bucket. Test pits were 90 cm (3 feet) wide and 200 cm (6.6 feet) long. Notes about content and sediments encountered in the shovel probes and test pits were made on standard forms that are now archived at the SWCA office in Seattle. One wall of each test pit was drawn in profile to scale. Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates of all excavations were recorded with a Trimble hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. Photographs of the project area, the excavations, and general overviews were taken and a log of all photographs was kept. The probes and test pits were excavated to culturally - sterile glacial sediment or below the proposed depth of project disturbance, whichever was greater. Test pits and shovel probes were not excavated in known areas of very thick fill. NATURAL SETTING Archaeological evidence indicates that the Pacific Northwest was occupied by humans soon after the last glacial retreat. When the continental ice sheets melted, changes induced by processes such as global sea -level rise, climatic warming, earthquakes and associated volcanic activity continued to shape the landscape and influence the lives of people who resided in the Puget Lowland. These processes affected the distribution of potential resources and contributed to the creation of landforms suitable for human occupation. The same changes have been responsible for altering the physical character of the archaeological record itself by preserving or destroying sites. Geology The project is in the Puget Lowland, a north -south -oriented structural depression that is bordered by the Cascade Range to the east and the Olympic Mountains to the west. The surface of the Puget Lowland is characterized by rolling uplands that are separated by large troughs, which are occupied by the marine waters of the Puget Sound, rivers, and large freshwater lakes (Galster and Laprade 1991; Liesch et al. 1963; Troost and Stein 1995; Yount et al. 1993). The Puyallup River and Commencement Bay are within a deep trough about 1.8 miles (2.9 km) southwest of the project area. The Puget Lowland formed when the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet advanced south from what is now Canada during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser glaciation at the end of the Pleistocene (Booth et al. 2003). The ice sheet reshaped the topography of the Puget Lowland by scraping away unconsolidated sediment and bedrock during ice advance and depositing sediment during glacial retreat. In addition, glacial lakes formed on the margins of the continental glacier where drainage was blocked by the ice sheet. It was not until the ice retreated north of Admiralty Inlet about 16,500 years ago that standing water drained from the project vicinity and the land was exposed and available for human occupation (Porter and Swanson 1998). The ice sheet left behind a blanket of compact glacial till, glacial lake beds, and unconsolidated outwash sediment across the surface of the project vicinity (Borden and Troost 2001). SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Figure 3. Overview of shovel probe excavation, showing Shovel Probe (SP) 29 (foreground) and SP 30 (background), view east. Figure 4. Overview of test pit excavation, showing Test Pit (TP) 3 at the toe of the artificial berm, view southwest. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 1u7 / Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Kitsap silt loam and Bellingham silt loam are mapped in the project area (Snyder et al. 1973). Kitsap silt loam forms on upland terrace landforms within fine-grained lacustrine deposits mixed with volcanic ash. Bellingham silt loam forms within alluvium in depressions on the glacial upland and along streams like Hylebos Creek, which flows just west of the project area. The parent material of the soil in the project area is of glacial origin and predates the arrival of humans to the region, so one would not expect to encounter buried archaeological material below the extent of soil formation that usually extends up to 1 m below the surface (mbs) (3.3 feet below the surface [fbs]) (Booth et al. 2004). A geotechnical report completed for the project verifies that fill and topsoil overlie recessional lacustrine deposits across the project area (GeoResources 2016). Filling in the south half of the Phase 1 project area is extensive. The Gethsemane Cemetery was graded flat in 1971 and the graded material was used to construct a large berm along the south and east edges of the cemetery (Figure 5). The berm extends all the way to the right (west) bank of Hylebos Creek, which is deeply incised within a ravine. Flora The Puget Lowland is covered with extensive stands of coniferous forest characteristic of the western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) vegetation zone (Franklin and Dyrness 1973). Dominant local vegetation included Douglas -fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock, though most of these trees have been cleared from the cemetery. Big -leaf maple and red alder are common in wetter portions of the western hemlock vegetation zone. Stream courses and flood plains are dominated by black cottonwood, willow, Oregon ash, and other riparian plants. Useful plants found along Hylebos Creek include serviceberry, Cascade Oregon grape, birch, sedge, bedstraw, wall lettuce, Labrador tea, water lentil, skunk cabbage, orange honeysuckle, monkey flower, Indian plum, water parsley, reed canary grass, cherry plum, crabapple, wild rose, blackberry, thimbleberry, salmonberry, elderberry, snowberry, cattail, nettle, and huckleberry (Angell and Balcomb 1982; Deur and Turner 2005; Kruckeberg 1991; Weinmann et al. 1984) Fauna Prior to extensive settlement of the project vicinity, it was populated by numerous large and small mammals, birds, and fish. Beaver, muskrat, river otter, skunk, coyote, red fox, and weasel were common in riparian woodlands like those along Hylebos Creek. Large mammals such as deer, elk, and black bear, and game birds such as grouse were also found in the surrounding uplands. A variety of migratory waterfowl, including ducks, geese, and swans, frequented the ponds, lakes, and wetlands in the area, and the nearby tidal estuaries were home to gulls, green -winged teal, American widgeon, canvasback, greater scaup, Barrow's goldeneye, black -bellied plover, and whimbrel (Angell and Balcomb 1982; Kruckeberg 1991). Clams, native oysters, mussels, and barnacles as well as other invertebrates were available from the tideflats around Commencement Bay (Olson et al. 2008). Coho and chum salmon used Hylebos Creek for spawning and rearing habitats. Steelhead, Chinook, coho, chum, pink, and sockeye salmon migrated up the Puyallup River to spawn (Williams et al. 1975). Bullhead trout, cod, flounder, halibut, sea cucumber, sea eggs, skate, sole, and freshwater trout were favorite sources of food in addition to the salmon. CULTURAL SETTING The early human history of the project vicinity is marked by utilization of the natural resources that the forested uplands and stream valleys made available. Archaeological and historical evidence indicates that humans moved into the Pacific Northwest at the end of the Pleistocene. The resources and landforms that were used by the earliest inhabitants of the region were also favorable for Euroamerican use and settlement, beginning in the 1850s. Euroamerican settlement along major waterways was accelerated compared to settlement in the forested upland, as small communities grew up surrounding SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan * M. , s... T V 0 Project Area Elevation High: 100 ft co Figure 5. LiDAR image of the project vicinity, showing the artificial berm of fill at the south margin of the project. SWCA Environmental Consultants 9 January 31, 2017 10 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan mill towns and other industrial pursuits. Evidence of Native American activities or Euroamerican settlement may be found within undisturbed portions of the project area. Prehistory Archaeological evidence indicates that humans moved into the Pacific Northwest at the end of the Pleistocene, occupying western Washington as early as 12,500 calibrated years before the present (cal B.P.) (Gustafson and Manis 1984; Jenkins et al. 2012; Kirk and Daugherty 1978). The earliest cultural period in North America, the Paleoindian Period, is dated based on just a few archaeological sites in which a small number of characteristic isolated fluted projectile points have been found (Avey ca. 1991; Carlson 1990; Kopperl et al. 2010; LeTourneau 2010; Meltzer and Dunnell 1987). Inferences about Paleoindian lifeways have been limited to presumptions of tool function based on isolated stone tools and their rare association with peat layers or large extinct mammals, providing few insights on subsistence economy. The projectile point styles of the Paleoindian Period did not persist past 10,000 years ago, when they were replaced by regional variants of lithic technology (Carlson and Dalla Bona 1996). Human occupation during the early and middle Holocene is better understood than the Paleoindian Period because of several archaeological sites in the region. Archaeological sites that represent the Early Period from 8,000 to 5,000 years ago are locally termed "Olcott" (Butler 1961; Fladmark 1982; Kidd 1964; Mattson 1985). Typical Olcott artifacts are large stemmed or leaf -shaped points, scrapers, flake tools, and blade cores formed of basalt and dacite toolstone (Carlson 1990). Olcott sites are usually located on glacial terraces (Wessen and Welch 1991). Many Olcott sites are classified as stone tool manufacturing sites, and archaeological features such as hearths, structures, and faunal and plant remains, are usually absent (Blukis Onat et al. 2000; Morgan 1999). Age estimates of Olcott sites have been formed based on their similarity to dated components of assemblages from archaeological sites in Canada, and projectile point cross-dating, obsidian hydration analysis, and luminescence dating of two archaeological sites near (Carlson and Dalla Bona 1996; Chatters et al. 2011). After about 5,000 radiocarbon years before present (B.P.), larger populations organized in more complex ways to exploit a wide range of locally available resources. Shell middens containing large quantities of shellfish remains and marine fish and mammal bone are common on the saltwater shoreline. Stone and bone tools became increasingly more common and diversified. Full-scale development of marine -oriented cultures on the coast and inland hunting, gathering, and riverine fishing traditions are apparent after about 2500 B.P. (Blukis Onat 1987). Large semisedentary populations occupied cedar plank houses located at river mouths, waterway confluences, and on protected shorelines. The villages were associated with highly specialized seasonal camps in the surrounding area. Artifacts made of both local and imported materials occur in Late Period sites, indicating complex and diversified technologies for fishing, hunting, food processing, and storage. Wealth status objects, status differentiation in burials, art objects, and ornaments are also represented during this period (Ames and Maschner 1999; Blukis Onat 1987; Fladmark 1982; Matson and Coupland 1995). Ethnography and Early Ethnohistory The project is within the traditional use area of ancestors of members of the Puyallup Tribe and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Both tribes spoke dialects of the southern Lushootseed language. In southern Puget Sound, Native Americans traditionally distinguished between those who lived upriver and relied heavily on terrestrial game and salmon, and those whose villages were at the mouths of rivers near tidelands and who relied more heavily on marine resources (Smith 1940). Before extensive SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 11 Euroamerican settlement of the area, the Puyallup had villages on the coast and along the Puyallup and Nisqually Rivers, while villages of Muckleshoot antecedents were mainly inland along the Green and White Rivers. A village was called Shaxtl'abc by Smith (1940) and Esha'ktlabsh by Swanton (1979). Xaxtl'abish 1 is the Puyallup Tribe's name for this village, which was probably identified by archaeologists . Smith (1940) reported the word Haxtl'to mean "where silver salmon are plentiful," and Waterman (2001) reports that_ — was called XoxtL ; meaning "brushy." Waterman (2001) also recorded Cugca'gwL to mean "little portage for canoes," and that site may have been located _.— was called cayalq'u', which translated to "hidden water." The number of named places associated with shows that— was an important place for Native Americans living in the vicinity of the project. Like many other Puget Sound groups, the Puyallup and Muckleshoot traditionally followed a seasonal round that was tied to available resources. During the winter, people lived in villages of cedar plank houses where they held religious ceremonies and manufactured and repaired tools and other objects. Winter subsistence consisted of preserved and stored foods, especially salmon. Winter was also important for establishing and maintaining social relationships. Heads of households hosted public events marking changes in status like naming, puberty, marriage, or death (Smith 1940). At the end of winter, people dispersed to exploit seasonally available resources. Salmon, berries, shellfish, and other raw materials like cedar, yew, and ironwood, were collected throughout the spring, summer, and fall (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930). Chinese slippers, mussels, clams, cockles, butter clams, rock clams, horse clams, urchins, and gooey duck were often gathered by women and children (Smith 1940) as were blackberries, cranberries, elderberries, gooseberries, huckleberries, salmon berries, thimble berries, serviceberries, and strawberries. People gathered bull rush, fern roots, camas, sunflower roots, tiger lily bulbs, wapato, cattail, and wild carrot, as well. Men hunted deer, elk, black bear, beaver, chipmunks, ducks and grouse. People used deer and elk bone to make awls, points, tips, wedges, scrapers, and spoons (Smith 1940). Plants provided important materials like wood for tools, canoes, buildings, and containers; fiber for bindings and baskets; and medicine. Native American lifeways drastically changed during and after initial Euroamerican contact, primarily from disease epidemics (Boyd 1999). The appearance of European and American explorers, fur traders, and government expeditions beginning in the late eighteenth century paved for the way for increased outside competition for the resources in the region. In addition to establishing commercial relationship with these newcomers, Native peoples also began to interact with missionaries and early settlers, who caused even greater changes in traditional cultural practices. Congress created Washington Territory in March 1853 and appointed Isaac Ingalls Stevens as both the new territorial governor and the Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Stevens negotiated treaties with a number of Washington Tribes who were asked to cede land and move to a reservation. Ancestors of members of the Muckleshoot and Puyallup Tribes, among others, signed the Medicine Creek Treaty of December 1854, which provided three reservations for these groups: Squaxin Island was set aside for the South Sound tribes, forested land southwest of the Nisqually Flats for the Nisqually Bands, while the Puyallup received a 1,280-acre tract extending along the high bluff fronting Commencement Bay to Point Defiance. These reservations totaled 3,840 acres, while in exchange, the government gained title to 2,500,000 acres of Native land (Carpenter 1986:172-173; Richards 1993:200-210; Ruby and Brown 1986:166). SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 12 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Lona Term Master Plan Dissatisfaction with the treaty and violation of reservation boundaries quickly led to hostilities. Sporadic instances of violence induced some settlers to leave their claimed lands, and in response to an increasingly tense situation, Governor Stevens agreed to return portions of traditional Puyallup territory to accommodate the traditional hunting and fishing grounds of its original inhabitants. He also granted land for the Muckleshoot Reservation between the White and Green Rivers in the present city of Auburn (Marino 1990; Ruby and Brown 1986:166). Under the terms of additional executive orders issued in 1857 and 1873, the Puyallup Reservation was enlarged from 1,280 acres to 18,062 acres and included lands on the southern and eastern sides of Commencement Bay (Harmon 1995:232; Morgan 1979:172; Ruby and Brown 1986:166). These extensive holdings were soon reduced. The original Medicine Creek Treaty had also provided for the allotment of land parcels to individual Tribal members residing on the Puyallup Reservation. The allotment process was completed in 1886, a year before the enactment of the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887, which made it a policy to divide common lands held by tribes into individual parcels and then sell the remainder to other settlers (Ruby and Brown 1986:168). Originally, these allotments were protected and could not be sold outside the reservation, but, due to pressure from the railroads and growing settlement in the region, agitation for the removal of these protections began. A report of the Puyallup Indian Commission in 1892 recommended that all sales restrictions be removed from the land held by the Tribe (Puyallup Indian Commission 1892). The sale of Puyallup Reservation allotments began in 1895 and a significant portion of the reservation left Tribal hands (Ruby and Brown 1986). Land Use History The land that is currently within the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan area includes a portion of the grounds of the former St. George's Indian School as well as some adjacent property that was originally used for agriculture. The following historical overview explores land use in the project vicinity from early settlement until the construction of Gethsemane Cemetery in the 1970s. The major focus of the study is the founding and development of St. George's Indian School, but there is also a brief discussion of the initial homestead era as well as the closure of the school and redevelopment efforts at the site during the World War II (WWII) and post -WWII eras. This report does not include a complete or detailed history of the operations of the school or of the experiences of the children who attended. It begins with some contextual information on the development of Indian education nationally and in the region, but centers primarily on the establishment and physical growth of the school, the burial practices at the site, and the changes in land use when the school closed. Background on Indian Education Native peoples had their own body of knowledge, including both sacred and practical beliefs, which formed the basis of their culture and was passed on from generation to generation. Elders and family members provided education through both oral traditions and physical training and also adopted new ideas that originated from contact with other Native groups (Trafzer et al. 2006:5-6). Despite these rich cultural traditions, most newcomers to the North American continent tried to use their own customary educational methods to "civilize" the Native peoples they encountered, primarily through missionary efforts to establish new belief systems and promote assimilation. From colonial times in America until well past the Revolutionary War period, various denominations tried to Christianize the indigenous populations through the establishment of educational programs. During these years, the U.S. government supported these efforts and placed an additional emphasis on vocational or trade school training. The role of religion in Native American education continued well into the nineteenth century. The Indian Civilization Act, passed by Congress in March 1819, specified that SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Lona Term Master Plan 13 Native peoples would be taught by people of "good moral character" and for a number of decades, the Office of Indian Affairs encouraged representatives of religious denominations to fill these roles (Trafzer et al 2006:7-10). As a result of the period of warfare with Native peoples in the 1850s and the disruption of the Civil War era that followed, the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant developed what became known as the Peace Policy. Part of this new direction in federal Indian policy included a more central role for government in education, including the establishment of federally funded schools for Native children, both on and off the reservations. Reformers during this period were at odds over whether the day school or boarding school approach was more effective. The ideas of Captain Richard Henry Pratt, in particular, influenced the early development of government -run, off -reservation boarding schools like Carlisle in Pennsylvania in the belief that to promote assimilation and learning, Native children should be isolated from their parents and traditional culture while being taught Christian values and work ethic based on a military model (Trafzer et al 2006:11-15). The federal government, despite its more prominent interest in Indian education, often failed to appropriate sufficient funds to carry out these programs and generally relied on various religious denominations to lead teaching efforts on individual reservations. Competition and ultimately antagonism grew between Protestant and Catholic missionaries to the Native Americans during this period. The Catholic Church did not believe it was being given an adequate number of agency schools under this system, and so in 1874 it established a new internal agency, the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions, to expand its role in Indian education (Prucha 1984:692-693, 707-708). Catholic Indian Boarding Schools Through the work of the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions, the church made both a financial and doctrinal commitment to Indian education. By 1876, the church had established 10 boarding schools and an additional 18 day schools for Native students throughout the country. Less than two decades later, in 1893, soon after St. George's was established, the number of Catholic boarding schools had risen to 39, while day schools in operation dropped to 13 (Carroll 2000:xviii). The Catholic Church was particularly well suited to the demands of Indian education on the frontier. While Indian schools staffed by Protestant denominations or government employees experienced a very high rate of turnover, the strong central bureaucracy and availability of dedicated religious orders within the Catholic Church provided a committed teaching base willing to remain in often isolated conditions on the reservations. In addition, many of these religious orders consisted of recent immigrants, who were generally more sympathetic to cultural differences and the difficulties of assimilation (Carroll 2000:xxv—xxvi). Indian Education and Puget Sound Around Puget Sound, the treaties made in 1854 and 1855 between the government and various Native peoples contained provisions for education. The first of these agreements, the Medicine Creek Treaty signed on December 26, 1854, with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Squaxin, and other tribes, included a mandate to establish and maintain a school for a period of 20 years. Once the treaty was ratified in 1859, a school was built on Squaxin Island, but according to government sources, only remained in operation for 3 years because of low attendance (Buchanan 1918:1). In 1868, Captain Samuel Ross, who was the Superintendent of the Puyallup Agency, became increasingly insistent that the government should fulfill the terms of the treaty and once again provide a school. In a letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, he argued that a "new mode" for civilizing the Indians was SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 14 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Tenn Master Plan needed, and his recommendation was that "all Indian children between the ages of 5 and 12 should be taken from their parents and placed in industrial schools..." (Buchanan 1918:1) His request was not addressed until late 1870 or early 1871 when a new school was established on the Puyallup Reservation. Classes were first held in the home of the agency farmer and then moved to a small schoolhouse built on the reservation, which was replaced by a larger building in 1873 (Buchanan 1918:2). Industrial education remained a priority during this period, but teaching was initially placed under the direction of a Presbyterian minister, the Reverend George Sloan, and his wife. Government funding over the next few years was inconsistent, but the number of Indian pupils slowly grew. The consolidation of the Puyallup and Quinault agencies in 1888 led to the construction of a larger school and by 1894, enrollment had expanded to more than 136 students (Buchanan 1918:2-5). Agency policies often reflected changes in the leadership of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington, D.C. New policies particularly under the regime of Superintendent of Indian Affairs Thomas Morgan and his successors affected many of the Indian schools in the Northwest. The government began to require school attendance and Indian agents tried to enforce these rules. On some Puget Sound —area reservations, parents were strongly encouraged to send their older children to Chemawa, an early Indian boarding school in Salem, Oregon, or to what became Cushman Indian School on the Puyallup Reservation. Families that had adopted the Catholic faith often requested St. George's Industrial School as an alternative, arguing that these other schools were too far away and they could not see their children easily if they became ill. Some of the on -reservation teachers brushed off these concerns as "stereotyped" and often pressured parents to accept the government -sponsored alternatives. Many parents resisted, and the Catholic Church, through St. George's Industrial School, continued to provide an alternative educational opportunity that provided basic education, industrial training, and a sound grounding in religious doctrine (Allan Bartow to Charles Buchanan, Jan. 26, 1904, RG 75, Letters Received, Tulalip Agency, Port Madison, Box 5, NARA, Seattle). Father Peter Hylebos Probably the most instrumental figure in the founding of St. George's School was Father Peter Francis Hylebos, who over his lifetime held a variety of positions in the Catholic Church of the Pacific Northwest. Born in Belgium and educated at the University of Louvain, Father Hylebos left his home country and came to the United States after his ordination in 1870. He began his religious career in Vancouver, Washington, where he served as secretary to Bishop A.M. Blanchet. By 1880 he had taken charge of missions at Steilacoom, Olympia, and Tacoma, and in the latter city built several more churches, including St. Leos, where he served as pastor for over 31 years. From 1886 to 1911 he was the Vicar - General of the diocese of Nesqually, which later became the diocese of Seattle, and also recruited members of several religious orders to found schools and hospitals in the region (Indian Sentinel 1915:42-44; Tacoma Catholic Sentinel, Feb. 11, 1911). Father Hylebos also recognized the potential for growth around Puget Sound and purchased land in both Tacoma and outlying areas. Some of these parcels were later used for the eight churches, two schools, and a hospital he built in the diocese, and he took great pride in completing these construction projects without incurring any debt (American College Bulletin 1903:77; Diocese of Nesqually, Record of Priests Peter Francis Hylebos, 820 Clergy Deceased, 25-2, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). Father Hylebos had a particularly close connection with Northwest Native peoples, and in 1883 was named to serve on a commission of the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions to develop better relations between the church and the government in the field of education. By some accounts he was instrumental in securing a federal appropriation of $319,000 for the support of Catholic Indian schools. Back at home in Tacoma, his ministries to the Puyallup led him to believe that some of these funds could SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 15 be put to good use in establishing a local school for Indian children. Many of the older members of the Tribe had been baptized by early missionaries, but there was no opportunity for the next generation to receive a Catholic education (Catholic Northwest Progress, Feb. 4, 1910; March 13, 1914; Tacoma Catholic Citizen, Feb. 11, 1911; History of St. George's Indian School, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). Accounts vary, but on a trip to the East Coast or possibly to Rome, Father Hylebos met Katharine Drexel, the daughter of a wealthy Philadelphia financier who had made it part of her life's work to support Indian education. She and her sisters used much of their large inheritance to establish schools at Catholic Indian missions across the country and also to support the staff needed for these institutions. Katharine Drexel, later known as Mother Drexel after she founded a new order of nuns, the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament, evidently encouraged Father Hylebos to proceed with the school under the auspices of the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions. She also promised her support for the priests and sisters who would serve as teachers (Govaert ca. 1948; Prucha 1984:707). Initial Property Claims The first step was to secure a site for the proposed Indian school. Father Hylebos purchased 141.4 acres for $4,500 from John and Susie Lister, and the deed was recorded on August 23, 1888. The tract included Lots 1 and 2, the SW%SE% and the NE%SW% of Section 32, Township 21 North, Range 4 East. The seller, John Lister, was a moulder who had worked in a Tacoma foundry run by his father, and it is not known whether he and his wife knew Father Hylebos or had bought the land as an investment (Chancery to Sister Frances Lynch, May 16, 1974, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives; U.S. Census 1880; Warranty Deed 22011:438-439, King County Archives; Washington Territorial Census 1882, 1885). Prior to the Listers, several others had filed claims on the property, which abutted the northwestern edge of the Puyallup Reservation. Most were farmers, although possibly their interest was also in land speculation. The eastern boundary of the township was first surveyed by the government in 1861 and then resurveyed in 1867 by well-known pioneer Ezra Meeker, who also established the western township boundary and interior parcels (Figure 6). In the summer of 1873 two claimants filed for homesteads in the southwest quarter of Section 32. Possibly hoping to profit by the Northern Pacific Railway's 1873 announcement that it had chosen Tacoma as its western terminus, or the government's plans to resurvey and expand the Puyallup Reservation, they both chose smaller parcels near the reservation boundary. Welch, a farmer originally from Missouri, homesteaded a 71.6-acre portion of the tract, but evidently allowed his claim to expire in December of 1880. The other 69.8-acre parcel was homesteaded in the summer of 1873 by Levant F. Thompson, who also apparently abandoned his property. Welch evidently left his claim to move to the Enumclaw area, while Thompson, a New Yorker by birth, also continued farming other land in Pierce County (Washington Tract Book, NARA; Washington Territorial Census 1885; 1887; United States Bureau of the Census [U.S. Census] 1870, 1880, 1910, 1920). The two parcels were consolidated when George W. Gale filed a new homestead claim for 141 acres in February 1882, but he then relinquished the property 2 years later. Gale, whose father was English and his mother Canadian, was born in Washington Territory and lived as a child with his family on a farm in the Puyallup Valley. Based on the requirements of the Homestead Act of 1862, Gale probably resided on his property and made some improvements, but like many fellow settlers may have decided to sell his rights prior to proving up on the claim. After leaving the property, Gale worked as a barber in Seattle among other jobs, but later in life supported himself as an artist (General Land Office [GLO] tract book, NARA, Seattle; U.S. Census 1870, 1880, 1920, 1930). SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 16 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan i a F • jrx )off J� ,ra , r sL 1 ,xaa T + w ,1lc N JaJ' lift ..• ^ Y ,�?%J,y q 1-1 JI oof C IWIT 211.N , 7 J 807= L l.A7ir H dry 1 2 iRaa /■rr r+er s u s0 So. 6r .14. d If .4 f +� ' Lit ,7r■ � r i fir■ ysn r jtv�rrr y r •7$s I 9 6 )�C7r 2 , e 63 i W e e 6 e p� 3 sirarr r!.•.r�r.. r •sr>r av•s .rY •a ,r i^eiar r + uw PW-.d 9 7919 lost z s J i sc SJ i _ t 7a a o 642 ` ,a A+. it lni 4 'f l9.re �► axr'�f� sv' l' r�.•rr i a.• .�a sa•" 3m:7 .It Jz 7 ,¢c2 8 a is ♦ 4 lw�a 7>>a l T11 i b a 6 31 1a r ,� as •�h•° D .Y m.rd .ra.• • aar s.•.s• 1, r 4 1 77a i, , da p 2 $tomAV fr d ,V 0 .Sam e9d' Project Area S7 ,. �_• a r 3 Ali- , x 7r y'�esr fan q # a +.a 014 .Ro Ansr u 4 ) Hy! 05 Cr 'S3■kJ� 'IL ,d , d s 3 l R • ,� '� Figure 6. GLO map, 1868, showing project location- SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 17 Patrick W. Mullaley filed his own homestead claim on the property the same afternoon that Gale relinquished his rights. Mullaley and his wife were both natives of Ireland and had come to America by way of Australia. The Washington Territorial Census of 1885 indicates that the Mullaleys farmed the property and lived there with their 10 children. Mullaley's final patent shows a date of September 3, 1889, although by August of 1888, GLO records show that the homestead claim was converted to a cash sale. Mullaley likely paid off the property before it was transferred to the Listers, who then sold it to Father Hylebos (Washington Tract Book, NARA, Seattle; Washington Territorial Census 1885, 1887). Olive Counter settled on the land immediately to the north of the parcel purchased by Father Hylebos. Counter, who was born in Maine, served in a New York infantry company during the Civil War before moving west. Like the adjoining property, Counter's 160 acres were claimed and then relinquished several times beginning as early as 1873. In the 1880 census Counter and his family are shown farming in the area, and federal records indicate that he initially filed a formal homestead claim on the property in 1881. He relinquished the land in 1883 but evidently returned to the property in 1885 and received a patent for a cash entry in 1889. Counter initially farmed his parcel but then sold the claim within a few years (Washington Tract Book, NARA, Seattle, Washington; U.S. Census 1880). Founding a School Father Hylebos believed the site he had purchased was an ideal setting for the school, fancifully describing it as "a really romantic -looking, rolling, western ranch in a primeval forest." Only about 5 to 6 acres of timber had been cleared from a plateau that overlooked the rest of the homestead, "with Mount Tacoma shyly peeking over the top of the immense trees that covered the landscape" (Hylebos 1915:8). A stream that ran through the property was also an important asset, to provide the institution's drinking water. With the help of volunteer labor, Father Hylebos evidently supervised the construction of the first school building on the property, a three-story frame structure that was begun in August 1888. This building was 72 by 50 feet and sat on a stone foundation at the center of the plateau. The interior was entirely lined with red cedar and could house up to 80 students in dormitory rooms. It also included a chapel, a kitchen, laundry, and sewing room as well as a dining hall and accommodations for sisters and a priest (Govaert ca. 1948; Hylebos 1915:8). Construction proceeded quickly and the school building was ready for occupancy in October of 1888. The Mother General of the Sisters of St. Francis in Glen Riddle, Pennsylvania, had agreed to provide four teachers for the school, and Sisters Leonella, Ludwina, and Redempta, as well as the superior, Sister Jerome, also arrived early in that month. In addition, a lay teacher, Esther Stevenson, was sent from Philadelphia by Mother Katherine Drexel to oversee the education of the boys (Govaert ca. 1948; Hylebos 1915:8-9). Right Reverend Bishop Junger, who headed the diocese at that time, appointed Father Charles DeDecker as the school's first superintendent (Figure 7). Like Father Hylebos, he was a native of Belgium, where he attended the University of Louvain. He was ordained in June 1886 and arrived at the Diocese of Seattle a few months later. He served initially in a number of small missions around the region and also was a visiting priest on the Puyallup, Nisqually, and Muckleshoot reservations. Most accounts suggest that he requested the post at St. George's and over the next few decades refused other parishes in order to continue his work with Native children. He also spent a large portion of his family wealth to support the school (Catholic Progress, Jan. 29, 1926, Feb. 5, 1926; Diocese of Nesqually, Record of Priests, 820, Deceased Clergy, 25-5, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 18 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Student Body and Programs The first children arrived at the school on October 26, 1888, and more followed in November. Father Hylebos had secured a government appropriation to support 50 Native students from around the Northwest, and these funds as well as private donations accounted for a major portion of the school's operating expenses. During the first year, however, no more than 30 students were enrolled, with an additional five non -Native children also joining in classes (Figure 8). Attendance ledgers show that the Tribes represented during the first few terms included the Puyallup, Nisqually, Suquamish, Muckleshoot, Tulalip, and Yakima, with ages ranging from 8 to 18 (Ledger, St. George's Mission Indian Industrial School, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives; Memorandum, Oct. 6, 1943, 1040, St. George Indian School, Tacoma, Correspondence -Property Sales, 13/10, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). As a result of the initially low attendance figures, the government reduced its contributions in 1889 to support only 25 students. It also changed its requirements to limit attendees to the Puyallup tribe. Evidently both Fathers Hylebos and DeDecker blamed the situation on initial lack of knowledge about the school, but also the hostility of the Puyallup Indian agent, Edwin Eels. According to an article published in the Catholic Sentinel and later accounts by Father Hylebos, Eels arrested several parents who sent their children to St. George's and used Tribal police officers to return students to the reservation school. Telegrams to the Office of Indian Affairs helped to bring about the release of the imprisoned, but harassment and pressure on families who chose to send their children to St. George's continued (Catholic Sentinel, Nov. 5, 1892; Hylebos 1915:9-10). Figure 7. Rev. Charles DeDecker, first superintendent of St. George's, ca. 1910. Father Hylebos traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Thomas Morgan, and seek a larger appropriation for St. George's. Despite his pleas, the school received no additional funding, and the commissioner also failed to offer any real solutions for the problems with the Puyallup agent. On his return to the Northwest, Father Hylebos made the decision to give the students 2 months of vacation during the summer of 1889 to save money and allow time to seek additional enrollment. The plan was successful, and when the new term began during the following October, 43 pupils were in attendance (Govaert ca. 1948). Even with a growing number of students, federal funding was cut entirely by 1891. Government policy was changing to remove all religious supervision from Indian schools, but the main argument given to Father Hylebos was that the construction of a large new school on the Puyallup reservation provided sufficient space for all Native students in the area and was more cost-effective than a number of smaller SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 19 Figure 8. Students and staff at St. George's Industrial School, 1889. schools. Despite the loss of federal support, St. George's was able maintain its programs through donations, especially the financial commitment of Mother Katharine Drexel, who contributed $1,080 per quarter from 1890 to 1935. Based on her advice, Father Hylebos had decided to transfer the deed for the school's 141 acres to the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions in January of 1889, and the Bureau also provided financial backing for the school's development. In addition, Father DeDecker made yearly contributions from his personal funds (Govaert ca. 1948). Religious training was at the center of the school's mission, but based on the vision of Father Hylebos, St. George's served primarily as an industrial school, teaching agricultural and household skills in addition to basic education. Students performed much of the maintenance, cooking, and cleaning at the school as part of their curriculum, and also assisted with livestock and gardening. According to the school superintendent, no child was required to work more than half a day, and there was also time for recreation (Figure 9), but as described by Father Hylebos, the roles and responsibilities were extremely well-defined: The girls take their weekly turn to perform the different branches of daily housework. Some are very successful at making bread, and really proud of it; others prefer to do general cooking; all learn to be proficient with needle and thread and mend their own clothes. They make the beds and clean and sweep and dust like ordinary housemaids, and at proper times they help in the laundry. Above all, they love to take care of the chickens and to watch the brooding machines. The boys are inclined to be around the horses and bring the cows from the surrounding woods at milking time. They help to clear new land, saw up the firewood to proper lengths, repair farm fences, work in the hay fields, assist in the sowing, planting, or reaping of the vegetable garden, and occasionally steal plums, pears, cherries, or apples. Boys will be boys (Hylebos 1915:11). SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 20 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Figure 9. Snowball fight on the school grounds, ca. 1913. In addition to its educational purpose, the domestic and agricultural work also helped to defray the costs of food and upkeep for the school. In her memoirs, one of the sisters later called St. George's "a very poor mission" and described how there was only "one balanced meal daily and cereal for breakfast and supper" (Murphy n.d.). Milk and butter from the school's cows, eggs from its chickens, and vegetables raised in the garden were an important component of meals for the students. Also, firewood cut by the boys was a primary heat source (Figures 10 and 11). Early Improvements In addition to their chores and training, the students also helped with improvements and the construction of new buildings and structures that were part of the school complex. In 1889, the boys built a new bridge over Hylebos Creek and laid logs to form a corduroy road across the wetlands that led to the county highway. The students slowly worked at clearing the surrounding property and helped to plant an orchard east of the main building. A second building was added, a frame structure of 62 by 16 feet, which housed a girls' recreation hall and laundry and later, a bakery. As the student body steadily grew, a boys' recreation hall was built in 1895 as was a residence for hired help and a barn for the livestock. The students constructed boardwalks to connect these new buildings and also dug ditches and cleared swampland to provide access to various parts of the property (Hylebos 1915:11-12; Verhaag 1898:25-26). During a time of national economic turmoil in 1894 and 1895, Father DeDecker also recruited unemployed men to volunteer their time to clear some of the thickly wooded areas around the school. A wagon picked them up on Monday mornings in front of St. Leo's church in Tacoma and many stayed throughout the entire week. Their main tasks were to fell the huge trees on the school property and saw them into lengths as well as to clear brush. Some of the men also hauled granite boulders from various SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 21 Figure 10. The land around the school was heavily timbered, and students not only cut wood, but also learned other "industrial" skills. Figure 11. St. George's students were taught agricultural practices, and the school grounds included gardens, an orchard, and outbuildings for the care of waterfowl, livestock, and other farm animals; photograph ca. 1913. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 22 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan parts of the grounds to a hillside location where they built a grotto. Mass was celebrated in the grotto when it was completed in July of 1895, and it also became the site of numerous other religious ceremonies (Hylebos 1915:12-13). A well on the property initially served as the school's main water source and then a ramp was erected so that water from Hylebos Creek could be carried to the main buildings. Later Father DeDecker obtained an easement from the Swindell family, who lived to the northwest, and built a wooden water pipeline from a spring -fed reservoir on their property to the school. The water was stored in a tank and then pumped into the main buildings, while secondary lines ran to the barn and other outbuildings as well as to the small house that stood to the north of the school buildings and was occupied by Father De Decker (Govaert to Bishop Shaughnessy, Jan. 9, 1943, Mar. 17, 1943; Memorandum, Bishop Shaughnessy, Apr. 1, 1943, 1040, St. George Indian School, Tacoma, Correspondence -Property Sales, 13/10, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). During this period the school population became increasingly diverse, and the number of students grew steadily, reaching 73 by 1904 (Figure 12). In addition to children from nearby tribes, including the Puyallup, Tulalip, Nisqually, Squaxin Island, Suquamish, Muckleshoot, and Quinault, the school also drew students from the Cowlitz and several tribes in Oregon and Alaska. As the student body grew so did the pressure for space, and in 1905, a foundation was laid for a separate chapel so that more room would be available in other facilities. The 72 by 24—foot chapel was constructed on the southwest corner of the main school building and was completed by early November of that year (Hylebos 1915:15). Burials and Cemeteries Like any community, St. George's had its share of deaths and the need for burials. An attendance ledger shows that the first death among the students occurred within a few months of opening, when a 9-year- old Nisqually girl succumbed to consumption. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 23 SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 24 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan A letter from Mother Katherine Drexel indicates that the diocese of Seattle may have considered devoting to a cemetery as early as 1902. Although the initial correspondence from the Bishop of Seattle was not found, Mother Drexel wrote to the diocese, turning down their request. In her reply, she stated: "I wish I could feel justified in granting the land for the purpose mentioned. To give forty or fifty acres for a burial place would take much from the property of the Indian Mission and I am afraid the property would depreciate in value on account of a cemetery being so near to it" (Mother Drexel to Bishop O'Dea, Sept. 19, 1902, St. George's Indian School, Correspondence -General, 1901-1942, File 12/11, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). Changes in Leadership Despite this request to Mother Drexel and her ongoing support of the school, the actual ownership of St. George's property remained in the hands of the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions. Because of their distance, requests for funds or information often went unanswered, sometimes making it difficult to make quick, but necessary, decisions affecting the school. As a result in 1923, Father Charles DeDecker and a group of sisters decided to incorporate the school in Washington and formed a "benevolent, charitable, and educational corporation" to be known as St. George's Indian School. In addition to DeDecker, the incorporators included Sister Mary Cornelia (Mary Ellen Jordan), Sister Mary Ned (Anna Perrion), Sister Mary Celesta (Bridget Cox), Sister Mary Falconieri (Frances Spath), and Sister Mary Thecla (Agnes Hurley). Father DeDecker was named the president of the Board of Trustees, whose other members included Sister Mary Cornelia and Sister Mary Ned (Articles of Incorporation, St. George's Indian School, Aug. 23, 1923, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). The new board could make decisions about the development of the school directly, although the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions continued to retain ownership. By that time, nearly a dozen buildings and other structures formed the nucleus of St. George's campus, although several of them were showing severe signs of age. Father DeDecker's health had begun to decline and in 1924 he resigned his post to return to his home in Belgium. He died there a little over a year later. Bishop O'Dea appointed the Reverend John Govaert, who had previously served at Yakima, as the new head of the school (Catholic Progress, Jan. 29, 1926, Feb. 5, 1926; Diocese of Nesqually, Record of Priests, 820, Deceased Clergy, 25- 5, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). A New Building Program Father Govaert quickly found that he had inherited a failing infrastructure as well as the chronic shortage of funds faced by his predecessors. Father DeDecker had left him a donation of $1,000 for the school, and he had used it to update the water system, replacing the main wooden tank with a cement one, installing 2,400 feet of galvanized pipe, and removing the old wooden pipe that was rotting and leaking. He also added a new toilet for the girls' dormitory, a bathroom for the sisters, and a concrete septic tank for all of the effluents. The small remainder from the gift was used to purchase hay and SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Tenn Master Plan 25 This image has been redacted. Figure 13. A survey of the school grounds conducted in September 1922 shows the buildings and other improvements at the site SWCA Environmental Consultants January31, 2017 26 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan This image has been redacted. Figure 14. potatoes (Govaert to Bishop O'Dea, July 23, 1925, 1040, St George Indian School, Correspondence - General, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). Father Govaert accomplished other projects with the help of his students and volunteer labor from the community. In 1925, for example, he and the older boys from the school built a temporary 70 by 32— foot boys' dormitory with an adjoining room for their supervisor and a 26 by 20—foot bathroom with toilets and washing facilities. As he described it, "We mixed the concrete, installed the plumbing and wired the building. Between the main building and the boys' dormitory, the path is roofed with lumber salvaged from the old building of the nurses' home in Tacoma" (Govaert 1930) (Figure 15). The following year the school was electrified for the first time with the addition of a steam plant. In 1927, the old barn was replaced with a new structure with a concrete foundation and floor (Govaert 1930; Govaert ca. 1948; Father Govaert to Bishop O'Dea, July 23, 1925; Sept. 15, 1927, Sept. 27, 1927, 1040, St George Indian School, Correspondence -General, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). Enrollment continued to climb at the same time, however, reaching a record of 104 students in September 1927. As a result Father Govaert began making plans for additional repairs and expansion of the facilities. By 1930, Father Govaert believed that the original school building was a fire hazard and Bishop O'Dea agreed with his assessment. He began planning for its replacement and approached the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions with the idea of selling 60 acres of the school's land to pay for the renovations. The stock market crash, however, undercut that solution (Govaert 1930). Father Govaert decided to make a broader appeal. A campaign was started in the regional church publication, the Catholic Northwest Progress, to raise funds for the school's building program. Father SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 27 Figure 15. School superintendent Father John Govaert raised money for new buildings at the school and used student labor to begin construction of a dormitory, followed by a chapel and other additions. Photograph ca. 1930. Govaert also wrote an article for Indian Sentinel, the publication of the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions, in which he described the difficult conditions at the school, the age of the buildings and the need for better facilities. "Having seen service overseas during the Great War," he wrote, "I have been in worse places than this. So I do not care how I have to rough it. But I would like to do something to make this place comfortable for these poor children and the good Sisters" (Govaert 1930). With the funds received, Father Govaert undertook a phased approach designed to put each department under one roof and eliminate the need for all outside buildings while spreading the expenditures over a number of years. He also used the older boys to help him with the building construction as a further cost -saving measure (Figures 15 and 16). The strategy proved to be effective: The first unit containing the boiler room, laundry, kitchen, sisters' dining room and community room, the girls' dormitory was erected and paid for in 1930. In 1931 a 23,000 gallon tank was built to provide water in an emergency and also for fire protection. The second unit containing a parlor, 4 class rooms, boys' dormitory, Sister's quarters, boys' play hall and showers was erected in 1932, and the chapel was moved to a central position east of the main building, but adjacent and in line with the new addition. In 1935 the old building of 1888 was torn down, and another unit 140 ft by 30 ft was built in its site and completed for the opening of school in September of that year. Thus we have St. George's as it stands today, a two story building with a frontage 230' x 30' and 72' of wings; the north wing taking care of the girls; the south wing of the boys, with the chapel and sisters' quarters in the center (Govaert ca. 1948). SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 28 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Lona Term Master Plan Figure 16. Construction of new buildings nears completion, ca. 1933. School Closure Despite the successful building program, the severe economic downturn in conjunction with a withdrawal of funds by Mother Katharine Drexel ultimately brought about the closure of the school. In 1935, Father Govaert received notice from Mother Drexel that after June of 1937, the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament would no longer provide a subsidy to the school. Although efforts were made by Father Govaert, the Sisters of St. Francis, and even Mother Drexel to develop an alternative source of funding, no effective solution was found. In addition, the diocese itself was in a precarious financial position and could not offer any kind of monetary support to the school (Father Govaert to Mother Drexel, Jan. 17, 1937; Mother Katharine Drexel to Mother M. Veronica, Sept. 3, 1937; Brief Facts Concerning St. George's Indian Mission, Nov. 27, 1937). Bishop Shaughnessy made the decision not to reopen St. George's in the fall of 1937, but kept open the possibility that if circumstances changed, he would reconsider his decision. The Sisters of St. Francis were particularly upset about the situation, with Sister Robertina writing, "...Since we cannot return to St. George's, I feel like an orphan, waiting every day what will take place" (Archbishop Cicognani to Father Tennelly, Dec. 17, 1937; Bishop Shaughnessy to Dennis Cardinal Dougherty, June 18, 1937; Bishop Shaughnessy to Mother General, Nov. 18, 1938; Sister Mary Robertina to Reverend Mother Veronica, Sept. 17, 1937, 1040, Box 140, Folder 4, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). Potential Uses of the Site With the school closure, a number of issues arose related to legal oversight of the property,■ , and the future disposition of the school buildings and other improvements (Figure 17). Father Govaert remained at the school for several years to oversee the transition before moving to a parish in Toppenish, Washington. Rather than dissolving the St. George's Corporation, the church secured the resignations of Father Govaert and the sisters of the Order of St. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 29 This image has been redacted. Figure 17. Historical aerial photograph, 1936, showing buildings on school property just before the school was closed as well as the farmstead to the north of the school. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 30 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Francis who previously served on the board of directors and at a meeting in December of 1939, replaced them with Bishop Shaughnessy and several other priests serving the archdiocese (Bishop Shaughnessy to Govaert, Sept. 19, 1939; Memorandum, Bishop Shaughnessy, Dec. 9, 1939, 1040, St. George Indian School, Tacoma, Correspondence -Discontinued Operation, 13/9, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). There was little consensus on the future use of the facilities and, as a result, few changes took place. The church initially hired a caretaker, George Morrow, to live in the northeast wing of the school building and maintain the property. Morrow hoped to lease or buy the land for farming, but because of the ownership issues with the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions, the Chancery refused his repeated requests. Without permission, the Morrow family moved to a small house on the school grounds, planted some crops and raised livestock. The church began eviction proceedings against him in early 1942, but he and his family did not vacate the property until March of 1943. In the meantime, another renter, Mark Bodine, moved into a house formerly occupied by Father Govaert near the other main school buildings and also grazed some livestock (Agreement, Father Govaert and George Morrow, March 28, 1938; Father Govaert to Rev. Joseph Dougherty, Dec. 8, 1940; Rev. Dougherty to George Morrow, Jan. 6, 1941, Henry Broderick, Inc. to John Corrigan, Feb. 12, 1942, Mark Bodine to Rev. Dougherty, Mar. 14, 1943, 1040, St. George Indian School, Tacoma, Correspondence -Discontinued Operation, 13/9, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). During this period the church explored other options for the old school buildings, including the establishment of a home for the aged or an orphanage. Father Govaert and Bishop Shaughnessy also discussed the renovation of the chapel as a Hospitality House and the use of the dormitory facilities for housing the Japanese or for the care of transients. In addition, the church received a number of offers to lease or purchase the property, which were all referred to the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions, as the school's owner (Memorandum, Bishop Shaughnessy, June 4, 1940; Bishop Shaughnessy to Rev. John Tennelly, Feb. 26, 1942, 1040, St. George Indian School, Tacoma, Correspondence -Discontinued Operation, 13/9, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). In early 1943, the federal government approached the Archdiocese with a proposal to lease the complex for housing as part of the war effort. The government was only interested in using the main building and the land immediately surrounding it and planned to make renovations that would create 28 living units, each one with its own kitchen and bathroom facilities. At the end of the lease the church would gain title to the improvements without cost. There was some concern about the water supply, which was still transported from a spring to the northwest of the property across Pacific Highway. After an inspection found some contamination in the water, the Archdiocese agreed to dig a new well and install a pumping system on the property as a condition of the lease (Bishop Shaughnessy to Rev. J.B. Tennelly, Sept. 10, 1943, 1040, St. George Indian School, Tacoma, Correspondence -Property Sales, 13/10, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). The Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions signed the lease agreement with the National Housing Authority in late September 1943. The Corporation of the Bishop of Seattle was also authorized to fulfill any lease obligations on behalf of the Bureau and to collect and retain rent payments necessary to defray its expenses. A drilling firm dug a deep well and installed a 66 inch by 18-foot tank and two pumps for the new water system, while the government contractor, Bonnell Construction Company, worked to renovate the school building. Under a separate agreement with the church, the contractor also patched, cleaned, and painted the chapel roof to protect that segment of the building, which was not part of the government lease (Rev. Tennelly to Bishop Shaughnessy, Sept. 22, 1943; Bishop Shaughnessy to Rev. Tennelly, Sept. 29, 1943, Dec. 1, 14, 1943; Well Drilling Contract, Nov. 3, 1943; Henry Broderick to W.A. Slate, Dec. 1, 1943, 1040, St. George Indian School, Tacoma, Correspondence -Property Sales, 13/10, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives) (Figure 18). SWCA Environmental Consultants January31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan I ST. CsEO9exE5 INDIRN SCHOOL WFTel2 SYSTEM COKPOKMTIDN OF T*E CPFTHOL/C SPR/NCr ram. r, s1 . +of r IK r� 1 I� ! I� GRMP 'FR�NcrS i self Archdiocese of Seattle Archives BIsll-oP Figure 18. In preparation for the use of the St. George's buildings for government housing during WWII, improvements to the water system were made. 31 SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 32 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Cemeteries and Reburials Post -War Uses After World War II, the government ended its lease with the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions, but oversight of the buildings remained with the Archdiocese of Seattle. The church hired a caretaker for the property and many of the units in the main school building continued to be rented to individuals and SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 33 This image has been redacted, ure 19. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 34 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan families (Figure 20). During this period the Bureau received a number of inquiries about potential purchase of the property. The Archdiocese also expressed an interest in acquiring the land, and after several years of discussion, the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions agreed to the sale. For a payment of $35,000 in September of 1952, the Bureau transferred the deed for the St. George's School property to the Archdiocese (Rev. John Tennelly to Archbishop Thomas Connolly, Jan. 11, 1950; Robert Allen to Connolly, March 19, 1951; Connolly to Tennelly, Sept. 16, 1952, 1040, St. George Indian School, Tacoma, Financial Records, 14/6, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). Discussions were held about future uses of the property, but in the meantime, the church continued to rent some of the apartment units in the former school building. Maintenance and upkeep were limited, and the facility slowly began to fall into disrepair (Figure 21). In the late 1950s, church officials revived the idea of turning the property into a cemetery serving Catholics on the south side of Seattle. The Pacific Highway (later U.S. 99) had skirted the property to the west since the late 1920s, but the planned construction of a new north -south freeway by this time promised much quicker and easier access to the area from both Seattle and Tacoma. Cost analyses and other factors were addressed slowly, and the decision was finally made in the early 1970s to proceed with the construction of a new cemetery at the site (Archbishop Thomas Connolly to Rev. Ailbe McGrath, May 18, 1962; Rev. Joseph Doogan to Connolly, July 2, 1962, 636 Cemeteries, South King County, Gethsemane II, General, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). Gethsemane Cemetery The Reverend Joseph Doogan, Director of Cemeteries for the Archdiocese, took charge of the development of the new cemetery. Architects Maloney, Herrington, Freesz and Lund, who had previously designed Holyrood Cemetery, were chosen to develop plans for the new facility. Their initial proposal included several alternatives that required construction along Hylebos Creek, but the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act led to the decision to focus development to the west of the stream and adjacent wetlands. In the meantime, the remaining tenants were asked to vacate their units, and demolition of the existing buildings began in mid-1971. Once plans were finalized, a contract for the construction of an administrative building and garden crypts was awarded to F.S. Jones Construction Company in late September of 1972 (Clark 1971; Connor Hammond to Ralph Lund, Dec. 5, 1971; Daily Journal of Commerce, Sept. 27, 1972, in 636 Cemeteries, South King County, Gethsemane II, Construction 1972, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). Construction began in late 1972 with a significant amount of earth moving and site preparation. The need for additional soil testing was among the first of a series of unanticipated problems that were encountered and slowed progress. According to a synopsis written by Father Doogan in 1975, the project ultimately took over two years to complete because of construction delays, labor strikes, and additional environmental issues and permitting requirements. As a result, costs rose by more than 25 percent to over $1 million. (Figure 22). (Connor Hammond to Ralph Lund, Dec. 5, 1971; Daily Journal of Commerce, Sept. 27, 1972; Rev. Joseph Doogan to Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen, July 25, 1975, in 636 Cemeteries, South King County, Gethsemane II, Miscellaneous, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). While construction was still underway, Father Doogan also began to plan for future expansion. In 1974 he obtained permission from Archbishop Thomas Connolly to purchase or secure options on property that bordered the cemetery both to the north and to the south. Approximately 10 acres on the northern border was originally part of the Olive Counter homestead, which had changed ownership and been divided and sold in smaller parcels by 1900. The portion ultimately purchased by the church had remained as agricultural land for a number of years and later included storage facilities. Among the individuals who owned this property were W.S. Ellis, John and Lena Welfringer, and Eugene Guy. Several SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Tenn Master Plan 35 Figure 20. The main school building was remodeled for wartime housing and then rented as apartments in subsequent years. Figure 21. By the early 1970s the buildings had fallen into disrepair. Photograph ca. 1971. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 36 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Figure 22. Demolition of the buildings began in 1971 and the remaining furniture and other reminders of the school's past were removed prior to construction of the Gethsemane Cemetery, ca. 1972. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 37 of these families did not live on the property and likely leased it to others for farming. The Welfringers, for example, were residents of Tacoma, while William Ellis lived in Seattle. The land included a small house and 20- by 30—foot barn by the early 1900s. At the time of the church's acquisition, a house assessed at $20,000 as well as a building that served as the Fowler Manufacturing truck canopy warehouse were located on the property. According to county records, the warehouse was originally a barn built near the residence in 1963. The building was moved to vacant property in the vicinity by 1990 (Rev. Joseph Doogan to Archbishop Connolly, May 17, 1974; Archbishop Connolly to Rev. Doogan, August 5, 1974; US Census 1900, 1910, 1920; King County Assessor Property Card, Folio 21985, Washington State Archives, Bellevue; King County Assessor, Timber Survey Maps, 1907, King County Archives, Seattle). As the cemetery neared completion, Native peoples also expressed their displeasure with the project and the church's use of the property by occupying the administrative building at the site in November of 1974. Among their grievances was the treatment of children at the former school and larger Indian education issues as well as the neglected condition of the early St. George's Cemetery After lengthy negotiations on these and other issues related to the use of Hylebos Creek, the church deeded the St. George's Cemetery property to the Puyallup Indian Tribe in 1982 (Summation of Meeting with Indian Group Home Coalition, Dec. 2, 1974; Rev. Harvey McIntire to Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen, Apr. 14, 1980; Patrick Crowley to Patrick Please, June 10, 1982, in 636 Diocese -Real Estate Correspondence, Cemetery Gethsemane, South King County, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives). Archbishop Thomas Connolly officially dedicated Gethsemane Cemetery in May of 1975. Sales of burial plots were initially slow, but as area population grew, the cemetery became the primary resting place for members of the Catholic faith in south King County and northern Pierce County. PREPARATION FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND RESULTS This section contains the results of archaeological research as well as the field survey of the property. It begins with a review of previous investigations and an evaluation of available geotechnical data and other resources, which provide the background for a discussion of archaeological sensitivity. This information formed the basis for the field plan, and the results of the field survey as well as recommendations follow. No significant cultural materials were identified in the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan area, but one archaeological feature that is part of 45KI866 was recorded. Previous Investigations Summary The WISAARD database shows that 19 cultural resources investigations have taken place within 1 mile of Gethsemane Cemetery (Table 1). Eight of these investigations were completed for Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) projects on State Route (SR) 161, SR 167, SR 18, Interstate 5, and SR 99 (Forsman et al. 2003; Livingston and Cowan 2008; Luttrell 2003, 2004a, 2004b; Riser 2013; Sharpe et al. 2009; Sparks and Montgomery 2005). Three of the eight WSDOT investigations included wetland mitigation along Hylebos Creek (Forsman et al. 2003; Livingston and Cowan 2008; Sparks and Montgomery 2005). Six other mitigation and restoration projects for private companies, as well as the Port of Tacoma, also required cultural resources investigations along Hylebos Creek (Becker and Thompson 2003; Berger 2009; Goetz and Rust 2008a; Luttrell 2005; Miller 2006; Shong and Miss 2011). Four previous investigations were completed for clean-up of a landfill, underground storage tank removal clean-up, and commercial contamination clean-up (Boersema 2010b; McWilliams and Rooke 2011a, 2011b; Shaw et al. 2009). Finally, one cultural resources assessment was previously completed for upgrades to a cell tower (Finley 2014). SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 38 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Terrn Master Plan Table 1. Previous Cultural Resource Investigations Within Approximately 1 Mile of the Project Area AUTHOR DATE PROJECT RELATION TO RESULTS* PROJECT AREA Becker and 2003 Cultural Resource Assessment for the Proposed 0.9 mi SW Column redacted Thompson Habitat Restoration Project at the Jordan Site Fife, Pierce County Forsman et al. 2003 Paaga Property Conceptual Mitigation Plan Adjacent Archaeological Resources Assessment Federal Way, King County Luttrell 2003 Cultural Resources Investigations for Washington State 0.7 mi SE Department of Transportation's SR 161: Milton Way to South 360th Street Project, Pierce and King Counties Luttrell 2004a Cultural Resource Investigations for the Washington 0.6 mi S State Department of Transportation's SR 167: Puyallup to SR 509 Project, Pierce County Luttrell 2004b Cultural Resources Investigations for the Washington 0.6 mi S State Department of Transportation's 1-5: Pierce County Line to Tukwila Stage 4 HOV Project, Pierce County Luttrell 2005 Cultural Resources Investigations for Friends of the 0.5 mi SE Hylebos' East Fork Hylebos Creek Channel Restoration Project, Pierce County Sparks and 2005 Letter Report: Archaeological and Historical Resources 0.1 mi N Montgomery Survey Report for the Spring Valley Restoration Project Miller 2006 Karileen Restoration Project Adjacent Goetz and 2008a, Cultural Resources Reports for Wildlands of 1 mi W Rust 2008b Washington Hauff Property, Tacoma Livingston and 2008 Addendum to the 1-5 to SR 161/SR 18 Triangle 0.7 mi NE Cowan Improvements Cultural Resources Discipline Report Berger 2009 Cultural Resources Overview of the Lincoln Avenue 0.8 mi SW Grade Separation Project Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Site, Tacoma, Pierce County Sharpe et al. 2009 Tacoma/Pierce County HOV Program 1-5: Port of 0.7 mi S Tacoma Road to King County Line — HOV Historic, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources Discipline Report Shaw et al. 2009 Archaeological Monitoring and Cultural Resources 0.9 mi S Assessment for the B & L Woodwaste Site, Fife, Pierce County Boersema 2010b A Cultural Resource Survey of Clerget Industries 0.1 mi SW Highway 99 Parcel Milton, Pierce County McWilliams 2011a Archaeological Assessment for the proposed Spring 0.1 mi N and Rooke Valley Underground Storage Tank Site, King County McWilliams 2011 b Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Spring Valley 0.1 mi N and Rooke Underground Storage Tank Site Removal Project, in King County Shong and 2011 Letter Report: Results of Archaeological Monitoring for 1 mi SW Miss the Port Parcel 88 Combined Habitat Project, Port of Tacoma, Pierce County Riser 2013 Cultural Resources Survey, SR 99 West Fork Hylebos 0.5 mi N Creek Culvert Replacement Project, King County Finley 2014 Letter Report: Results of a cultural resources inventory 0.1 mi W of the County Line 99/1-ourie cell site (Trileaf #611484), Tacoma, Pierce County *Newly recorded cultural material identified within 1 mile of project area. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 39 Table 2. Previously Recorded Sites Within Approximately 1 Mile of the Project Area SITE NO. COMPILER/DATE AGE DESCRIPTION RELATION TO nnA IG/+T -CA Table redacted Archaeological Sensitivity The surface of the glaciated uplands surrounding the Puget Sound was available to inhabitants of the region beginning in the early Holocene. Upland areas, such as the project vicinity, first supported camps of early hunter -gatherers who moved from location to location with little specialization in settlement type. In the archaeological record, these early camps would be characterized by Olcott or earlier style stone tools and fire -modified rock (FMR) from campfires. Later in the Holocene, the glacial uplands were more often used for special purposes related to procurement of resources, such as cedar, game animals, berries, and other plants, as well as for other purposes unrelated to subsistence, like burials. Specialized use of the uplands in the later Holocene left behind variable artifact assemblages and several site types, but most pre -contact archaeological sites found on glacial upland landforms are small. Larger -scale development of the upland did not begin until about 100 years ago when Euroamericans cleared the forests and began to settle. If pre -contact cultural materials are present in undisturbed portions of the project area, they would likely be identified within . However, much of the project area has been SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 40 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan disturbed by development in the past (Figure 23). Substantial soil removal occurred in the middle of the project area when Gethsemane Cemetery was constructed in 1972. The material that was removed was used as fill to raise the elevation of the areas surrounding the cemetery. There is also moderate potential for encountering significant ethnographic period and early historical cultural resources in the project area. The property went through several phases of development and use beginning in the 1870s. Most of the settlers in the early homestead period were short-term residents, but likely built some kind of residences, possibly cleared and cultivated a few acres, and grazed livestock. Construction of the first large school building and numerous outbuildings and other structures by Father DeDecker in the 1880s, 1890s, and early 1900s, improvements to the school and the addition of a large new school building by Father Govaert in the 1920s and 1930s, and then changes to the property by the government in the 1940s all left their mark on the project area. The construction of the current cemetery in 1972 undoubtedly had the greatest impact on the preservation potential of the project area. If historical cultural materials are preserved below the surface of the modern cemetery, they might include artifacts and features related to the early homesteading period. More likely these cultural materials may relate to the operation of the school; structural foundations and footings of the school buildings, dormitories, recreation structures, barns, and residences; boardwalks; ditches; water features like pipes, tanks, and wells; privies, orchard remnants, or debris dumps. The potential for identifying intact, significant historical cultural resources in the project area is tempered by the past practice of demolishing existing buildings and structures between periods of construction and the large-scale earth moving that occurred for development of Gethsemane Cemetery. Foundations most likely to remain are those related to the second wave of construction in the 1920s, as well as the renovation and construction efforts during WWII. Hylebos Creek marks the general limit of extensive disturbance in the project vicinity. Field Survey Results SWCA completed excavation of test pits (TPs 1-6) and shovel probes (SPs 1-54) at Gethsemane Cemetery between December 14 and 16, 2016 (Figure 24). The survey covered all five areas of proposed ground disturbance associated with planned cemetery expansion and no significant cultural materials were encountered. The farmstead that was once is reduced to a couple of small depressions in the ground that are filled with brush. One foundation, which has been inventoried as a feature of 45KI866, remains. The school building that was once present in the vicinity of a modern berm was razed and bladed away prior to landscaping of the berm, as were most of the other nearby buildings shown on early maps and in historical photographs of the project vicinity (Figure 25). Structural elements were not encountered in the test pits or shovel probes. A few loose concrete footings were identified at the surface in modern dumping areas and non -diagnostic glass, metal, and ceramic items were in the fill. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 41 0MW +1 ±� R r , i 61 '$ ..�, d� � '•Q , _ -.�;� •`'sue— f� LEGEND I"rr .. ILKCE .•`-r• -DIES- L • 1 . SNAAIP a WET /,2FA • -- 02uW4'.E q'�rfIDM � 1 Modern Elevation, feet (NAVD88) 3 Project Area , a <30 1 - 70 - 75 a r 030-35 ��i75-80 r Difference between 35-40 U 80-85 +1 0 historic and modern a 40 - 45 -185 - 90 surface, feet. - 0 45 - 50 90 - 95 0 50 - 55 a 95 - 100 UDAR shows modem elevation in 5-foot blocks; 0 55 - 60 a 100 - 105 1977 plans show pre -cemetery FW 60 - 65 F 105 - 110 elevations (contours). Vertical datum on 1977 plans is 5.92 feet 1965 - 70 0 110 - 115 above NAVD88, Figure 23. Development plans from 1972 construction of Gethsemane Cemetery overlain on a LiDAR image of the project area showing the amount of change in elevation that has occurred due to blading and filling during construction. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 42 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan This image has been redacted. Figure 24. Shovel probes and test pits excavated during field survey around Gethsemane Cemetery. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 43 This image has been redacted. Figure 25. Shovel probes and test pits shown over 1936 aerial photograph and 1977 map overlay of the Indian School as it stood prior to cemetery construction in 1972. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 44 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan North Ann The North Arm of the cemetery includes Development Areas 1a (North Arm Upland), 2 (North Arm Downhill), and 5b (Mausoleums). SPs 1 through 19, TP 1, and TP 2 were excavated in the North Arm, which once contained a historical homestead and farm. There are several depressions and cuts in the North Arm of the cemetery that are filled with soil and brush (Figure 26). These depressions mark the locations of past buildings and structures that have been removed. They vary from 9 to 18 m (30 to 60 feet) across and from 60 cm to 1.5 m (2 to 5 feet) deep. - Rubble associated with building demolition, such as a concrete footing on the ground surface, is present in the North Arm of the cemetery. Additional rubble may be incorporated into a large area of fill that has built up in the form of an approximately 3-m-high (10-foot-high) platform in the northeast corner of the cemetery (Figure 27). A summary of the sediments and cultural materials encountered in the shovel probes and test pits is in Appendix B. North Arm Excavations The stratigraphy observed in TPs 1 and 2 is similar. In TP 1, 50 cm (1.6 feet) of silty, gravelly, and sandy fill overlies historically disturbed soil to 93 cm below the surface (cmbs) (3 fbs) (Figure 28). Naturally deposited glaciomarine sediments that are clayey and predate the arrival of humans to the region are below 93 cmbs (3 fbs). In TP 2, gravelly fill extends to 90 cmbs (2.9 fbs) and overlies the glaciomarine stratum (Figure 29). The fill is gravelly in TP 2 because this test pit was excavated adjacent to one of the depressions that mark the location of a past structure and the hole left behind after removal of the building foundation must have been filled with pebbles. Fragments of garden mesh were observed in the fill in TP 1 and no other cultural materials were identified. The shovel probes showed evidence for a weakly developed modern soil sequence formed in the fill that blankets the North Arm of the cemetery. The fill is typically composed of brown fine sandy and clayey silt with scattered pebbles that extends to an average of 50 cmbs (1.6 fbs) and overlies either a truncated remnant B horizon or a truncated remnant C horizon formed in glaciomarine sediment. The thickness of the fill and the nature of the basal soil units depend on the extent of historical disturbance prior to filling and the original topography prior to development of the cemetery. Topographically high areas or areas that have been bladed usually have less fill and that fill directly overlies truncated glacial sediment (Figure 30). Topographically lower areas or areas where the elevation has been artificially built up for landscaping usually have more fill and more intact soil underlying the fill. In the North Arm, the fill is thinnest at the north and west edges of the cemetery property and thickens to the east. A pre -fill soil surface was present from 60 to 75 cmbs (2 to 2.5 fbs) in SP 17, but no cultural materials were associated with the soil. Foundation Feature One feature that is part of archaeological site 45KI866 was identified - The feature is a rectangular concrete foundation (Figure 31). The exterior dimensions of the foundation measure 15 feet 8 inches from west to east and 5 feet 8 inches from north to south. The interior dimensions of the foundation measure 14 feet 8 inches from west to east and 4 feet 8 inches from north to south. The foundation is poured concrete that is 6 inches thick (Figure 32). The interior of the foundation is filled in with fill sediment and debris, which include a discarded tire. The ground surface outside of the foundation is at or above the top of the concrete, while the surface of the interior of the foundation fill varies from 5 to 20 cm (2 to 8 inches) lower than the exterior surface. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 45 Figure 26. Pits that represent places where historical buildings have been removed are filled with brush; view to the south from near SP 10. Figure 27. Built up platform of fill in the north east corner of the North Arm; view to the south. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 46 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Tenn Master Plan Figure 28. West wall of TP 1 at 150 cmbs. Figure 29. South wall of TP 2 at 100 cmbs. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 47 J l ;;Pi � Figure 30. SP 18 excavated to 65 cmbs, showing fill overlying truncated glacial sediment. This image has been redacted. Figure 31. Overview of foundation feature that is part of 45KI866, looking southwest. SWCA Environmental Consultants 48 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Figure 32. South wall of the foundation feature, which is about 6 inches thick, in 45KI866. Two 46-cm-diameter (1.5-foot-diameter) fragments of concrete rubble from a wall are on the north side of the foundation, possibly marking an old doorway, and a bent 8-cm-diameter (3-inch-diameter) segment of pipe is at the northwest corner of the foundation. There are no cultural materials on the ground adjacent to the foundation. This foundation feature is the only remaining evidence of the farmstead that once stood® but it does not retain data potential beyond what has been recorded on the state archaeological site inventory form. Any impacts to this part of 45KI866 will not be considered adverse because it is not significant. A Washington State Archaeological Site Inventory Form documenting this feature of 45KI866 is included in Appendix C. Forest Glade SPs 20 through 31, TP 3, and TP 5 were excavated in the Forest Glade, or Development Area 4. Prior to construction of the cemetery, the Forest Glade was an open field and orchard. A couple of fruit trees remain in the Forest Glade today as signs of past land use. The Forest Glade also includes three borrow pits where previous landowners mined sand and gravel from the natural glacial outwash hill at the northeast corner of the property. The pits vary from 12.2 to 21.3 m (40 to 70 feet) across and from 1.8 to 2.4 m (6 to 8 feet) deep. The upper pit is a contained depression that is accessed from the north edge of the property and the two lower borrows are each open on one end and accessed from the southwest. The borrow pits appear to have been used for debris disposal after mining was complete because they contain concrete rubble and brush (Figure 33). SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 49 Figure 33. Area mined for sand and recently used for rubble disposal at the northwest edge of the Forest Glade Area 4; view to the north. TP 3 was excavated at the toe of the artificial berm that marks the current extent of burials at the cemetery. The stratigraphy observed in TP 3 is typical of the Forest Glade. The artificial berm is on top of the historical location of the Indian School. If remnants of the school were present below the berm fill, they were expected to be encountered in the toe of the berm. But TP 3 showed similar stratigraphy to TPs 1 and 2, suggesting the school was razed and the foundation area was bladed clean of debris prior to berm construction. TP 1 contained a clayey, sandy, silty A horizon formed in fill from 0 to 50 cmbs (1.6 fbs) (Figure 34). The fill did not include any cultural materials. A clayey, silty truncated B horizon was below the fill reaching 85 cmbs (2.8 fbs) and conformably overlying glaciomarine deposits. The fill dips along the slope of the berm, but the underlying natural B and C horizons exhibit flat -lying remnant bedding. The area around TP 5 is not typical of the Forest Glade. A significant amount of fill has been used to build the area around TP-5 up and out toward Hylebos Creek. As such, the south end of the Forest Glade landform is artificial. Mixed layers of gravelly, clayey, silty fill are between 0 and 75 cmbs (2.5 fbs) in TP 5, overlying gravelly, clayey, sandy, and silty fill with many concrete fragments from broken grave boxes and other cemetery debris (Figure 35). A silty buried surface within the fill is from 180 to 195 cmbs (5.9 to 6.4 fbs), which overlies additional clayey, gravelly, and silty fill layers from 195 to 215 cmbs (6.4 to 7 fbs). Glacial sediments were encountered at the base of TP 5 from 215 to 250 cmbs (7 to 8.2 fbs). No remains of the Indian School were identified. The fill in SPs 20 through 31 is an average of 65 cm (2.1 feet) thick, but varies from a minimum of 22 cm (9 inches) up to 110 cm (3.6 feet) thick with no discernable pattern across the portion of the Forest Glade area tested. Shovel probes were not excavated around TP 5 where the fill was too thick to SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 50 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Lona Term Master Plan Figure 34. South wall of TP 3 at 215 cmbs. excavate through by hand. The fill overlies truncated reddish brown soils and glacial sediments. The basal stratum is glacial outwash in the north half of the Forest Glade and glaciolacustrine sediment on the south half of the Forest Glade. Sediment Pond Development Area 1b is the Sediment Pond where SPs 32 through 36 and TP 4 were excavated. This portion of the cemetery property shows the most elevation change. The west side of the Sediment Pond area, at the margin of the existing cemetery, is bladed flat (Figure 37). The flat portion of the existing cemetery rises steeply up about 6 m (20 feet) in elevation to the top of the artificial berm. The berm is narrow in the Sediment Pond vicinity and the topography drops steeply down about 9.1 m (30 feet) in elevation into an old cesspool area to the east on the creek side of the berm (Figure 38). Part of this depression will become a silt pond for the future development, though most of the old cesspool is altered and filled in. SPs 32, 35, and 36 were investigated on the flat part of the cemetery at the base of the artificial berm where an average of 37 cm (1.2 feet) of silty fill overlies truncated glaciomarine sediment. Similar to TP 3, TP 4 was excavated nearby into the toe of the berm to see if remnants of the school buildings were present below the berm fill. The fill extends to 115 cmbs (3.8 fbs) in TP 4 and overlies glacial soil and sediment (Figure 39). No cultural materials were encountered in the fill or at the boundary between the fill and the underlying natural deposits. The surface of the glacial soil appears to have been bladed prior to berm creation and landscaping. SWCA Environmental Consultants January31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 0 50 100 150 200GM West I. l; i - East 0— . — Ap —Fill 4 - - 50— Fill - Con 100 — Fill 2 _ CpldOb 150— -- -- - -- Ab.- .. - 200— --— Fill 1 Glaciomarine 250 — Cm Figure 35. South wall of TP 5 at 250 cmbs. SWCA Environmental Consultants 51 January 31, 2017 52 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 2. a g s SCALE CARQ. KEEP w ; H CAMERA Figure 36. Examples of the scattered debris observed in the fill, 0. Figure 37. Excavation of SP 32, SP 36, and SP 37 along the base of the artificial berm in the Sediment Pond Area 1b; view to the southwest. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 53 Figure 38. Recently created silt pond between SP 33 and SP 34, showing excavation of SP 33 looking east. Figure 39. South wall of TP 4 at 120 curbs. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 54 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan SPs 33 and 34 were excavated on the backside of the berm along a pathway that rings the sediment pond that was built to replace the cesspool. The pathway is about halfway down the slope. There, fill extends to at least 120 cmbs (3.9 fbs) and the underlying glacial deposits are also disturbed. The entire Sediment Pond landscape is highly altered. Rainier Vista The Rainier Vista section of the cemetery, or Development Area 3, included SPs 37 through 41 at the base of the filled berm, as well as SPs 42, 46 through 54, and TP 6 on top of the filled berm. The berm widens in Rainier Vista and meets the natural topography at the southeast edge of the project area. A Stratigraphy observed in SPs 37 through 41 was similar to the stratigraphy noted in SPs 32, 35, and 36 at the base of the berm in the Sediment Pond area. Fill extends from 30 to 40 cmbs (1 to 1.3 fbs) in SPs 37 through 41 and overlies truncated glacial soil and sediment. The fill was much thicker on top of the berm in SPs 42, 46 through 54, and TP 6. The fill is an average of 90 cmbs (3 fbs) in SP 42 and SPs 46 through SP 54, but is over 150 cmbs (5 fbs) in some areas tested with shovel probes (Figure 40). Buried soil surfaces were preserved at the base of the fill in Rainier Vista, such as at 160 cmbs (5.2 fbs) in SP 52. At TP 6, 45 cm (1.5 ft) of imported clayey, gravelly, sandy, silty fill is on top of a disturbed B horizon, which extends to 160 cmbs (5.2 fbs) and overlies intact glaciomarine parent material (Figure 41). No cultural materials were identified in the Rainier Vista survey excavations. b- • !� i _ ` � � � �} }ram` 7'.-7 - Figure 40. Excavation of SP 48 at 150 cmbs showing typical stratigraphy of fill over glacial soils. SWCA Environmental Consultants JdIIUdl y 3 1, LU I / Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 55 .. .�:� r .- s^..�.. •+ � �' a 11 J' '���' ,�ri%''��.. f'F WX . rS ~i -? e•.'� 'i1.`o� ylk .. �f. .fit. iS"1' 1 •3 iJ Figure 41. East wall of TP 6 at 180 curbs. Forest Knoll Three shovel probes, SPs 43 through 45, were excavated in Development Area 5a called the Forest Knoll. Fill and disturbance related to the current cemetery extends to an average of 33 cmbs (1 fbs) at Forest Knoll. The fill and disturbed deposits overlie truncated glaciomarine soil and sediment. No cultural materials were identified in the Forest Knoll survey excavations. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the land -use history and documented demolition and removal of the St. George's Indian School buildings, significant archaeological resources were not expected to be encountered in primary context within most of the project area. SWCA completed the survey and confirmed that significant archaeological materials are not present in areas where development is proposed. Archaeological site 45KI866 is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP. Although the foundation shares a site number and boundary with Gethsemane Cemetery, the foundation is from an earlier farmstead and is not associated with the modern cemetery. No additional archaeological investigations are recommended at archaeological site 45KI866. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 56 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan SWCA recommends plans for future construction beyond Phases 1 through 5 as they are currently proposed in the Master Plan be reviewed by a professional archaeologist prior to completion of the undertaking. All future plans should also continue to avoid St. George's Cemetery east of Hylebos Creek. In addition, SWCA recommends that Gethsemane Cemetery continue to coordinate with the Tribes whose students attended the school. In particular, SWCA recommends consultation with the Puyallup Tribe because of their nearby location, and their current ownership of the former St. George's Cemetery. Finally, SWCA recommends that future ground -disturbing activities follow a plan for inadvertent discovery in order to guide Gethsemane Cemetery in case cultural resources are unexpectedly discovered. The plan should be implemented during any large-scale, ground -disturbing efforts associated with preparation of the land around the existing cemetery for new burials, as well as after initial construction work is complete and individual burials are placed into the ground. In short, a contractor or cemetery employee conducting excavation should cease activities at once and follow the protocol outlined in the plan, beginning with contacting an archaeologist to confirm and evaluate the discovery. If construction in any area encounters human remains, whether burials, isolated teeth, bones, or potential mortuary items, work in that area should be stopped immediately and the area around the discovery secured (RCW 68.50.645 and RCW 27.44.040). The Federal Way Police Department, the King County Medical Examiner, DAHP, and the appropriate Tribes must be notified. The IDP is included as Appendix D of this report. This assessment is based on project design specifications provided by J.A. Brennan Associates and Gethsemane Cemetery in January 2017. If construction plans change, and particularly if the project footprint is expanded to include other areas that are not currently part of Phases 1 through 5, then additional cultural resources assessment may be required. Future phases of the project with ground disturbance beyond the extent of historical disturbance or beyond Phases 1 through 5 will require additional archaeological investigations. Please ensure that an electronic copy of this finalized report is provided to DAHP and the Tribes. SWCA Environmental Consultants January31, 2017 REFERENCES American College Bulletin 1903 Hylebos. American College Bulletin 1(2):77. Angell, T., and K. C. Balcomb 1982 Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books, Seattle. Avey, Mike ca. 1991 Fluted Point Occurrences in Washington State. Fort Steilacoom Community College. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Becker, Tom, and Gail Thompson 2003 Cultural Resource Assessment for the Proposed Habitat Restoration Project at the Jordan Site Fife, Pierce County, Washington. Prepared for Ridolfi, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Historical Research Associates, Seattle, Washington. Berger, Margaret 2009 Cultural Resources Overview of the Lincoln Avenue Grade Separation Project Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Site, Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington. Technical Report No. 364. Prepared for Widener & Associates, Everett, Washington. Cultural Resources Consultants, Inc., Bainbridge Island, Washington. Blukis Onat, A. R. 1987 Resource Protection Planning Process Identification of Prehistoric Archaeological Resources in the Northern Puget Sound Study Unit. BOAS, Seattle, Washington. Blukis Onat, Astrida R., Maury E. Morgenstein, Philippe D. LeTourneau, Robert P. Stone, Jerre Kosta and Paula Johnson 2000 Archaeological Investigations at stuwe'yuq - Site 45KI464, Tolt River, King County, Washington. BOAS, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Boersema, Jana 2010a State of Washington Archaeological Isolate Inventory Form, 45P11177. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. 2010b A Cultural Resource Survey of Clerget Industries Highway 99 Parcel Milton, Pierce County, Washington. Prepared for Norlan Corporation, Milton, Washington. Cascadia Archaeology, Seattle, Washington. Booth, D. B., K. G. Troost, J. J. Clague, and R. B. Wait 2003 The Cordilleran Ice Sheet. Developments in Quaternary Science 1:17-43. Booth, D. B., H. H. Waldorn, and K. G. Troost 2004 Geologic Map of the Poverty bay 7.5' Quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties, Washington. Scientific Investigations Map 2854. United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. SWCA Environmental Consultants 57 January 31, 2017 58 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Borden, R. K., and K. G. Troost 2001 Late Pleistocene Stratigraphy in the South -Central Puget Lowland, Pierce County, Washington. ;niashinatnn nannrtmPnt of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Olympia, Washington. Boyd, Robert 1999 The Coming of the Spirit of Pestilence: Introduced Infectious Diseases and Population Decline among Northwest Coast Indians, 1774-1874. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Buchanan, Charles 1918 History of Cushman Indian School. RG 75, BIA, Puyallup Agency, Correspondence Subject Files with Commissioner of Indian Affairs 1907-1920, Series 3, Box 4, National Archives and Records Administration, Seattle, Washington. Butler, B. R. 1961 The Old Cordilleran Culture in the Pacific Northwest. Occasional Papers No. 5. Idaho State College Museum, Pocatello, Idaho. Carlson, R. L. 1990 History of Research in Archaeology. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: The Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 107-115. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Carlson, Roy L., and Luke Dalla Bona 1996 Early Human Occupation in British Columbia. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. Carpenter, Cecilia 1986 Fort Nisqually: A Documented History of Indian and British Interaction. Tahoma Research Service, Tacoma, Washington. Carroll, James 2000 Seeds of Faith. Catholic Indian Boarding Schools. Garland Publishing, New York, New York. Caster, Dick 2009 Father Peter Hylebos, St. George's Indian School and Cemetery. Historical Society of Federal Way, Federal Way, Washington. Chatters, James C., Jason B. Cooper, Philippe D. LeTourneau, and Lara C. Rooke 2011 Understanding Olcott: Data Recovery at 45SN28 and 45SN303 Snohomish County, Washington. Prepared for the Snohomish County Department of Public Works. AMEC, Earth and Environmental, Bothell, Washington. Clark, Paul 1971 Historic St. George Indian School Razed. The Progress, June 25, 1971:7. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 59 Deur, D., and N. J. Turner 2005 Keeping it Living- Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Earley, Amber 2004 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 451311408, Puget Sound Electric Railway Grade. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Finley, Aimee 2014 Letter Report: Results of a cultural resources inventory of the County Line 99/Lourie cell site (Trileaf #611484), Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington. Prepared for Trileaf Environmental and Property Consultants, St. Louis, Missouri. Applied Archaeological Research, Inc., Portland, Oregon. Fladmark, Knut R. 1982 An Introduction to the Prehistory of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 6:95- 156. Forsman, Leonard A., Gretchen A. Kaehler, and Lynn L. Larson 2003 Paaga Property Conceptual Mitigation Plan Archaeological Resources Assessment Federal Way, King County, Washington. Technical Report No. 2003-15. Prepared for Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. and Sound Transit, Seattle, Washington. Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited, Gig Harbor, Washington. Franklin, J. F., and C. T. Dyrness 1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. Galster, R. W., and W. T. Laprade 1991 Geology of Seattle, Washington, United States of America. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists 28(3):239-302. GeoResources 2016 Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Gethsemane Master Plan, 37600 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, Washington. Prepared for J. A. Brennan Associates, Seattle, Washington. GeoResources, Fife, Washington. Goetz, L. N., and T. C. Rust 2008a Cultural Resources Report, Wildlands of Washington Hauff Property Tacoma, Washington. Prepared for Wildlands of Washington, Marysville, Washington. Landau Associates, Edmonds, Washington. 2008b Final Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan Wildlands of Washington Hauff Property Tacoma, Washington. Prepared for Wildlands of Washington, Marysville, Washington. Landau Associates, Edmonds, Washington. Govaert, John 1930 What the Mission School Means. Indian Sentinel, Spring 1930. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 60 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan ca. 1948 History of St. George's Indian School in the Diocese of Seattle, State of Washington. Manuscript copy, File 1040, St George's Indian School, Tacoma, Historical, Folder 1417, Archdiocese of Seattle Archives, Seattle, Washington. Gustafson, Carl E., and Clare Manis 1984 The Manis Mastodon Site: An Adventure in Prehistory. Manis Enterprises, Sequim, Washington. Haeberlin, H., and E. Gunther. 1930 The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Harmon, Alexandra 1995 Lines in the Sand: Shifting Boundaries Between Indians and Non -Indians in the Puget Sound Region. Western Historical Quarterly 26(4). Hylebos, P.F. 1915 St. George's School, Puyallup Reservation, Washington. Indian Sentinel, FatherJuniperro Serra Number, 1915:6-17. Jenkins, Dennis L., Loren G. Davis, Thomas W. Stafford Jr., Paula F. Campos, Bryan Hockett, George T. Jones, Linda Scott Cummings, Chad Yost, Thomas J. Connolly, Robert M. Yohe II, Summer C. Gibbons, Maanasa Raghavan, Morten Rasmussen, Johanna L. A. Paijmans, Michael Hofreiter, Brian M. Kemp, Jodi Lynn Barta, Cara Monroe, M. Thomas P. Gilbert, and Eske Willerslev 2012 Clovis Age Western Stemmed Projectile Points and Human Coprolites at the Paisley Caves. Science 337(6091):223-228. Kidd, Robert Stuart 1964 A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from the Perspective of Three Occupation Sites (San Juan and Snohomish Counties). Masters of Arts Thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Kirk, R., and R. D. Daugherty 1978 Exploring Washington Archaeology. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Kopperl, Robert E., Christian J. Miss, and Charles M. Hodges 2010 Results of Testing at the Bear Creek Site, 454I-839, Redmond, King County, Washington. Prepared for the City of Redmond, Washington and David Evans and Associates, Inc. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Kruckeberg, A. R. 1991 The Natural History of Puget Sound Country. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. LeTourneau, Phillippe 2010 A Clovis Point from the Pacific Northwest Coast. Current Research in the Pleistocene 27:115-117. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 61 Liesch, B. A., C. E. Price, and K. L. Walters 1963 Geology and Ground -Water resources of Northwestern King County, Washington. Water Supply Bulletin No. 20. Division of Water Resources, Department of Conservation, Olympia, Washington. Livingston, Stephanie, and Tim Cowen 2008 Addendum to the 1-5 to SR 161/SR 18 Triangle Improvements Cultural Resources Discipline Report. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, Washington. ICF Jones & Stokes, Bellevue, Washington. Luttrell, C. 2003 Cultural Resources Investigations for Washington State Department of Transportation's SR 161: Milton Way to South 360th Street Project, Pierce and King Counties, Washington. Short Report DOT03-28. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington. 2004a Cultural Resource Investigations for the Washington State Department of Transportation's SR 167: Puyallup to SR 509 Project, Pierce County, Washington. Short Report DOT01-14. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington. 2004b Cultural Resources Investigations for the Washington State Department of Transportation's 1-5: Pierce County Line to Tukwila Stage 4 HOV Project, Pierce County, Washington. Short Report DOT04-11. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington. 2005 Cultural Resources Investigations for Friends of the Hylebos' East Fork Hylebos Creek Channel Restoration Project, Pierce County, Washington. Short Report 843. Submitted to Friends of the Hylebos, Federal Way, Washington. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington. Marino, Cesare 1990 History of Washington Since 1846. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7. The Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 169-179. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Matson, R. G., and Gary Coupland 1995 The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Mattson, John 1985 Puget Sound Prehistory: Post -glacial Adaptations in the Puget Sound Basin with Archaeological Implications for a Solution to the "Cascade Problem." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. McWilliams, Tyler 2011a State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45KI1021, Spring Valley Service Station. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. 2011b State of Washington Archaeological Site Update Form, 45KI1021, Spring Valley Service Station. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 62 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Lonq Term Master Plan McWilliams, Tyler, and Lara Rooke 2011a Archaeological Assessment for the proposed Spring Valley Underground Storage Tank Site, King County, Washington. Short Report No. 25. Prepared for Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Bellevue, Washington. AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., Bothell, Washington. 2011b Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Spring Valley Underground Storage Tank Site Removal Project, in King County, Washington. Archaeological Monitoring Report No. 01-2011. Prepared for Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Bellevue, Washington. AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., Bothell, Washington. Meltzer, David J., and Robert C. Dunnell 1987 Fluted Points from the Pacific Northwest. Current Research in the Pleistocene 4:64-67. Miller, Heather Lee 2006 Karileen Restoration Project. Prepared for Windward Environmental LLC. Historical Research Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Morgan, M. 1979 Puget Sound: A Narrative of Early Tacoma and the Southern Sound. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Morgan, V. E. 1999 The SR-101 Sequim Bypass Archaeological Project: Mid- to Late -Holocene Occupations on the Northern Olympic Peninsula, Clallam County, Washington, Volumes I and ll. Reports in Archaeology and History 100-108. Submitted to the Washington State Department of Transportation. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington. Murphy, Mary Lea n.d. Memories of St. George's Mission. Manuscript in the collection of the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia Archives, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Olson, O. P., L. Johnson, G. Ylitalo, C. Rice, J. Cordell, T. K. Collier, and J. Steger 2008 Fish Habitat Use and Chemical Contaminant Exposure at Restoration Sites in Commencement Bay, Washington. Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-88. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Porter, S. C., and T. W. Swanson 1998 Radiocarbon Age Constraints on Rates of Advance and Retreat of the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet During the Last Glaciation. Quaternary Research 50:205-213. Prucha, Francis Paul 1984 The Great Father, The United States Government and the American Indian. Vols. 1 and 2. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. SWCA Environmental Consultants January31, 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan 63 Puyallup Indian Commission 1892 Letter of the Secretary of the Interior to the President, with report of the Puyallup Indian Commission, and accompanying papers. Senate executive document (United States. Congress. Senate), 52nd Congress, 1st session, no. 34; Native American legal materials collection, title 4205. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C: Richards, Kent 1993 Isaac I. Stevens: Young Man in a Hurry. Washington State University Press, Pullman, Washington. Riser, J. Lauran 2013 Cultural Resources Survey, SR 99 West Fork Hylebos Creek Culvert Replacement Project, King County, Washington. Short Report No. 13-21. Washington State Department of Transportation Cultural Resources Program, Olympia, Washington. Ruby, R. H., and J. A. Brown 1986 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. Sharpe, James, James Bard, and Jessica Feldman 2009 Tacoma/Pierce County HOV Program, 1-5: Port of Tacoma Road to King County Line - HOV: Historic, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources Discipline Report. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation. CH2MHill, Bellevue, Washington. Shaw, Derek, Jennifer Gilpin, and Brent Hicks 2009 Archaeological Monitoring and Cultural Resources Assessment for the 8 & L Woodwaste Site, Fife, Pierce County, Washington. Submitted to Floyd I Snider. Historical Research Associates, Seattle, Washington. Shong, Michael, and Christian J. Miss 2011 Letter Report. Results of Archaeological Monitoring for the Port Parcel 88 Combined Habitat Project, Port of Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington. Prepared for Port of Tacoma, Washington. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Smith, M. W. 1940 The Puyallup-Nisqually. Columbia University Press, New York. Snyder, Dale, Philip S. Gale, and Russell F. Pringle 1973 Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. Lincoln, Nebraska. Sparks, Shane, and Marcia Montgomery 2005 Letter Report: Archaeological and Historical Resources Survey Reportfor the Spring Valley Restoration Project. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympic Region, Olympia, Washington. ENTRIX, Inc., Seattle, Washington. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 64 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long Term Master Plan Sundberg, C. 2010a Historic Property Inventory Form Details, Gethsemane Cemetery. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. 2010b Historic Property Inventory Form Details, St. George's Indian Mission School Cemetery. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Swanton, J. R. 1979 Indian Tribes of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Reprint. Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield, Washington. Trafzer, Clifford, Jean Keller, and Lorene Sisquoc (editors) 2006 Boarding School Blues, Revisiting American Indian Educational Experiences. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. Troost, K. G., and J. K. Stein 1995 Seismic and Seismic Submergence of Archaeological Deposits in the Past 4,000 Years at Seattle, Washington. Chapter 2, Geology and Geoarchaeology of West Point. In The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, WA, edited by L.L. Larson and D.E. Lewarch, pp. 2-1-2-78. King County Department of Metropolitan Services, Archaeological Report, Seattle, Washington. Verhaag, Louis 1898' Reminiscences and Current Topics. Archives of the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) 2016a Cemetery Detail Report, 45KI866, Gethsemane Cemetery. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. 2016b Cemetery Detail Report, 45KI867, St. George's Cemetery. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Waterman, T. T. 2001 Puget Sound Geography. Edited with additional material from V. Hilbert, J. Miller, and Z. Zahir. Zahir Consulting Services/Lushootseed Press, Federal Way, Washington. Weinmann, F., M. Boule, K. Brunner, J. Malek, and V. Yoshino 1984 Wetland Plants of the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Wessen, G. G., and J. M. Welch 1991 A Report of Cultural Resource Survey Activities in the Lake Cushman Project Area, Mason County, Washington. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Williams, R. W., R. M. Laramie, and J. J. Amer 1975 Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. Yount, J. C., J. P. Minard,l.P. and G. R. Dembroff 1993 Geologic map of surficial deposits in the Seattle 30' by 60' quadrangle, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 93-233, scale 1:100,000. SWCA Environmental Consultants January 31, 2017 APPENDIX A: CORRESPONDENCE SWCA Environmental Consultants A-1 January 31, 2017 SWCA ENVI�ONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 2136 Sou ' d Science. Creative Solutions November 10, 2016 221 First Avenue West, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 Tel 206.781.1909 Fax 206.781.0154 www.swca.com Kate Valdez, THPO Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Dear Ms. Valdez, The Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle has retained J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, to develop a long-term master plan for Gethsemane Cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The plan proposes a fifty-year period of development, carried out in five phases, which will affect approximately 15 acres of additional property, all located to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The timing and details of the phases will be determined in the future, but the cemetery expansion will include burials, driveways, mausoleums, and other shrines. As a result of Master Planning, SWCA is conducting preliminary research for a cultural resources assessment of land adjacent to the current Gethsemane Cemetery (Figure 1). Much of the land on which the cemetery is currently located and which is part of the expansion plan was originally the site of St. George's Indian School. The school was founded in 1888 with funding from the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missions and the ongoing assistance of Mother Katherine Drexel. Students from a number of tribes throughout the Northwest attended the school. At the time, the school complex included a main school building and dormitories as well as barns and other facilities to teach agricultural practices and other skills. The school was closed in 1936 and the main building was remodeled as apartments for use by the government as defense housing during World War II. Any remaining buildings from the school were demolished in1971 when the Seattle Archdiocese first developed Gethsemane Cemetery. At this time, we are interested to know if you have any ethnographic information about the school or concerns for cultural resources in or near the project area. If so, please contact us at your earliest convenience so these locations can be taken into account during planning. We respect any concerns you may have about sharing sensitive information with us, and we will be happy to work with you regarding these concerns. You can contact me by phone at 206-781-1909 x6703 or email at brinck@swca.com if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Brandy A. Rinck Geoarchaeologist, M.A., RPA Tel: 206-781-1909 x6703 Fax: 206-781-0154 Email: brinck@swca.com www.swca.com l rr I}IV,11� OL 221 First Avenue West, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington y Tel 206.781.1909 Faxox 206.781.0154 20 www.swca.com _J. - CONSULFANTS 2i36 Sound Science. Creative Solutions November 10, 2016 Johnson Meninick, Cultural Resources Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Dear Mr. Meninick, The Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle has retained J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, to develop a long-term master plan for Gethsemane Cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The plan proposes a fifty-year period of development, carried out in five phases, which will affect approximately 15 acres of additional property, all located to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The timing and details of the phases will be determined in the future, but the cemetery expansion will include burials, driveways, mausoleums, and other shrines. As a result of Master Planning, SWCA is conducting preliminary research for a cultural resources assessment of land adjacent to the current Gethsemane Cemetery (Figure 1). Much of the land on which the cemetery is currently located and which is part of the expansion plan was originally the site of St. George's Indian School. The school was founded in 1888 with funding from the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missions and the ongoing assistance of Mother Katherine Drexel. Students from a number of tribes throughout the Northwest attended the school. At the time, the school complex included a main school building and dormitories as well as barns and other facilities to teach agricultural practices and other skills. The school was closed in 1936 and the main building was remodeled as apartments for use by the government as defense housing during World War II. Any remaining buildings from the school were demolished in1971 when the Seattle Archdiocese first developed Gethsemane Cemetery. At this time, we are interested to know if you have any ethnographic information about the school or concerns for cultural resources in or near the project area. If so, please contact us at your earliest convenience so these locations can be taken into account during planning. We respect any concerns you may have about sharing sensitive information with us, and we will be happy to work with you regarding these concerns. You can contact me by phone at 206-781-1909 x6703 or email at brinck@swca.com if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Brandy A. Rinck Geoarchaeologist, M.A., RPA Tel: 206-781-1909 x6703 Fax:206-781-0154 Email: brinck@swca.com www.swca.com 2136 SNVIrONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Squad Science: Creative Solutions L November 10, 2016 221 First Avenue West, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 Tel 206.781.1909 Fax 206.781.0154 www.swca.com David Powell, TFW Cultural Resources Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Dear Mr. Powell, The Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle has retained J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, to develop a long-term master plan for Gethsemane Cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The plan proposes a fifty-year period of development, carried out in five phases, which will affect approximately 15 acres of additional property, all located to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The timing and details of the phases will be determined in the future, but the cemetery expansion will include burials, driveways, mausoleums, and other shrines. As a result of Master Planning, SWCA is conducting preliminary research for a cultural resources assessment of land adjacent to the current Gethsemane Cemetery (Figure 1). Much of the land on which the cemetery is currently located and which is part of the expansion plan was originally the site of St. George's Indian School. The school was founded in 1888 with funding from the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missions and the ongoing assistance of Mother Katherine Drexel. Students from a number of tribes throughout the Northwest attended the school. At the time, the school complex included a main school building and dormitories as well as barns and other facilities to teach agricultural practices and other skills. The school was closed in 1936 and the main building was remodeled as apartments for use by the government as defense housing during World War II. Any remaining buildings from the school were demolished in1971 when the Seattle Archdiocese first developed Gethsemane Cemetery. At this time, we are interested to know if you have any ethnographic information about the school or concerns for cultural resources in or near the project area. If so, please contact us at your earliest convenience so these locations can be taken into account during planning. We respect any concerns you may have about sharing sensitive information with us, and we will be happy to work with you regarding these concerns. You can contact me by phone at 206-781-1909 x6703 or email at brinck@swca.com if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Brandy A. Rinck Geoarchaeologist, M.A., RPA Tel: 206-781-1909 x6703 Fax: 206-781-0154 Email: brinck@swca.com www.swca.com r- 221 First Avenue West, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 Tel 206.781.1909 Fax 206.781.0154 W W W'SWCO.COM tNV1RUNJ\ihN IAL C UNSULTAM IS 2136 Sound Science: Creative Solutions® November 10, 2016 dAVe Burlingame, Director of Cultural Resources Cowlitz Indian Tribe PO Box 2547 Longview, WA 98632-8594 RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Dear Mr. Burlingame, The Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle has retained J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, to develop a long-term master plan for Gethsemane Cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The plan proposes a fifty-year period of development, carried out in five phases, which will affect approximately 15 acres of additional property, all located to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The timing and details of the phases will be determined in the future, but the cemetery expansion will include burials, driveways, mausoleums, and other shrines. As a result of Master Planning, SWCA is conducting preliminary research for a cultural resources assessment of land adjacent to the current Gethsemane Cemetery (Figure 1). Much of the land on which the cemetery is currently located and which is part of the expansion plan was originally the site of St. George's Indian School. The school was founded in 1888 with funding from the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missions and the ongoing assistance of Mother Katherine Drexel. Students from a number of tribes throughout the Northwest attended the school. At the time, the school complex included a main school building and dormitories as well as barns and other facilities to teach agricultural practices and other skills. The school was closed in 1936 and the main building was remodeled as apartments for use by the government as defense housing during World War II. Any remaining buildings from the school were demolished in1971 when the Seattle Archdiocese first developed Gethsemane Cemetery. At this time, we are interested to know if you have any ethnographic information about the school or concerns for cultural resources in or near the project area. If so, please contact us at your earliest convenience so these locations can be taken into account during planning. We respect any concerns you may have about sharing sensitive information with us, and we will be happy to work with you regarding these concerns. You can contact me by phone at 206-781-1909 x6703 or email at brinck@swca.com if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Brandy A. Rinck Geoarchaeologist, M.A., RPA Tel: 206-781-1909 x6703 Fax:206-781-0154 Email: brinck@swca.com www.swca.com 1 ENY1�ONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 2136 Sound Science. Creative Solutions.' November 10, 2016 Cecile Hansen, Chairwoman Duwamish Tribe 4705 W. Marginal Way S.W. Seattle, WA 98106-1514 221 First Avenue West, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 Tel 206.781.1909 Fax 206.781.0154 www.swca.com RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Dear Ms. Hansen, The Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle has retained J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, to develop a long-term master plan for Gethsemane Cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The plan proposes a fifty-year period of development, carried out in five phases, which will affect approximately 15 acres of additional property, all located to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The timing and details of the phases will be determined in the future, but the cemetery expansion will include burials, driveways, mausoleums, and other shrines. As a result of Master Planning, SWCA is conducting preliminary research for a cultural resources assessment of land adjacent to the current Gethsemane Cemetery (Figure 1). Much of the land on which the cemetery is currently located and which is part of the expansion plan was originally the site of St. George's Indian School. The school was founded in 1888 with funding from the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missions and the ongoing assistance of Mother Katherine Drexel. Students from a number of tribes throughout the Northwest attended the school. At the time, the school complex included a main school building and dormitories as well as barns and other facilities to teach agricultural practices and other skills. The school was closed in 1936 and the main building was remodeled as apartments for use by the government as defense housing during World War II. Any remaining buildings from the school were demolished in1971 when the Seattle Archdiocese first developed Gethsemane Cemetery. At this time, we are interested to know if you have any ethnographic information about the school or concerns for cultural resources in or near the project area. If so, please contact us at your earliest convenience so these locations can be taken into account during planning. We respect any concerns you may have about sharing sensitive information with us, and we will be happy to work with you regarding these concerns. You can contact me by phone at 206-781-1909 x6703 or email at brinck@swca.com if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, C44a45��. ia-� Brandy A. Rinck Geoarchaeologist, M.A., RPA Tel: 206-781-1909 x6703 Fax:206-781-0154 Email: brinck@swca.com www.swca.com 2136 r SWr,-.C,A- ENVIPONMENTAL CONSULTANIS Sound Science: Creative Solutions November 10, 2016 Lena Tso, THPO Lummi Nation 2665 Kwina Road Bellingham, WA 98226-9298 221 First Avenue West, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 Tel 206,781.1909 Fax 206.781.0154 www.swca.com RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Dear Ms. Tso, The Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle has retained J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, to develop a long-term master plan for Gethsemane Cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The plan proposes a fifty-year period of development, carried out in five phases, which will affect approximately 15 acres of additional property, all located to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The timing and details of the phases will be determined in the future, but the cemetery expansion will include burials, driveways, mausoleums, and other shrines. As a result of Master Planning, SWCA is conducting preliminary research for a cultural resources assessment of land adjacent to the current Gethsemane Cemetery (Figure 1). Much of the land on which the cemetery is currently located and which is part of the expansion plan was originally the site of St. George's Indian School. The school was founded in 1888 with funding from the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missions and the ongoing assistance of Mother Katherine Drexel. Students from a number of tribes throughout the Northwest attended the school. At the time, the school complex included a main school building and dormitories as well as barns and other facilities to teach agricultural practices and other skills. The school was closed in 1936 and the main building was remodeled as apartments for use by the government as defense housing during World War II. Any remaining buildings from the school were demolished in1971 when the Seattle Archdiocese first developed Gethsemane Cemetery. At this time, we are interested to know if you have any ethnographic information about the school or concerns for cultural resources in or near the project area. If so, please contact us at your earliest convenience so these locations can be taken into account during planning. We respect any concerns you may have about sharing sensitive information with us, and we will be happy to work with you regarding these concerns. You can contact me by phone at 206-781-1909 x6703 or email at brinck@swca.com if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Brandy A. Rinck Geoarchaeologist, M.A., RPA Tel: 206-781-1909 x6703 Fax:206-781-0154 Email: brinck@swca.com www.swca.com 2136 221 First Avenue West, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 Tel 206.781.1909 Fax 206.781.0154 www.swca corn ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Sound Science: Creative Solutions November 10, 2016 Laura Murphy Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Dear Laura, The Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle has retained J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, to develop a long-term master plan for Gethsemane Cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The plan proposes a fifty-year period of development, carried out in five phases, which will affect approximately 15 acres of additional property, all located to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The timing and details of the phases will be determined in the future, but the cemetery expansion will include burials, driveways, mausoleums, and other shrines. As a result of Master Planning, SWCA is conducting preliminary research for a cultural resources assessment of land adjacent to the current Gethsemane Cemetery (Figure 1). Much of the land on which the cemetery is currently located and which is part of the expansion plan was originally the site of St. George's Indian School. The school was founded in 1888 with funding from the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missions and the ongoing assistance of Mother Katherine Drexel. Students from a number of tribes throughout the Northwest attended the school. At the time, the school complex included a main school building and dormitories as well as barns and other facilities to teach agricultural practices and other skills. The school was closed in 1936 and the main building was remodeled as apartments for use by the government as defense housing during World War II. Any remaining buildings from the school were demolished in1971 when the Seattle Archdiocese first developed Gethsemane Cemetery. At this time, we are interested to know if you have any ethnographic information about the school or concerns for cultural resources in or near the project area. If so, please contact us at your earliest convenience so these locations can be taken into account during planning. We respect any concerns you may have about sharing sensitive information with us, and we will be happy to work with you regarding these concerns. You can contact me by phone at 206-781-1909 x6703 or email at brinck@swca.com if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Brandy A. Rinck Geoarchaeologist, M.A., RPA Tel: 206-781-1909 x6703 Fax:206-781-0154 Email: brinck@swca.com www.swca.com Z136 f SNN-,CA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUL[AN15 Sound Science. Creative Solutions." November 10, 2016 Jackie Wall 221 First Avenue West, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 Tel 206.781.1909 Fax 206.781.0154 www.swca.com Nisqually Tribal Historic Preservation Office 4820 She-Nah-Num Drive SE Olympia, WA 98513-9105 RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Dear Ms. Wall, The Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle has retained J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, to develop a long-term master plan for Gethsemane Cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The plan proposes a fifty-year period of development, carried out in five phases, which will affect approximately 15 acres of additional property, all located to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The timing and details of the phases will be determined in the future, but the cemetery expansion will include burials, driveways, mausoleums, and other shrines. As a result of Master Planning, SWCA is conducting preliminary research for a cultural resources assessment of land adjacent to the current Gethsemane Cemetery (Figure 1). Much of the land on which the cemetery is currently located and which is part of the expansion plan was originally the site of St. George's Indian School. The school was founded in 1888 with funding from the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missions and the ongoing assistance of Mother Katherine Drexel. Students from a number of tribes throughout the Northwest attended the school. At the time, the school complex included a main school building and dormitories as well as barns and other facilities to teach agricultural practices and other skills. The school was closed in 1936 and the main building was remodeled as apartments for use by the government as defense housing during World War II. Any remaining buildings from the school were demolished in1971 when the Seattle Archdiocese first developed Gethsemane Cemetery. At this time, we are interested to know if you have any ethnographic information about the school or concerns for cultural resources in or near the project area. If so, please contact us at your earliest convenience so these locations can be taken into account during planning. We respect any concerns you may have about sharing sensitive information with us, and we will be happy to work with you regarding these concerns. You can contact me by phone at 206-781-1909 x6703 or email at brinck@swca.com if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Brandy A. Rinck Geoarchaeologist, M.A., RPA Tel: 206-781-1909 x6703 Fax: 206-781-0154 Email: brinck@swca.com www.swca.com Nisqually Indian Tribe 4820 She-Nah-Num Dr. S.E. Olympia, WA 98513 (360) 456-5221 November 15, 2016 Brandy Rinck SWCA 221 First Ave. W. Ste. 205 Seattle, WA 98119 Dear Ms. Rinck. The Nisqually Indian Tribe thanks you for the opportunity to comment on: Re: Gethsemane Cemetery The Nisqually Indian Tribe has reviewed the letter you provided for the above -named project. The Nisqually Indian Tribe defers to the Puyallup Tribe as they own the Indian School Cemetery that is also there. Sincerely, Jackie Wall THPO Nisqually Indian Tribe (360)456-5221 Ext. 2180 wall.iackie nis uail -nsn. ov S'W"C' l 1 ENVI�ONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 2136 so"Ci science. Creative Solutions! November 10, 2016 Annette Bullchild 221 First Avenue West, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 Tel 206.781.1909 Fax 206.781.0154 WWW.SWCG.COM Nisqually Tribal Historic Preservation Office 4820 She-Nah-Num Drive SE Olympia, WA 98513-9105 RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Dear Ms. Bullchild, The Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle has retained J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, to develop a long-term master plan for Gethsemane Cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The plan proposes a fifty-year period of development, carried out in five phases, which will affect approximately 15 acres of additional property, all located to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The timing and details of the phases will be determined in the future, but the cemetery expansion will include burials, driveways, mausoleums, and other shrines. As a result of Master Planning, SWCA is conducting preliminary research for a cultural resources assessment of land adjacent to the current Gethsemane Cemetery (Figure 1). Much of the land on which the cemetery is currently located and which is part of the expansion plan was originally the site of St. George's Indian School. The school was founded in 1888 with funding from the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missions and the ongoing assistance of Mother Katherine Drexel. Students from a number of tribes throughout the Northwest attended the school. At the time, the school complex included a main school building and dormitories as well as barns and other facilities to teach agricultural practices and other skills. The school was closed in 1936 and the main building was remodeled as apartments for use by the government as defense housing during World War II. Any remaining buildings from the school were demolished in1971 when the Seattle Archdiocese first developed Gethsemane Cemetery. At this time, we are interested to know if you have any ethnographic information about the school or concerns for cultural resources in or near the project area. If so, please contact us at your earliest convenience so these locations can be taken into account during planning. We respect any concerns you may have about sharing sensitive information with us, and we will be happy to work with you regarding these concerns. You can contact me by phone at 206-781-1909 x6703 or email at brinck@swca.com if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Brandy A. Rinck Geoarchaeologist, M.A., RPA Tel: 206-781-1909 x6703 Fax:206-781-0154 Email: brinck@swca.com www.swca.com From: Brandy A. Rinck Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 3:33 PM To: Sharon A. Boswell Subject: FW: Gethsemane Cemetery From: Annette Bullchild[maiIto:bullchiId. annetteConisqualfy-nsn.gov] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 1:16 PM To: Brandy A. Rinck Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Hello Brandy, can we get a list of the school records that show the Nisqually Tribe students, we would then be able to do research. Thank You Annette "Nettsie" Bullchild Nisqually Tribe THPO (360) 456-5221 ext 1106 bullchild.annette( 7a,nisqually-nsn.2ov 2136 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Sound Science. Creadvie Solutions! November 10, 2016 Brandon Reynon Puyallup Tribe 3009 East Portland Avenue Tacoma, WA 98404 221 First Avenue West, Suife 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 Tel 206.781.1909 Fax 206.781.0154 www.swca.com RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Dear Brandon, The Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle has retained J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, to develop a long-term master plan for Gethsemane Cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The plan proposes a fifty-year period of development, carried out in five phases, which will affect approximately 15 acres of additional property, all located to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The timing and details of the phases will be determined in the future, but the cemetery expansion will include burials, driveways, mausoleums, and other shrines. As a result of Master Planning, SWCA is conducting preliminary research for a cultural resources assessment of land adjacent to the current Gethsemane Cemetery (Figure 1). Much of the land on which the cemetery is currently located and which is part of the expansion plan was originally the site of St. George's Indian School. The school was founded in 1888 with funding from the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missions and the ongoing assistance of Mother Katherine Drexel. Students from a number of tribes throughout the Northwest attended the school. At the time, the school complex included a main school building and dormitories as well as barns and other facilities to teach agricultural practices and other skills. The school was closed in 1936 and the main building was remodeled as apartments for use by the government as defense housing during World War II. Any remaining buildings from the school were demolished in1971 when the Seattle Archdiocese first developed Gethsemane Cemetery. At this time, we are interested to know if you have any ethnographic information about the school or concerns for cultural resources in or near the project area. If so, please contact us at your earliest convenience so these locations can be taken into account during planning. We respect any concerns you may have about sharing sensitive information with us, and we will be happy to work with you regarding these concerns. You can contact me by phone at 206-781-1909 x6703 or email at brinck@swca.com if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Brandy A. Rinck Geoarchaeologist, M.A., RPA Tel: 206-781-1909 x6703 Fax:206-781-0154 Email: brinck@swca.com www.swca.com From: Brandy A. Rinck Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 3:28 PM To: Sharon A. Boswell Subject: FW: Gethsemane Cemetery From: Brandon Reynon(mailto:brandon.reynonC@12uyalluptribe.com7 Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 4:24 PM To: Brandy A. Rinck Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Hey Brandy, Yes, we will definitely have some information for you. You are correct that Puyallup had many children attend that school and even children buried in the vicinity of Gethsemane cemetery. We are aware of some and their locations, but can't rule out that there are more in the vicinity. I look forward to working with you all closely on this project. Sincerely, eRfLel" u7L 77c--V0� Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Assistant Director Historic Preservation Department Puyallup Tribe of Indians 253.573.7986 (w) 253.225.4807 (c) E-verything I am is because of my Ancestors 221 First Avenue West, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 Tel 206.781.1909 Fax 206.781.0154 www.swca.com ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 2136 Saimid Scienc2. Creative; Solutions' November 10, 2016 Jeffrey Thomas Puyallup Tribe 6824 Pioneer Way Puyallup, WA 98371 RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Dear Mr. Thomas, The Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle has retained J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, to develop a long-term master plan for Gethsemane Cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The plan proposes a fifty-year period of development, carried out in five phases, which will affect approximately 15 acres of additional property, all located to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The timing and details of the phases will be determined in the future, but the cemetery expansion will include burials, driveways, mausoleums, and other shrines. As a result of Master Planning, SWCA is conducting preliminary research for a cultural resources assessment of land adjacent to the current Gethsemane Cemetery (Figure 1). Much of the land on which the cemetery is currently located and which is part of the expansion plan was originally the site of St. George's Indian School. The school was founded in 1888 with funding from the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missions and the ongoing assistance of Mother Katherine Drexel. Students from a number of tribes throughout the Northwest attended the school. At the time, the school complex included a main school building and dormitories as well as barns and other facilities to teach agricultural practices and other skills. The school was closed in 1936 and the main building was remodeled as apartments for use by the government as defense housing during World War II. Any remaining buildings from the school were demolished in1971 when the Seattle Archdiocese first developed Gethsemane Cemetery. At this time, we are interested to know if you have any ethnographic information about the school or concerns for cultural resources in or near the project area. If so, please contact us at your earliest convenience so these locations can be taken into account during planning. We respect any concerns you may have about sharing sensitive information with us, and we will be happy to work with you regarding these concerns. You can contact me by phone at 206-781-1909 x6703 or email at brinck@swca.com if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, c4za_�� yz:.� Brandy A. Rinck Geoarchaeologist, M.A., RPA Tel: 206-781-1909 x6703 Fax:206-781-0154 Email: brinck@swca.com www.swca.com From: Brandy A. Rinck Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 10:53 AM To: Sharon A. Boswell Subject: FW: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan From: Miller, Kris [mailto:kmiller skokomist�.or ] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:10 PM To: Brandy A. Rinck Subject: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Brandy Rinick, The Skokomish THPO has received and reviewed your letter regarding the Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan located at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, WA. We have no comments or concerns, nor do we have any ethnographic information regarding the project area. Please be sure to contact other local tribes with an interest in the area. If you have further questions, please contact me at shlanayl@skokomish.org Sincerely, Kris Miller Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 80 N Tribal Center Road Skokomish, WA 98584 shlanavl rc_v�skokomish. ors Z136 221 First Avenue West, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 Tel 206.781.1909 Fax 206.781.0154 www.swca.com ENVIPONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Sound Science. Creative Solutions November 10, 2016 Kris Miller, THPO Skokomish Tribe N 80 Tribal Center Road Skokomish, WA 98584-9748 RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Dear Kris Miller, The Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle has retained J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, to develop a long-term master plan for Gethsemane Cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The plan proposes a fifty-year period of development, carried out in five phases, which will affect approximately 15 acres of additional property, all located to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The timing and details of the phases will be determined in the future, but the cemetery expansion will include burials, driveways, mausoleums, and other shrines. As a result of Master Planning, SWCA is conducting preliminary research for a cultural resources assessment of land adjacent to the current Gethsemane Cemetery (Figure 1). Much of the land on which the cemetery is currently located and which is part of the expansion plan was originally the site of St. George's Indian School. The school was founded in 1888 with funding from the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missions and the ongoing assistance of Mother Katherine Drexel. Students from a number of tribes throughout the Northwest attended the school. At the time, the school complex included a main school building and dormitories as well as barns and other facilities to teach agricultural practices and other skills. The school was closed in 1936 and the main building was remodeled as apartments for use by the government as defense housing during World War II. Any remaining buildings from the school were demolished in1971 when the Seattle Archdiocese first developed Gethsemane Cemetery. At this time, we are interested to know if you have any ethnographic information about the school or concerns for cultural resources in or near the project area. If so, please contact us at your earliest convenience so these locations can be taken into account during planning. We respect any concerns you may have about sharing sensitive information with us, and we will be happy to work with you regarding these concerns. You can contact me by phone at 206-781-1909 x6703 or email at brinck@swca.com if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Brandy A. Rinck Geoarchaeologist, M.A., RPA Tel: 206-781-1909 x6703 Fax:206-781-0154 Email: brinck@swca.com www.swca.com ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS i 2136 `l Spnnd Science. dmative Solutions November 10, 2016 Rhonda Foster, THPO Squaxin Island Tribe SE 70 Squaxin Lane Shelton, WA 98584-9200 221 First Avenue West, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 Tel 206.781.1909 Fax 206.781.0154 www.swca.com RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Dear Ms. Foster, The Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle has retained J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, to develop a long-term master plan for Gethsemane Cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The plan proposes a fifty-year period of development, carried out in five phases, which will affect approximately 15 acres of additional property, all located to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The timing and details of the phases will be determined in the future, but the cemetery expansion will include burials, driveways, mausoleums, and other shrines. As a result of Master Planning, SWCA is conducting preliminary research for a cultural resources assessment of land adjacent to the current Gethsemane Cemetery (Figure 1). Much of the land on which the cemetery is currently located and which is part of the expansion plan was originally the site of St. George's Indian School. The school was founded in 1888 with funding from the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missions and the ongoing assistance of Mother Katherine Drexel. Students from a number of tribes throughout the Northwest attended the school. At the time, the school complex included a main school building and dormitories as well as barns and other facilities to teach agricultural practices and other skills. The school was closed in 1936 and the main building was remodeled as apartments for use by the government as defense housing during World War II. Any remaining buildings from the school were demolished in1971 when the Seattle Archdiocese first developed Gethsemane Cemetery. At this time, we are interested to know if you have any ethnographic information about the school or concerns for cultural resources in or near the project area. If so, please contact us at your earliest convenience so these locations can be taken into account during planning. We respect any concerns you may have about sharing sensitive information with us, and we will be happy to work with you regarding these concerns. You can contact me by phone at 206-781-1909 x6703 or email at brinck@swca.com if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, i Brandy A. Rinck Geoarchaeologist, M.A., RPA Tel: 206-781-1909 x6703 Fax: 206-781-0154 Email: brinck@swca.com www.swca.com Z136 � 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Sound Science. Creative Solutions! November 10, 2016 Dennis Lewarch, THPO Suquamish Tribe PO Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392-0498 221 First Avenue West, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 Tel 206.781.1909 Fax 206.781.0154 www.swca.com RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Dear Mr. Lewarch, The Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle has retained J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, to develop a long-term master plan for Gethsemane Cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The plan proposes a fifty-year period of development, carried out in five phases, which will affect approximately 15 acres of additional property, all located to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The timing and details of the phases will be determined in the future, but the cemetery expansion will include burials, driveways, mausoleums, and other shrines. As a result of Master Planning, SWCA is conducting preliminary research for a cultural resources assessment of land adjacent to the current Gethsemane Cemetery (Figure 1). Much of the land on which the cemetery is currently located and which is part of the expansion plan was originally the site of St. George's Indian School. The school was founded in 1888 with funding from the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missions and the ongoing assistance of Mother Katherine Drexel. Students from a number of tribes throughout the Northwest attended the school. At the time, the school complex included a main school building and dormitories as well as barns and other facilities to teach agricultural practices and other skills. The school was closed in 1936 and the main building was remodeled as apartments for use by the government as defense housing during World War II. Any remaining buildings from the school were demolished in1971 when the Seattle Archdiocese first developed Gethsemane Cemetery. At this time, we are interested to know if you have any ethnographic information about the school or concerns for cultural resources in or near the project area. If so, please contact us at your earliest convenience so these locations can be taken into account during planning. We respect any concerns you may have about sharing sensitive information with us, and we will be happy to work with you regarding these concerns. You can contact me by phone at 206-781-1909 x6703 or email at brinck@swca.com if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Brandy A. Rinck Geoarchaeologist, M.A., RPA Tel: 206-781-1909 x6703 Fax: 206-781-0154 Email: brinck@swca.com www.swca.com Rhiannon K. Held From: Brandy A. Rinck Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 3:28 PM To: Sharon A. Boswell Subject: FW: Gethsemane Cemetery From: Dennis Lewarch[mailto:dlewarch@Strguamish.nsn.us] Sent: Thursday; November 10, 2016 3:43 PM To: Brandy A. Rinck Subject: RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Thank you, Brandy. I have a meeting with Leonard on Tuesday and will see if he has any information. Best, Dennis Dennis E. Lewarch Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Fisheries Department, Suquamish Tribe Y Office Telephone:360-394-8529 Ce11:360-509-1321 FAX.360-598-4666 Mailing Address: Suquamish Tribe Administration Building Street Address: P.O. Box 498 18490 Suquamish Way Suquamish, WA 98392 Suquamish, WA 98392 r' 2136 i� 221 First Avenue West, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 Tel 206.781.1909 Fax 206.781.0154 www.swca.com ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Sour d Science Creative Solutions r November 10, 2016 Richard Young, Cultural Resources Tulalip Tribes - Hibulb Cultural Center & Natural History Preserve 6410 23rd Avenue NE Tulalip, WA 98271 RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Dear Richard, The Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle has retained J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, to develop a long-term master plan for Gethsemane Cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The plan proposes a fifty-year period of development, carried out in five phases, which will affect approximately 15 acres of additional property, all located to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The timing and details of the phases will be determined in the future, but the cemetery expansion will include burials, driveways, mausoleums, and other shrines. As a result of Master Planning, SWCA is conducting preliminary research for a cultural resources assessment of land adjacent to the current Gethsemane Cemetery (Figure 1). Much of the land on which the cemetery is currently located and which is part of the expansion plan was originally the site of St. George's Indian School. The school was founded in 1888 with funding from the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missions and the ongoing assistance of Mother Katherine Drexel. Students from a number of tribes throughout the Northwest attended the school. At the time, the school complex included a main school building and dormitories as well as barns and other facilities to teach agricultural practices and other skills. The school was closed in 1936 and the main building was remodeled as apartments for use by the government as defense housing during World War II. Any remaining buildings from the school were demolished in1971 when the Seattle Archdiocese first developed Gethsemane Cemetery. At this time, we are interested to know if you have any ethnographic information about the school or concerns for cultural resources in or near the project area. If so, please contact us at your earliest convenience so these locations can be taken into account during planning. We respect any concerns you may have about sharing sensitive information with us, and we will be happy to work with you regarding these concerns. You can contact me by phone at 206-781-1909 x6703 or email at brinck@swca.com if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, CJZ62_�� P"� Brandy A. Rinck Geoarchaeologist, M.A., RPA Tel: 206-781-1909 x6703 Fax:206-781-0154 Email: brinck@swca.com www.swca.com 2136 FNVI�ONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Sound Science: Creative Solutions November 10, 2016 Tim Brewer 221 First Avenue West, Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 Tel 206.781.1909 Fax 206.781.0154 www.swca.com Tulalip Tribes - Hibulb Cultural Center & Natural History Preserve 6410 23rd Avenue NE Tulalip, WA 98271 RE: Gethsemane Cemetery Phased Long -Range Master Plan Dear Mr. Brewer, The Corporation of the Archbishop of Seattle has retained J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, to develop a long-term master plan for Gethsemane Cemetery at 37600 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The plan proposes a fifty-year period of development, carried out in five phases, which will affect approximately 15 acres of additional property, all located to the west of West Hylebos Creek. The timing and details of the phases will be determined in the future, but the cemetery expansion will include burials, driveways, mausoleums, and other shrines. As a result of Master Planning, SWCA is conducting preliminary research for a cultural resources assessment of land adjacent to the current Gethsemane Cemetery (Figure 1). Much of the land on which the cemetery is currently located and which is part of the expansion plan was originally the site of St. George's Indian School. The school was founded in 1888 with funding from the Catholic Bureau of Indian Missions and the ongoing assistance of Mother Katherine Drexel. Students from a number of tribes throughout the Northwest attended the school. At the time, the school complex included a main school building and dormitories as well as barns and other facilities to teach agricultural practices and other skills. The school was closed in 1936 and the main building was remodeled as apartments for use by the government as defense housing during World War II. Any remaining buildings from the school were demolished in1971 when the Seattle Archdiocese first developed Gethsemane Cemetery. At this time, we are interested to know if you have any ethnographic information about the school or concerns for cultural resources in or near the project area. If so, please contact us at your earliest convenience so these locations can be taken into account during planning. We respect any concerns you may have about sharing sensitive information with us, and we will be happy to work with you regarding these concerns. You can contact me by phone at 206-781-1909 x6703 or email at brinck@swca.com if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Brandy A. Rinck Geoarchaeologist, M.A., RPA Tel: 206-781-1909 x6703 Fax:206-781-0154 Email: brinck@swca.com www.swca.com APPENDIX B: SHOVEL PROBE AND TEST PIT SUMMARY SWCA Environmental Consultants B-1 January 31, 2017 Table B-1. Shovel Probe Summary NO. UTM (Zone 10, NAD83) TOP BOTTOM STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION CULTURAL NORTHING EASTING (cmbs) (cmbs) MATERIAL SP 1 5234820 550312 0 25 Grayish brown, slightly fine sandy, clayey silt with very few, sub -angular to rounded, small to large pebbles; many rootlets to medium roots; loose; wet; A horizon formed in fill; gradual lower boundary. 25 45 Grayish brown, clayey silt with common rootlets; bioturbated by worms and roots; weak, sub -angular blocky to partly tabular, friable structure; A/B horizon formed in glaciomarine; gradual lower boundary. 45 70 Brownish gray, bedded, clayey silt to silty, fine sand; bedded and laminated on order of 0.25 to 5 cm thick beds; few rootlets; compact; tabular, friable, moderately -strong structure; C horizon formed in glaciomarine. * Probe terminated in sterile glaciomarine sediments. SP 2 5234856 550326 0 39 Grayish brown, silt with traces of sand and very few, angular to sub -angular, small to medium pebbles; few rootlets; few charcoal flecks; A horizon; clear, smooth lower boundary. 39 61 Light brownish gray, silty clay with very few, angular, small to medium pebbles; very few rootlets; common iron oxide staining; strong, angular blocky structure; C horizon formed in glaciomarine. * Probe terminated in sterile glaciomarine sediments. SP 3 5234893 550338 0 14 Brown, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, medium pebbles; A horizon; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. 14 35 Gray, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, medium pebbles; A horizon mixed in fill; abrupt, smooth tower boundary. 35 51 Reddish brown, gravelly, silty, coarse sand; gravels are few, sub -rounded, small to medium pebbles; fill; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. 51 65 Gray and brown, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, medium pebbles; mixed appearance; fill; clear, smooth lower boundary. 65 73 Light brown, gravelly, silty sand; gravels are few, sub - rounded, small to medium pebbles; compact; C horizon formed in possible glacial outwash. * Probe terminated in sterile glacial sediments. SP 4 5234878 550389 0 13 Brown, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, medium pebbles; A horizon; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. 13 62 Gray, gravelly, clayey silt; gravels are few, sub -rounded, very small to large pebbles; common mottles; compact; woody debris; fill. * Probe terminated due to compact cobbles in fill. SP 5 5234838 550381 0 20 Grayish brown, fine sandy, clayey silt with very few, sub - angular to rounded, small pebbles to small cobbles; many rootlets; sod on top; A horizon formed in fill; clear to gradual lower boundary. 20 45 Brownish gray, clayey silt to medium sand; appears to be bedded; tabular, friable, weak to moderately strong structure; glaciomarine sediments used as fill; gradual lower boundary. 45 115 Mottled gray and brown, mixed, fine to medium sand and clayey silt with very few, sub -angular to rounded, small to very large pebbles; few root and large bark fragments; loose; B horizon formed in fill or disturbed glacial; clear to gradual lower boundary. * Began augering at 93 cmbs. 115 145 Mottled, brownish gray and dark grayish brown, bedded, clayey silt to medium sand with very few, sub -angular to sub -rounded, very small to very large pebbles; few rootlets and organic fibers; common, orange redox mottles; locally common charcoal fragments; beds are on order of 2-5 cm thick; B horizon formed in glacial. Column redacted SWCA Environmental Consultants B-3 January 31, 2017 Table B-1. Shovel Probe Summary NO. UTM (Zone 10, NAD83) TOP BOTTOM NORTHING EASTING (curbs) (curbs) CULTURAL DESCRIPTION MATERIAL MATERIAL 145 190 Mottled orange and light gray, slightly clayey, fine sandy, silt transitioning to gray, clayey silt with depth; few rootlets and organic fibers; compact; weathered glaciomarine. * Probe terminated in sterile glaciomarine sediments. SP 6 5234838 550413 0 13 Brownish gray, gravelly, fine to coarse sandy, silt; gravels are few, sub -rounded to rounded, small to medium pebbles; common rootlets to fine roots; A horizon; clear, smooth lower boundary. 13 31 Brownish gray, fine to coarse sandy, silty, sub -rounded to rounded, very large pebbles to large cobbles; few rootlets and charcoal flecks; fill; abrupt, wavy lower boundary. 31 56 Mottled grayish brown and yellowish brown; gravelly, sandy, clayey silt; gravels are few, sub -rounded to rounded, medium to very large pebbles; few rootlets; water seeping in at 35 cmbs; common iron oxide staining; disturbed glacial mixed with fill; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. 56 85 Gray and yellowish gray, silty clay with few rootlets; common iron oxide staining and yellowish mottles; weathered or soil altered glaciomarine; gradual lower boundary. * Began augering at 80 cmbs. 85 140 Mottled gray and yellowish gray, clay; strong, angular blocky structure; occasional iron oxide staining; glaciomarine. * Probe terminated in sterile glaciomarine sediments. SP 7 5234869 550423 0 48 Dark brownish gray, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, small to medium pebbles; many large roots; A horizon; clear, wavy lower boundary. 48 63 Light brownish gray, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, small to medium pebbles; many, dark yellow mottles; compact; water at 50 cmbs; B/C horizon. * Probe terminated in sterile glacial sediments. SP 8 5234902 550427 0 65 Grayish brown, fine sandy, silt with very few, sub -angular to sub -rounded, small to medium pebbles; common rootlets and small roots; few charcoal flecks and woody debris; common, yellowish iron oxide mottles and staining; glacial sediments used as fill. 65 100 Dark grayish brown, fine to medium sandy, silt with common rootlets and few charcoal fragments; common woody debris; water at 66 cmbs; buried A horizon; clear lower boundary. 100 115 Gray clay with very few rootlets above 110 cmbs; C horizon formed in glaciomarine. * Probe terminated in sterile glaciomarine sediments. SP 9 5234900 550466 0 9 Brown, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, small pebbles; many small roots; A horizon; clear, smooth lower boundary. 9 50 Light brown, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, small pebbles; common, dark yellow mottles; more compact with depth; clear, smooth lower boundary. 50 55 Bluish gray, clayey silt (gleyed); saturated; compact; water at 50 cmbs; C horizon formed in glacial. * Probe terminated in sterile glacial sediments. SP 10 5234887 550445 0 21 Dark brown, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, small pebbles; many, small roots; A horizon; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. 21 47 Light brown, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, small pebbles; common, dark yellow mottles; more compact with depth; possible wetland deposit; clear, smooth lower boundary. SWCA Environmental Consultants B-4 January 31, 2017 Table B-1. Shovel Probe Summary UTM (Zone 10, NAD83) TOP BOTTOM NO. NORTHING EASTING (cmbs) (cmbs) CULTURAL STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION MATERIAL 47 66 Brownish gray, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, small pebbles; compact; saturated; water at about 60 cmbs; possible C horizon formed in glacial. * Probe terminated in compact, sterile glacial sediments. SP 11 5234876 550477 0 20 Dark brown, sandy silt with very few, sub -rounded, small pebbles and many, small roots; A horizon; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. 20 60 Light brown, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, small pebbles; common, dark yellow mottles; more compact with depth; disturbed or redeposited C horizon. 60 70 Brownish gray, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, small pebbles; compact; saturated; water at about 60 cmbs; possible C horizon formed in glacial. * Probe terminated in compact, sterile glacial sediments. SP 12 5234850 550444 0 23 Grayish brown, fine to coarse sandy, silt with very few, sub - angular to sub -rounded, small to large pebbles; common rootlets and few charcoal specks; common woody debris; A horizon; clear, smooth lower boundary. 23 70 Brownish gray, fine sandy, clayey silt with yellowish mottles; many charcoal fragments up to 1 cm diameter; few rootlets; common iron oxide staining; disturbed or reworked glacial sediments; clear, smooth lower boundary. 70 80 Gray, silty clay with few, iron oxide stains; strong, angular blocky structure; C horizon formed in glaciomarine. * Probe terminated in compact, sterile glacial sediments. SP 13 5234823 550442 0 28 Dark grayish brown, silty, gravelly, fine to coarse sand; gravels are common to many, sub -angular to rounded, small pebbles to small cobbles; many rootlets; A horizon formed in fill; clear, smooth lower boundary. 28 75 Mottled gray and yellowish brown, fine sandy, clayey silt with common rootlets and few organic debris; orange and dark brown mottles due to iron oxide and manganese oxide; appears disturbed above 50 cmbs; B horizon. 75 110 Brownish gray, bedded, clayey silt to silty, very fine sand; few rootlets; very compact; laminated and bedded; tabular, friable, moderately strong structure; glaciomarine. * Began augering at 80 cmbs. * Probe terminated in compact, sterile glaciomarine sediments. SP 14 5234822 550465 0 30 Grayish brown, fine sandy, silt with very few, sub -angular to rounded, small to medium pebbles; many rootlets; granular, fine, weak structure; A horizon. 30 52 Yellowish to brownish gray, clayey silt with common rootlets; B horizon formed in disturbed deposit; clear to gradual lower boundary. 52 165 Brownish gray to gray, clayey silt with few rootlets; orange and brown, rootburn with charcoal down NE wall about 5 cm wide; compact; fine to medium sand bed near between 150 and 160 cmbs; B horizon formed in weathered glacial deposits. * Began augering at 85 cmbs. 165 170 Light brownish gray to gray, bedded, clayey to fine sandy, silt; compact; tabular, friable structure; glaciomarine. * Probe terminated in compact, sterile glaciomarine sediments. SP 15 5234821 550507 0 22 Grayish brown, gravelly, fine to medium sandy, silt; gravels are few, sub -angular to sub -rounded, small to medium pebbles; common rootlets to small roots; A horizon; gradual lower boundary. SWCA Environmental Consultants B-5 January 31, 2017 Table B-1. Shovel Probe Summary NO. UTM (Zone 10, NAD83) TOP BOTTOM STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION CULTURAL NORTHING EASTING (cmbs) (cmbs) MATERIAL 22 96 SP 16 5234858 550502 0 9 9 19 19 49 49 57 SP17 5234787 550493 0 35 35 60 60 75 75 110 110 120 SP18 5234768 550461 0 12 12 24 24 50 50 65 SP 19 5234763 550508 0 25 25 80 Mottled light gray and yellowish gray, fine sandy, silty clay with very few, sub -rounded, medium to large pebbles; few rootlets; common charcoal fragments up to 1 cm in size; possible C horizon; reworked or disturbed glacial. * Began augering at 75 cmbs. * Probe terminated due to rock obstructing auger. Dark brown, gravelly, fine sandy, silt; gravels are few, sub - rounded, very small to medium pebbles; common, small roots; A horizon; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. Light brown, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, very small to large pebbles; common, dark yellow mottles; fill; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. Brownish gray, coarse sandy, silt with very few, sub - rounded, very small to large pebbles; saturated; fill; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. Light brown, silt with very few, sub -rounded, very small to medium pebbles; compact; saturated; common, dark yellow mottles; C horizon formed in glacial. * Probe terminated in sterile glacial sediments. Brown, gravelly, fine to coarse sand; gravels are common, sub -rounded, small to very large pebbles; common to many rootlets; sod; fill; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. Very dark brownish gray, fine sandy, silt with very few, sub - angular to sub -rounded, small pebbles; common, scattered, small to large charcoal fragments; common, small roots; fill; redeposited A horizon material; clear lower boundary. Dark to very dark brown, clayey silt with few charcoal fragments and common to many rootlets; common iron and manganese oxide mottles and weak nodules; intact, buried A horizon; clear to gradual, bioturbated lower boundary. Mottled orange and light gray, clayey silt with few rootlets and organic fibers; compact; color becomes more gray with depth; common, strong iron and manganese oxide mottles and nodules; granular to sub -angular blocky structure; B horizon formed in glaciomarine. * Began augering at 100 cmbs. Mottled pale orange and light gray, clayey silt with very few rootlets; compact; common, strong iron and manganese oxide mottles and nodules; C horizon formed in glaciomarine. * Probe terminated in sterile glaciomarine sediments. Brownish gray, gravelly, silty, fine to medium sand; gravels are few, sub -rounded, small to medium pebbles; common rootlets and few charcoal flecks; A horizon; clear lower boundary. Yellowish brown, silty, fine to medium sand with very few, sub -angular to sub -rounded, very small to medium pebbles; few rootlets; water seeping in at about 24 cmbs; B horizon; abrupt lower boundary. Gray, silty clay with yellow mottles and few rootlets; disturbed or reworked C horizon; clear lower boundary. Gray clay; very compact; C horizon formed in glaciomarine. * Probe terminated in sterile glaciomarine sediments. Grayish brown, slightly clayey, gravelly, fine to coarse sandy, silt; gravels are few to common, sub -angular to sub - rounded, very small to very large pebbles; many rootlets; sod cap; A horizon formed in fill; dear lower boundary. Mottled gray and brownish orange, fine sandy, clayey silt with common rootlets; common, iron and manganese oxide mottles; granular, fine, weak soil structure; B horizon formed in glaciomarine; clear to gradual lower boundary. SWCA Environmental Consultants B-6 January31, 2017 Table B-1. Shovel Probe Summary UTM (Zone 10, NAD83) TOP BOTTOM CULTURAL NO. NORTHING EASTING (cmbs) (cmbs) STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION MATERIAL 80 90 Mottled gray and orange, bedded, clayey to fine sandy, silt with few, scattered rootlets; moderately compact; tabular, weak to moderately strong structure; C horizon formed in glaciomarine. * Probe terminated in sterile glaciomarine sediments. SP 20 5234741 550556 0 83 Mixed gray, gravelly sand, dark brown, sandy silt and light brown, sand; gravels are few, sub -rounded, small to medium pebbles; appears very mixed up; compact; fill; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. 83 95 Light brownish gray, fine to medium sand; massive appearance; glacial outwash. * Probe terminated in sterile glacial outwash deposit. SP 21 5234721 550540 0 19 Dark brown, gravelly, sandy silt; gravels are few, sub - rounded, small to large pebbles; many, small roots; A horizon; abrupt, smooth lower boundary, 19 43 Brownish gray, gravelly, clayey silt; gravels are common, sub -rounded, medium pebbles to small cobbles; very compact; fill; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. 43 125 Light brown, fine sand; compact; massive; glacial outwash. * Began augering at 80 cmbs. * Probe terminated in sterile glacial outwash deposit. SP 22 5234750 550584 0 26 Mixed dark grayish brown and gray, gravelly, fine to coarse sandy, silt; gravels are few to common, sub -angular to rounded, very small pebbles to small cobbles; fill; abrupt to clear, smooth lower boundary. 26 60 Mottled light brownish gray and gray, very fine sandy to clayey silt with very few, sub -angular to rounded, small pebbles to small cobbles; common rootlets to large tree roots; small to large charcoal fragments; many, fine oxidation mottles; fine, weak, sub -angular blocky soil structure; B horizon formed in disturbed glacial; gradual to diffuse lower boundary. 60 140 Mottled orange, light gray and brownish gray, clayey to fine sandy, silt with few beds of fine sand and occasional, small pebbles; scattered, small roots and rootlets; oxidation mottles; B horizon formed in glacial. * Began augering at 80 cmbs. * Probe terminated in sterile glacial outwash deposit. SP 23 5234756 550612 0 20 Dark grayish brown, gravelly, fine to coarse sandy, silt; gravels are few to common, sub -angular to sub -rounded, very small pebbles to small cobbles; many rootlets; a horizon formed in fill; clear, wavy lower boundary. 20 40 Brownish gray, gravelly, clayey, fine sandy, silt; gravels are few, sub -angular to sub -rounded, very small to very large pebbles; common roots, organic debris and few charcoal fragments; common rip -ups of clayey silt; B horizon formed in fill or disturbed; clear, wavy lower boundary. 40 125 Light brownish gray, fine sandy to clayey silt; few rootlets to small roots; compact; sticky; common, strong redox mottles that pale with depth; B/C horizon formed in glaciomarine. * Began augering at 90 cmbs. * Probe terminated in sterile, glacial sediments. SP 24 5234763 550657 0 20 Grayish brown, gravelly, clayey, sandy silt; gravels are common, sub -angular to rounded, small pebbles to small cobbles; many rootlets and few charcoal fragments; A horizon formed in fill; clear, wavy lower boundary. 20 110 Mottled brown and gray, gravelly, sandy, clayey silt; gravels are few, sub -angular to sub -rounded, small pebbles to small cobbles; common roots and organic debris; B, horizon formed in fill. * Began augering at 90 cmbs. SWCA Environmental Consultants B-7 January 31, 2017 Table B-1. Shovel Probe Summary NO. UTM (Zone 10, NAD83) TOP BOTTOM NORTHING EASTING (cmbs) (cmbs) 110 120 120 135 135 140 SP 25 5234730 550650 0 34 34 42 42 60 SP 26 5234725 550617 0 17 17 22 22 48 48 60 SP 27 5234717 550584 0 9 9 26 26 52 SP 28 5234694 550588 0 27 27 98 SP 29 5234680 550619 0 45 45 80 STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION Mottled light brownish gray and gray, gravelly, silty, fine sand; gravels are few, sub -angular to sub -rounded, small to large pebbles; loose; few rootlets; few, weak, iron oxide mottles; BZ horizon formed in fill. Mottled brownish orange and gray, locally sandy, clayey silt with very few, sub -angular to sub -rounded, small pebbles; weak, itinerant soil structure; likely fill; clear lower boundary. Grayish brown, gravelly, medium to very coarse sand; gravels are common to many, sub -rounded to sub -angular, very small pebbles to small cobbles; fill. * Probe terminated due to obstructing rocks. Brownish gray, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, medium pebbles; few, small roots; saturated; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. Very dark brown, organic -rich silt with common, small roots; peaty organic layer; clear, smooth lower boundary. Brownish gray, clayey silt with common, dark yellow mottles; saturated; compact; glacial. * Probe terminated in sterile glacial sediments. Brown, gravelly, fine to medium sandy, silt; gravels are common, sub -angular to sub -rounded, small to medium pebbles; common rootlets to small roots and woody debris; fill; clear, smooth lower boundary. Dark brown, fine sandy, silt with very few, sub -rounded to rounded, small pebbles; many rootlets, woody debris and charcoal flecks; buried A horizon; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. Mottled light gray and yellowish gray, fine to coarse sandy, clayey silt with very few, rounded, small to medium pebbles; common rootlets, charcoal flecks and wood debris; water at 31 cmbs; possible lens of peat at 35-45 cmbs (underwater); disturbed or reworked glacial. Gray clay with few rootlets in upper 5 cm; C horizon formed in glaciomarine. * Probe terminated in sterile glacial sediments. Dark brown, gravelly, sandy silt; gravels are few, sub - rounded, medium pebbles; common, small roots; A horizon formed; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. Brownish gray, clayey silt with common, dark yellow mottles; saturated; clear, wavy lower boundary. Bluish gray, clayey silt; mottling is less than above; saturated; gleyed; possible wetland deposit. * Probe terminated due to water in probe. Mottled gray and yellowish gray, silty clay with very few, sub -angular to sub -rounded, small to medium pebbles; common rootlets; fill; clear, smooth lower boundary. Brownish gray, gravelly, fine to coarse sandy, clayey silt; gravels are common, sub -rounded to rounded, small pebbles to small cobbles; common rootlets; few lenses of clay, between 2 and 8 cm thick; bedded fill. * Began augering at 45 cmbs. * Probe terminated due to compact cobbles obstructing auger. Mottled brownish gray and gray, clayey silt with pockets of gray clay and very few, sub -rounded, very small to small pebbles; few rootlets; common, iron oxide staining; fill; clear, smooth lower boundary. Brownish gray, gravelly, fine to coarse sandy, silt; gravels are common, rounded, large pebbles to small cobbles; few rootlets; more compact with depth; very compact at 80 cmbs; fill. * Probe terminated due to compaction. CULTURAL MATERIAL SWCA Environmental Consultants B-8 January31, 2017 Table B-1. Shovel Probe Summary UTM (Zone 10, NAD83) TOP BOTTOM CULTURAL NO. NORTHING EASTING (curbs) (cmbs) STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION MATERIAL SP 30 5234683 550660 0 8 Grayish brown, gravelly, clayey silt; gravels are few, sub - rounded, small to medium pebbles; few, small roots; weak A horizon; clear, smooth lower boundary. 8 47 Light brown, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, small cobbles; common, dark yellow mottles; more compact with depth; wetland or fill; clear, smooth lower boundary. 47 60 Gray to bluish gray, clayey silt; compact; saturated; possible gley. Probe terminated due to compaction in gleyed sediments. SP 31 5234705 550638 0 21 Mottled gray and bluish gray, clayey silt with very few, sub - rounded, medium pebbles; common, small roots in upper 10 cm; mixed fill deposit; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. 21 44 Brown silt and light brown, clayey silt; organic -rich; common, small roots; fill or disturbed organic layer; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. 44 110 Light brown and gray, clayey silt; gravels are few, sub - rounded, medium pebbles; dark yellow mottles; saturated; mixed appearance; fill. • Began augering at 80 cmbs. " Probe terminated due to cobbles obstructing auger. SP 32 5234687 550537 0 39 Grayish brown, clayey silt with common, small to large roots; likely fill; clear, smooth lower boundary. 39 75 Gray silt with one large root at 75 cmbs; few, yellowish iron oxide stains; C horizon formed in glacial. • Began augering at 50 cmbs. • Probe terminated due to root obstructing auger in sterile sediments. SP 33 5234654 550595 0 76 Grayish brown, gravelly, silty, fine to coarse sand; gravels are few, sub -angular to sub -rounded, small to medium pebbles; few, fine to medium roots; fill; clear, smooth lower boundary. 76 125 Mottled gray and yellowish gray, silty clay with very few, sub -rounded, small pebbles; few rootlets; occasional woody debris and charcoal; disturbed or local fill; gradual lower boundary. " Began augering at 80 cmbs. 125 140 Gray, clayey silt; dry; C horizon formed in sterile glacial. Probe terminated in sterile glacial sediments. SP 34 5234631 550555 0 60 Mottled brownish gray and gray, gravelly, sandy, clayey silt; gravels are common, sub -angular to rounded, small pebbles to small cobbles; common roots and few charcoal fragments; fill; gradual lower boundary. 60 120 Mottled brownish gray and gray, clayey, gravelly, sandy silt; gravels are common, sub -angular to sub -rounded, small to very large pebbles; scattered, large woody debris and charcoal fragments; fill. " Began augering at 80 cmbs. ' Probe terminated due to concrete or rock obstructing auger. SP 35 5234693 550523 0 16 Dark brown, silty, gravelly, fine to coarse sand; gravels are few, sub -rounded, small to large pebbles; few rootlets; fill; clear lower boundary. 16 24 Dark brown, fine sandy, silt with very few, sub -rounded, small pebbles; few rootlets; buried A horizon; clear, smooth lower boundary. 24 42 Mottled brown and gray, clayey silt with very few, sub - rounded to rounded, medium to large pebbles; compact; disturbed C horizon; abrupt lower boundary. 42 56 Brownish gray, silt; compact; platy structure; intact C horizon formed in glaciomarine. Probe terminated in sterile glacial sediments. SWCA Environmental Consultants B-9 January 31, 2017 Table B-1. Shovel Probe Summary NO. UTM (Zone 10, NAD83) TOP BOTTOM STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION CULTURAL NORTHING EASTING (cmbs) (curbs) MATERIAL SP 36 5234661 550498 0 13 47 SP 37 5234650 550467 0 11 25 SP 38 5234630 550429 0 23 40 SP 39 5234612 550392 0 26 SP 40 5234610 550358 0 44 SP 41 5234634 550329 0 30 SP 42 5234582 550407 0 13 47 89 11 25 105 23 40 68 26 71 44 45 30 49 100 100 165 165 195 SP 43 5234669 550308 0 17 Dark brown, sandy silt with very few, sub -rounded, small pebbles; many, small roots; A horizon; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. Brownish gray, gravelly, clayey silt; gravels are few, sub - rounded, small pebbles to small cobbles; few, dark yellow mottles; few to common, gray silt nodules; very compact; fill; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. Light brown, silty, fine sand with common, dark yellow mottles; possible glacial outwash. * Began augering at 75 cmbs. * Probe terminated due to large cobble obstructing auger. Dark brown, gravelly, sandy silt; gravels are common, angular to sub -rounded, very small to medium pebbles; few rootlets; A horizon; abrupt lower boundary. Mottled light gray and light brown, gravelly, silty clay; gravels are few, sub -angular to sub -rounded, very small to large pebbles; B horizon; clear lower boundary. Grayish brown, coarse sandy, silty, sub -angular to rounded, very small pebbles to large cobbles; fill. * Began augering at 95 cmbs. * Probe terminated due to rocks obstructing auger. Dark brown, sandy silt with very few, sub -rounded, medium pebbles; many, small roots; A horizon; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. Brownish gray, gravelly, clayey silt; gravels are few, sub - rounded, small pebbles to small cobbles; few dark mottles; compact; mixed; fill; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. Gray, very coarse sandy, sub -rounded to rounded, very small to large pebbles; very compact; glacial outwash or fill. * Probe terminated due to compact sediments. Dark brown, gravelly, fine sandy, silt; gravels are common, sub -rounded to rounded, very small to small pebbles; few rootlets; A horizon; clear, wavy lower boundary dips steeply to west, down to about 60 cmbs. Light gray, fine sandy, silty clay; compact; C horizon formed in glaciomarine. * Probe terminated in sterile glacial sediments. Dark brown, sandy silt with very few, sub -rounded, medium pebbles; many, small roots; A horizon; fill. Geotech fabric with pebbly drain rock; probable utility trench. * Probe terminated due to utility in fill. Dark brown, sandy silt with very few, sub -rounded, medium pebbles; many rootlets; saturated; A horizon; abrupt, wavy lower boundary. Brownish gray, clayey silt with many, dark yellow mottles; very compact; water seeping in from below, glacial. * Probe terminated in sterile glacial sediments. Mottled grayish brown and yellowish brown, gravelly, fine sandy, silt with few rootlets; gravels are few, sub -rounded, small to medium pebbles; water at 12 cmbs; fill. * Began augering at 50 cmbs. Very dark brown, fine sandy, silt with many rootlets and woody debris; peat odor; common, iron oxide stains; buried peat or O/A horizon. Mottled very dark brown and gray, clayey silt with few rootlets; possible diffuse transition to glaciomarine. * Probe terminated due to suction and water. Dark brown, sandy silt with very few, sub -rounded, medium pebbles; many, small roots; common woody debris; A horizon; abrupt, wavy lower boundary. SWCA Environmental Consultants B-10 January 31, 2017 Table B-1. Shovel Probe Summary NO. UTM (Zone 10, NAD83) TOP BOTTOM STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION CULTURAL NORTHING EASTING (cmbs) (cmbs) MATERIAL 17 31 31 58 SP 44 5234697 550296 0 29 29 84 SP 45 5234648 550299 0 39 39 81 SP 46 5234601 550346 0 20 20 38 38 57 SP 47 5234582 550379 0 31 31 135 SP 48 5234562 550408 0 150 SP 49 5234531 550433 0 8 8 75 SP 50 5234543 550472 0 65 65 80 SP 51 5234531 550498 0 21 Light brown, clayey silt with many, dark yellow mottles; disturbed or reworked glacial; gradual, wavy lower boundary. Brownish gray, clayey silt with many, dark yellow mottles; compact; glacial. * Probe terminated in sterile glacial sediments. Dark brown, gravelly, sandy silt; gravels are few, sub - rounded, very small to medium pebbles; few rootlets; A horizon; gradual, wavy lower boundary. Mottled gray and reddish gray, silty clay; color becomes light gray with depth; more compact with depth; B/C horizon formed in glaciomarine. * Probe terminated in sterile glacial sediments. Dark brown, gravelly, fine sandy, silt; gravels are few, sub - angular to sub -rounded, very small to medium pebbles; few rootlets. Yellowish gray to light gray, silty clay with very few, sub - angular, small pebbles; compact; B/C horizon formed in glaciomarine. * Probe terminated in sterile glacial sediments. Dark brown, gravelly, fine sandy, silt; gravels are few, sub - rounded, large pebbles to small cobbles; many, small roots; A horizon; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. Light brown, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, very large pebbles to small cobbles; many, dark yellow mottles; disturbed or reworked glacial; clear, wavy lower boundary. Gray to light gray, clayey silt with few, dark yellow mottles; becomes lighter gray in color and more compact with depth; mottles decrease with depth; glacial. * Probe terminated in sterile sediments. Grayish brown, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, small to medium pebbles; few rootlets; water seeping in at 30 cmbs; fill; gradual lower boundary. Grayish brown, gravelly silt; gravels are common, sub - rounded to rounded, medium pebbles to small cobbles; few charcoal flecks; common iron oxide stains; fill. * Began augering at 53 cmbs. * Probe terminated due to cobble obstructing auger. Grayish brown, gravelly, clayey silt; gravels are few, angular to sub -rounded, very small to medium pebbles and small cobbles; few rootlets in upper 20 cm; fill. * Began augering at 74 cmbs. * Probe terminated due to compaction and obstruction in auger. Dark brown, gravelly, sandy silt; gravels are few, sub - rounded, small to large pebbles; many, small roots; A horizon, abrupt, smooth lower boundary. Light brown, gravelly, clayey silt; gravels are common, sub - rounded, small pebbles to small cobbles; fill. * Began augering at 60 cmbs. * Probe terminated due to rock obstructing auger. Mixed brown and gray, gravelly, clayey silt and fine sandy, silt; gravels are few to common, sub -rounded, small pebbles to small cobbles; loose; common rip -ups of glaciomarine silt; fill. Brownish gray, gravelly, medium to very coarse sand; gravels are many, sub -rounded, small pebbles to large cobbles; water at 60 cmbs; likely fill. * Probe terminated due to sidewall collapse in water and loose, gravelly sand. Grayish brown, gravelly, silty, fine sand; gravels are few, sub -rounded, medium to very large pebbles; many, small roots; A horizon; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. SWCA Environmental Consultants B-11 January31, 2017 Table B-1. Shovel Probe Summary NO. UTM (Zone 10, NAD83) TOP BOTTOM CULTURAL NORTHING EASTING (cmbs) (cmbs) STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION MATERIAL 21 38 38 65 SP 52 5234500 550505 0 80 80 120 120 150 150 160 160 170 170 200 SP 53 5234599 550533 0 10 10 50 SP 54 5234547 550519 0 52 Brownish gray, gravelly, clayey silt; gravels are common, sub -rounded, medium pebbles to large cobbles; common, dark yellow mottles; bluish gray silt mixed in; very compact; fill; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. Gray, gravelly, coarse to very coarse sand; gravels are many, sub -rounded to rounded, very small to medium pebbles; saturated; water at about 45 cmbs; fill. * Probe terminated due to sidewall collapse under water. Mixed gray and brown, clayey silt and gravelly, fine sandy, silt; gravels are few to common, sub -rounded to rounded, small to very large pebbles; common rootlets and tree roots; few rip -ups of tabular silt (glaciomarine); iron and manganese oxide mottles; fill. Mixed gray and light brownish gray, clayey silt and gravelly, fine sandy, silt; gravels are few, sub -rounded, small to very large pebbles; compact; few rip -ups of bedded, tabular silt; B formed in fill. * Began augering at 100 cmbs. Grayish brown, clayey, fine sandy, silt with very few, sub - rounded, very small to large pebbles; scattered charcoal and organic debris; bioturbated; lenses of rootmat between clods; weak, granular soil structure; buried A horizon. Mottled gray and yellowish gray, slightly fine sandy, clayey silt with very few pebbles; soil formed in possible colluvium or alluvium. Grayish brown, slightly fine sandy, clayey, silt with very few, sub -rounded, very small to medium pebbles; common rootlets and organic debris; bioturbated by roots and worms; fine, weak, granular structure; buried A horizon formed in natural alluvium or glaciomarine. Bluish gray to yellowish gray, clayey silt with few, small roots and rootlets; B horizon or gley formed in alluvium or glaciomarine. * Probe terminated in sterile sediments at desired depth. Grayish brown, gravelly, fine sandy, silt; gravels are few, sub -angular to sub -rounded, small to medium pebbles; few roots; A horizon formed in fill; gradual lower boundary. Brown, gravelly, fine sandy, silt; gravels are common, sub - rounded to rounded, medium pebbles to small cobbles; few rootlets; fill. * Probe terminated due to time and safety constraints; located on slippery, brushy slope. Brownish gray and bluish gray, clayey silt; fine roots in upper 10 cm; appears mixed; very compact at base; saturated; fill. * Probe terminated due to water and compaction. SWCA Environmental Consultants B-12 January 31, 2017 Table B-2. Test Pit Summary NO. UTM (Zone 10, NAD83) TOP BOTTOM NORTHING EASTING (cmbs) (cmbs) TP 1 5234850 550355 0 50 50 93 93 150 TP 2 5234873 550463 0 45 90 TP 3 5234706 550558 0 50 85 TP 4 5234674 550526 0 28 40 115 140 TP 5 5234672 550585 0 30 75 180 45 90 100 50 85 120 28 40 115 140 215 30 75 180 195 STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION Mottled brownish gray and gray, fine to medium sandy, clayey silt with very few, sub -rounded, medium to very large pebbles; common, small roots; small, granular soil structure due to worm bioturbation; fill; clear lower boundary. Mottled pale brown and reddish brown, silt with scattered organic fibers and few, small roots; few, small charcoal fragments to pieces of wood charcoal; color mottling due to iron oxidation; historically -disturbed soil; gradual lower boundary. Light brownish gray, clayey silt with few, small organic fibers; many small iron oxide mottles; remnant bedding visible; glaciomarine parent material. Test pit terminated in sterile glacial sediments. Brown, sandy silt; disturbed; fill; abrupt lower boundary. Gray, sub -angular to sub -rounded, medium pebbles to small cobbles; fill; abrupt lower boundary. Yellowish gray to gray, clayey silt with few, small iron oxide mottles; B/C horizon formed in glaciomarine. " Test pit terminated in sterile glacial soils. Brown and grayish brown, clayey, fine sandy, silt with many, small roots above 10 cmbs; granular soil structure; disturbed; fill with 10 cm -thick modern A horizon at top; clear to abrupt lower boundary that dips west along slope of berm. Mottled light brown, gray and reddish brown, clayey silt with few, small roots; remnant bedding visible; color mottling due to iron oxidation and water table fluctuation; truncated B horizon; clear to gradual, smooth lower boundary. Gray, very clayey, silt; very compact; glaciomarine sediment. " Test pit terminated in sterile glacial sediments. Brown, clayey, sandy, gravelly silt; gravels are few, sub - rounded to sub -angular, small to medium pebbles; common small roots; fill; abrupt to gradual lower boundary. Yellowish brown, medium to coarse sand; fill; abrupt lower boundary. Brown, clayey, sandy, gravelly silt; gravels are common, sub -angular to sub -rounded, small pebbles to large cobbles; loose; fill; clear lower boundary. Mottled light gray, brown and reddish brown, medium sand; color mottling due to iron oxidation; massive with little remnant bedding; soil -affected outwash; gradual lower boundary. Light gray, slightly clayey, silty, fine sand; compact; glacial outwash. " Test pit terminated in sterile glacial sediments. Brown, gravelly, clayey silt; gravels are common, angular to sub -rounded, small to very large pebbles; wet; modem A horizon formed in fill; clear lower boundary. Light brown, gravelly, clayey, silty, fine to medium sand (Fill 3) and light gray, silty clay (Fill 4) with debris; where present, gravels are common, angular to sub -rounded, small to very large pebbles; Fill 3/4; fill; abrupt lower boundary. Light brown, dark brown and gray, gravelly, clayey, sandy silt with debris; where present, gravels are common, angular to sub -rounded, small pebbles to boulders; Fill 2; clear lower boundary. Dark brown, silt; A horizon formed in Fill 1. CULTURAL MATERIAL Column redacted SWCA Environmental Consultants B-13 January 31, 2017 Table B-2. Test Pit Summary NO. UTM (Zone 10, NAD83) TOP BOTTOM STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION CULTURAL NORTHING EASTING (cmbs) (cmbs) MATERIAL 195 215 Bluish gray, clayey, gravelly, silt; gravels are common, sub - angular to sub -rounded, very small to medium pebbles; Fill 1. 215 250 Light brownish gray, gravelly, clayey silt; gravels are few to common, sub -rounded to sub -angular, small to medium pebbles; common, small iron oxide mottles; glacial ice contact deposit. * Test pit terminated in sterile glacial sediments. TP 6 5234680 550431 0 45 Mottled light brown and gray, clayey, fine to medium sandy, gravelly silt; gravels are common, angular to sub -rounded, small to large pebbles; few, small roots; color mottling due to iron oxidation; fill; clear lower boundary. 45 160 Mottled light brown and gray, fine sandy, clayey silt; wet; color mottling due to iron oxidation; truncated B horizon; gradual lower boundary. 160 180 Bluish gray, silty clay with very few, sub -angular to sub - rounded, very small to small pebbles; glaciomarine sediment. * Test pit terminated in sterile glacial sediments. SWCA Environmental Consultants B-14 January 31, 2017 APPENDIX C: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Appendix redacted SWCA Environmental Consultants C-1 January 31, 2017 APPENDIX D: INADVERTENT DISCOVERY PLAN Appendix redacted SWCA Environmental Consultants D-1 January 31, 2017 Ph. 253-896-1011 Fx. 253-896-2633 1 J. A. Brennan Associates, PLLC f 100 South King Street, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 -� (206) 583-0620 I I J Attn: Ms. Carol Ohlfs GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Hwy. E, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 February 26, 2016 MAR 0 7 2016 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Geotechnical Engineering Report Gethsemane Master Plan 37600 Pacific Hwy S Federal Way, Washington PN: 322104-9025, -9020 Job: JABrennan.GethsemaneCemetary.RG INTRODUCTION This geotechnical engineering report summarizes the results of our site reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses for the proposed Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan. The site is located at 37600 Pacific Highway South in the Hylebos area of Federal Way, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the attached Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1. Our understanding of the project is based on our discussions with you, members of the design team, our review of the available geologic and soils data, our multiple November 2015 site visits, and our experience in the area. We understand you propose to submit a master plan for the cemetery detailing the proposed expansion to the north and east, including grading, new proposed roads, new cemetery structures including new columbariums and mausoleums, and stormwater facility upgrades. A copy of the proposed master plan is attached as Figure 2. PURPOSE & SCOPE The purpose of our services was to evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions at the site as a basis for providing geotechnical recommendations and design criteria for the proposed residential development. We also assessed potential adverse impacts to and from the slopes located within the site area. Specifically, our scope of services for the project included the following: 1. Visiting the site and conducting a geologic reconnaissance to evaluate the site's soil, groundwater and slope conditions. 2. Exploring the subsurface conditions by excavating thirteen test pits and monitoring the excavation of several hand augers at selected locations across the site. 3. Addressing the appropriate Geotechnical City of Federal Way regulatory requirements for the proposed site development. 4. Providing seismic design parameters based on the 2012 IBC for the proposed structures. 5. Providing geotechnical recommendations for site grading including site preparation, JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery RG.doc February 26, 2016 Page 2 subgrade preparation, fill placement criteria, suitability of on -site soils for use as structural fill, temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes, and drainage and erosion control measures. 6. Providing recommendations and design criteria for conventional shallow foundations and floor slab support, including allowable bearing capacity, subgrade modulus, lateral resistance values and estimates of settlement. 7. Providing recommendations and design criteria for conventional subgrade/retaining walls, including backfill and drainage requirements, lateral earth pressure loads, and lateral resistance values. Our services were originally outlined in our Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Services. We received signed authorization to proceed with our scope of services from Carol Ohlfs at JA Brennan Associates on the November 2, 2016. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The subject site is located between SR-99 and 1-5, and is generally south of South 373d Street in the Hylebos area of Federal Way, Washington. The site is irregular in shape, measuring approximately 1,700 to 1,800 feet wide (north to south) by about 2,700 feet deep at its longest portions and encompasses approximately 76 acres. Portions of the site are developed and are in use as an active cemetery. The developed portions are generally limited to the western, center portion of the site. The site is bounded by SR-99 to the west, existing large -lot residential development to the north, 1-5 to the east and large -lot residential development to the south. We reviewed three sheets of as -built plans prepared by Maloney, Herrington, Freesz, and Lund (1972) that show the existing cemetery following the initial site development. Prior to the cemetery, the site was occupied by an older two-story wood -framed building (old school house) with several detached sheds. The plans show an old cesspool in the area that is now the stormwater pond. The plans show significant grading to the upland area east of the main cemetery building, with new fill slopes being constructed at about a 2H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical) and a new storm drain pipe extending under the fill embankment. Much of the site appears to be similar to the as built plans. Copies of these plans are included in Appen:Jix A. The site is located on the southern margin of the Federal Way glacial upland area. A large portion of the site, including the existing developed areas, generally slopes down gently from south (main cemetery parcel) to a low lying wetland area north of the site. The central portion of the property slopes up from the main building to a flat grassy area, and then slopes back down toward Hylebos creek that generally bisects the parcel. The western slope and steeper eastern slope are cut/fill slopes associated with previous stages of development as shown on the as built drawings referenced above. These constructed slopes are about 50 percent, or 2H:1 V. The eastern most side of the property, east of Hylebos Creek, is generally flat. The total topographic relief across the site is on the order of 125 feet. A copy of the recent site survey is included as the Site and Exploration Plans, Figures 3a and 3b. No surface water was observed on the flatter, central portions of the site or on the steep slope areas on the site. There are several mapped wetlands and wetland buffers on the north side and south central portions of the site. As stated, Hylebos Creek bisects the property and flows from north to south along the east -central portion of the site. We understand a recent wetland/habitat assessment and survey has been completed, and the updated locations and limits of the mapped wetlands and buffers are shown on Figure 2. JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery RG.doc February 26, 2016 Page 3 Site Soils The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey maps the soils in the area of the site as the Kitsap silt loam soils. The Kitsap soils are described as derived from silty lake sediments that form on slopes of 2 to 30 percent and have a "slight to severe" erosion hazard when exposed, depending on slope inclination. A copy of the SCS map for the site vicinity is attached as Figure 4. Site Geology The Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Washington by Booth, Waldron, and Troost (2003) indicates the site is primarily underlain by recessional lacustrine deposits (Qgrl) and Glacial till (Qvt). These glacial soils were deposited during the most recent Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, approximately 12,000 to 15,000 years ago. The recessional lacustrine deposits consist of a well -sorted lightly stratified mixture of silt and sand that may contain localized deposits of clay that were deposited in low -energy, ice -marginal lakes formed during the recession of the continental ice mass. The glacial till consists of a heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel that was deposited at the base of the prehistoric continental glacial ice mass and was subsequently over -ridden. As such, the glacial till is considered over -consolidated and typically exhibits high strength and low compressibility characteristics where undisturbed. The recessional lacustrine deposits are considered normally consolidated and typically have low to moderate strength characteristics. No areas of landslides or landslide debris are mapped on or within the vicinity of the site. The near surface soils at the site have been disturbed by natural weathering processes that have occurred since their deposition in addition to previous earthwork activities and site grading. An excerpt of the above referenced map is included as Figure 5. Subsurface Explorations The locations of the test pits were selected by GeoResources and other team members during our November 9, 2015 site visit. Locations were based upon site access constraints, proposed development, and discussions with team members. On November 17, 2015 GeoResources explored subsurface conditions at the site by monitoring the excavation of thirteen test pits and three hand auger explorations. The test pits were excavated by a small track -mounted machine operated by licensed contractor, while the hand augers were excavated by GeoResources, LLC personnel. -� A field geologist from our office continuously monitored the excavations, maintained logs of the subsurface conditions encountered, obtained representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in sealed plastic bags and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing as deemed necessary. Each test pit was then backfilled and bucket tamped in place but not 1 otherwise compacted. The test pits excavated and reviewed as part of this evaluation indicate the subsurface conditions at specific locations only, as actual subsurface conditions can vary across the site. Furthermore, the nature and extent of such variation would not become evident until additional explorations are performed or until construction activities have begun. Based on our experience in the area and extent of prior explorations in the area, it is our opinion that the soils encountered in the test pits are generally representative of the various soil types at the site. The approximate locations of the test pits are indicated on the attached Site and Exploration Plan as Figure 2. Test pit logs are presented in Appendix "B". _l j JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery RG.doc February 26, 2016 Page 4 Subsurface Conditions Our test pits encountered variable subsurface conditions that generally confirmed the mapped stratigraphy. The test pits extended to depths ranging from 5 to 10 feet below the existing ground surface. The stratigraphy across the site as observed in our test pits generally consisted of a few inches to about 1 foot of topsoil overlying 2'/2 to 10 feet of light brown to gray occasionally mottled silt with variable amounts of sand, gravel and organic debris that was in a soft to stiff and wet condition. We interpret these surficial soils as fill material associated with prior grading activities at the site. Underlying the surficial soils we observed medium dense to dense gray - brown gravelly sand or stiff to very stiff blue -gray clayey silt in a moist to wet condition to the full depth explored. We interpret these lower soils to be native recessional lacustrine deposits. The soils encountered were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described in Figure B-1. The test pit logs are included as Figures B-2 through B-5. Grain Size Analysis Geotechnical laboratory tests were performed on select samples retrieved from the borings to determine soil index and engineering properties encountered. Laboratory testing included visual soil classification per ASTM D: 2488, moisture content determinations per ASTM D: 2216, and grain size analyses. Grain size analyses tests were performed in accordance with the ASTM D: 422 standard procedures. The laboratory test results are included in Appendix C. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater seepage was observed in all of the test pits at the time of excavation. The seepage was generally moderate (2 to 5 gpm) to rapid (10 or more gpm) and was typically issuing from the soils in the upper 4 feet of the test pit, indicating a shallow perched groundwater condition. Perched groundwater develops when the vertical infiltration rate of precipitation through a more permeable soil is slowed at depth by a deeper, less permeable soil type. We expect that perched groundwater may develop seasonally atop the stiff glacial-lacustrine deposits that underlie the site. We anticipate fluctuations in the local groundwater levels likely will occur in response to precipitation patterns, off -site construction activities, and site utilization. After the site is developed, the amount of seasonal perched groundwater should decrease over time. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The City of Federal Way revised code Chapter 19 defines "Geologically hazardous areas" as those areas which because of their susceptibility to erosion, landsliding, seismic or other geological events require specific studies to determine appropriate buffers or property use. Geologically hazardous areas include the following areas: (1) "Erosion hazard areas" are those areas identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service as having a moderate to severe or severe to very severe rill and inter -rill erosion hazard due to natural agents such as wind, rain, splash, frost action or stream flow; those areas containing the following group of soils when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater.- Alderwood-Kitsap ("AkF'), Alderwood gravelly sandy loam ("AgD'), Kitsap silt loam ("KpD'), Everett ("EvD'), and Indianola (`InD'); and those areas impacted by shore land and/or stream bank erosion. JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery RG.doc February 26, 2016 Page 5 The site soils generally consist of Kitsap silt loam ("KpB") soils and Bellingham silt loam ("Bh") that have a slight erosion hazard to no erosion hazard. There is a small, isolated area in the north -central portion of the site that is mapped as being underlain by the Kitsap silt loam ("KpD") soils that is listed as having a moderate to severe erosion hazard and is listed above in the City of Federal Way revised code. This area is in part of the site that was regarded as part of the original site development and should actually be classified as made -land. (2) "Landslide hazard areas" are those areas potentially subject to episodic downslope movement of a mass of soil or rock including, but not limited to, the following areas: (a) Any area with a combination of- (i) Slopes greater than 15 percent; (ii) Permeable sediment, predominately sand and gravel, overlying relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock, typically silt and clay; and (iii) Springs or groundwater seepage. (b) Any area that has shown movement during the Holocene epoch, from 10,000 years ago to the present, or that is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch. (c) Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion or undercutting by wave action. (d) Any area located in a ravine or on an active alluvial fan, presently or potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or flooding. (e) Those areas mapped as Class U (unstable), UOS (unstable old slides), and URS (unstable recent slides) by the Department of Ecology's Coastal Zone Atlas. (1J Areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthflows, mudflows, lahars, or landslides on maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey or Washington State Department of Natural Resources. (g) Slopes having gradients greater than 80 percent subject to rockfall during seismic shaking. (h) Any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of 10 or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and is measured by averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief. From the above listed indicators we offer the following comments. The upper portion of the steep slopes on the east side of the central flat upland area are steeper than 40 percent but were constructed per plan prepared as part of the original site development as engineered cut and fill slopes. The native slopes below the steep slopes on the east side of the bench, are steeper than 15 percent, but no groundwater seeps were observed at the time of our site visit. No evidence of recent or Holocene epoch movement, published geologic map indicate areas of landslide or mass wasting was noted on the subject property at the time of our site visit. Hylebos Creek flows from north to south across the site and flows through a shallow, incised channel. No areas of alluvial fans were noted or observed on or within the vicinity of the subject site. No slopes were observed to be subject to rockfall during seismic shaking at the time of our site visit. Based on our site observations, literature review, and engineering analysis, it is our opinion the subject site does not meet the definition of a landslide hazard area. (3) "Seismic hazard areas" are those areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as a result of seismically induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement or soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. These conditions occur in areas underlain by cohesionless soils of low density usually in association with a shallow groundwater table. JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery RG.doc February 26, 2016 Page 6 Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in pore water pressure. The increase in pore water pressure is induced by seismic vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of loose, fine-grained sands that are below the groundwater table. The site is generally underlain by fine grain glacial-lacustrine deposits. These soils are cohesive soils that are generally not susceptible to liquefaction and liquefaction induced settlement. Based on the density and nature of the glacial-lacustrine/glacial soils that underlie the site, it is our opinion that the risk for liquefaction to occur at this site during an earthquake is low. Provided the design criteria listed below are followed, the proposed structure will have no greater risk of seismic damage than other appropriately designed structures in the Puget Sound area. Buffers/Setbacks per Federal Way As described above, we do not interpret the site to have a landslide or seismic hazard area. The steep slopes along the west side of Hylebos Creek are the result of past construction of engineered cut and fill slopes. These slopes should not be subject to natural buffers per the City of Federal Way Revised Code. The native slopes below the fill slopes are generally flatter than 30 percent and do not meet the technical criteria of a landslide hazard area. CONCLUSIONS Based on our site observations, data review, subsurface explorations and our engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the Master Plan improvements to the existing Gethsemane Cemetery are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations included herein are incorporated into the project plans. The native soils at the site contain a significant percentage of fines (silt and clay -size particles), which makes them extremely moisture sensitive. These soils will become difficult or impossible to compact as structural fill in wet weather conditions or where seepage occurs. We understand that grading, for the most part, will be extensive, with upwards of 10 feet of cut/fill . If grading activities must take place during the winter season, the owner should be prepared to import free -draining granular material for use as structural fill and backfill. New structures may be supported on new conventional spread footings or floor slabs bearing on competent native soils or on structural fill extending to native soils. Because of the site soils and seasonal high perched groundwater table, stormwater infiltration on the site does not appear feasible. In order to avoid new vaults and burial sites from becoming impacted by buoyancy affects associated with a high groundwater table, the use of interceptor and sub -drains around the new burial sites may be necessary. Site Preparation and Grading All structural areas on the site to be graded should be stripped of vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious materials including existing structures, foundations or abandoned utility lines. Organic topsoil is not suitable for use as structural fill, but may be used for limited depths in non-structural areas. Stripping depths ranging from 2 to 12 inches should be expected to remove these unsuitable soils. Areas of thicker topsoil or organic debris may be encountered in areas of heavy vegetation or depressions. Where placement of fill material is required, the stripped/exposed subgrade areas should be compacted to a firm and unyielding surface prior to placement of fill material. Excavations for debris removal should be backfilled JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery RG.doc February 26, 2016 Page 7 with structural fill compacted to the densities described in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. We recommend that a member of our staff verify the exposed subgrade conditions after excavations are completed and prior to placement of structural fill or new foundations. The exposed subgrade soil should be proof -rolled and compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. We recommend that trees be removed by overturning in fill areas so that a majority of the roots are removed. Excavations for tree stump removal should be backfilled with structural fill compacted to the densities described in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. Soft, loose or otherwise unsuitable areas delineated during proof -rolling or probing should be recompacted, if practical, or over -excavated and replaced with structural fill. The depth and extent of overexcavation should be evaluated by our field representative at the time of construction. The areas of fill should be evaluated during grading operations to determine if they need mitigation; recompaction or removal. Structural Fill All material placed as fill associated with mass grading, as utility trench backfill, under building areas, or under roadways should be placed as structural fill. The structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of appropriate thickness to allow adequate and uniform compaction of each lift. Structural fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of MDD (maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557). The appropriate lift thickness will depend on the fill characteristics and compaction equipment used. We recommend that the appropriate lift thickness be evaluated by our field representative during construction. We recommend that our representative be present during site grading activities to observe the work and perform field density tests. The suitability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing US No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. During wet weather, we recommend use of well -graded sand and gravel with less than 5 percent (by weight) passing the US No. 200 sieve based on that fraction passing the 3/4-inch sieve, such as Gravel Backfill for Walls (WSDOT 9-03.12(2)). If prolonged dry weather prevails during the earthwork and foundation installation phase of construction, higher fines content (up to 10 to 12 percent) may be acceptable. Material placed for structural fill should be free of debris, organic matter, trash and cobbles greater than 6-inches in diameter. The moisture content of the fill material should be adjusted as necessary for proper compaction. Suitability of On -Site Materials as Fill During dry weather construction, non -organic on -site soil may be considered for use as structural fill; provided it meets the criteria described above in the "Structural Fill" section and can be compacted as recommended. If the soil material is over -optimum in moisture content when excavated, it will be necessary to aerate or dry the soil prior to placement as structural fill. Most of the near -surface soils were observed to be significantly wet of optimum moisture content at the time of our subsurface exploration program. The native glacil-lacustrine soils at the site generally consisted of silt with some sand. These soils would only be suitable for use as structural fill provided the moisture content is maintained within 2 percent of the optimum moisture level. The high fines content makes these soils extremely moisture sensitive. Some outwash soils were encountered in test pits 6, 7, 8, and 17. These soils were underlain by the glacial-lacustrine soils, and were visually at or above their optimum moisture content. These soils are typically more granular in nature, and JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery RG.doc February 26, 2016 Page 8 would be suitable for re -use as fill during periods of drier weather. These soils will be difficult or impossible to adequately compact during extended periods of wet weather or where seepage occurs. For planning purpose, we would not expect onsite soils to be usable for structural unless all earthwork is limited to the late summer months. We recommend that completed graded -areas be restricted from traffic or protected prior to wet weather conditions. The graded areas may be protected by paving, placing asphalt -treated base, a layer of free -draining material such as clean sand and gravel or clean crushed rock material containing less than 5 percent fines, or some combination of the above. Where clean imported fill is placed atop the fine grain native glacial-lacustrine soils, we recommend that a geotextile separation fabric, such as Mirafi 160n or equivalent be installed. Temporary Excavations All job site safety issues and precautions are the responsibility of the contractor providing services/work. The following cut/fill slope guidelines are provided for planning purposes only. Temporary cut slopes will likely be necessary during grading operations or utility installation. All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches and retaining walls, must be completed in accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on current Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA, WAC 296-155-66401) regulations, the shallow soils on the site would be classified as Type C soils, According to WISHA, for temporary excavations of less than 20 feet in depth, the side slopes in Type C soils should be laid back at a slope inclination of 1.5H:1 V or flatter from the toe to top of the slope. It should be recognized that slopes of this nature do ravel and require occasional maintenance. All exposed slope faces should be covered with a durable reinforced plastic membrane, jute matting, or other erosion control mats during construction to prevent slope raveling and rutting during periods of precipitation. These guidelines assume that all surface loads are kept at a minimum distance of at least one half the depth of the cut away from the top of the slope and that significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter cut slopes will be necessary where significant raveling or seepage occurs, or if construction materials will be stockpiled along the top of the slope. Where it is not feasible to slope the site soils back at these inclinations, a retaining structure should be considered. Where retaining structures are greater than 4-feet in height (bottom of footing to i )p of structure) or have slopes of greater than 15 percent above them, they should be engineered per Washington Administrative Code (WAC 51-16-080 item 5). This information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants, and should not be construed to imply that GeoResources assumes responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes We understand that there will be considerable amount of cutting and filling required to achieve design grades. Cut and fill slopes constructed on grades that steeper than 5H:1 V should be constructed in accordance with Appendix J or the 2012 IBC for proper keying and benching. A typical detail of the Appendix J guidelines is attached as Figure 7. All temporary slopes should be protected from erosion. Typical erosion control BMPs contained in the 2009 King County Surface Water and Development Manual (KCSWDM), and Appendix C: Small Project Drainage Requirements of the KCSWDM as adopted by the City of Federal Way should be sufficient for proposed site grading activities. Additionally, permanent slopes should be planted with a hardy vegetative groundcover or armored with quarry spalls as soon as feasible after grading is completed. JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery RG.doc February 26, 2016 Page 9 Foundation Support Based on the subsurface soil conditions encountered across the site, we recommend that spread footings for new cemetery buildings (columbarium or mausoleum) be founded on the stiff native soils or on appropriately prepared structural fill that extends to suitable native soils. The soil at the base of the footing excavations should be disturbed as little as possible. All loose, soft or unsuitable material should be removed or recompacted, as appropriate. A representative from our firm should observe the foundation excavations to determine if suitable bearing surfaces have been prepared, particularly in the areas where the foundation will be situated on fill material. We recommend a minimum width of 24 inches for isolated footings and at least 16 inches for continuous wall footings. All footing elements should be embedded at least 18 inches below grade for frost protection. Footings founded as described above can be designed using an allowable soil bearing capacity of 1,500 psf (pounds per square foot) for combined dead and long-term live loads. The weight of the footing and overlying backfill may be neglected. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as those induced by seismic events or wind loads. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of footings and floor slabs and as passive pressure on the sides of footings. We recommend that an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 be used to calculate friction between the concrete and the underlying soil. Passive pressure may be determined using an allowable equivalent fluid density of 300 pcf (pounds per cubic foot). Passive resistance from soil should be ignored in the upper 1-foot. A factor of safety of 1.5 has been applied to these values. We estimate that settlements of footings designed and constructed as recommended will be less than 1 inch, for the anticipated load conditions, with differential settlements between comparably loaded footings of/z inch or less. Most of the settlements should occur essentially as loads are being applied. However, disturbance of the foundation subgrade during construction could result in larger settlements than predicted. We recommend that all foundations be provided with footing drains. Subgrade/Basement Walls The lateral pressures acting on subgrade walls (such as basement walls or vaults) will depend upon the nature and density of the soil behind the wall. It is also dependent upon the presence or absence of hydrostatic pressure. If the walls are backfilled with granular well - drained soil, the design active pressure may be taken as 35 pcf (equivalent fluid density). Where the walls are restrained from moving, we recommend an at -rest equivalent earth pressure of 55 pcf be used for design. We assume a level backfill condition behind any proposed basement or subgrade wall. The recommended pressure does not include the effects of surcharges from surface loads. Adequate drainage behind retaining structures is imperative. Positive drainage which controls the development of hydrostatic pressure can be accomplished by placing a zone of coarse sand and gravel behind the walls. The granular drainage material should contain less than 5 percent fines. The drainage zone should extend horizontally at least 18 inches from the back of the wall. The drainage zone should also extend from the base of the wall to within 1 foot of the top of the wall. The drainage zone should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the MDD. Over -compaction should be avoided as this can lead to excessive lateral pressures. A minimum 4-inch diameter perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be placed in the drainage zone along the base and behind the wall to provide an outlet for accumulated water and direct accumulated water to an appropriate discharge location. We recommend that a JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery RG.doc February 26, 2016 Page 10 nonwoven geotextile filter fabric be placed between the drainage material and the remaining wall backfill to reduce silt migration into the drainage zone. The infiltration of silt into the drainage zone can, with time, reduce the permeability of the granular material. The filter fabric should be placed such that it fully separates the drainage material and the backfill, and should be extended over the top of the drainage zone. Typical wall drainage and backfilling is shown on Figure 8. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of footings and as passive pressure on the sides of footings and the buried portion of the wall, as described in the "Foundation Support" section. We recommend that an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 be used to calculate friction between the concrete and the underlying soil. Passive pressure may be determined using an allowable equivalent fluid density of 350 pcf (pounds per cubic foot). Factors of safety have been applied to these values. Floor Slab Support Slab -on -grade floors, where constructed, should be supported on the medium dense native soils or on structural fill prepared as described above. Areas of old fill material should be evaluated during grading activity for suitability of structural support. Areas of significant organic debris should be removed. We recommend that floor slabs be directly underlain by a minimum 4-inch thick pea gravel or washed % inch crushed rock. This layer should be placed and compacted to an unyielding condition and should contain less than 2 percent fines. A synthetic vapor retarder is recommended to control moisture migration through the slabs. This is of particular importance where the foundation elements are underlain by the lacustrine deposits, or where moisture migration through the slab is an issue, such as where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or tile to the slab. A subgrade modulus of 400 kcf (kips per cubic foot) may be used for floor slab design. We estimate that settlement of the floor slabs designed and constructed as recommended, will be 1/2 inch or less over a span of 50 feet. Burial Liners We understand that burial liners will be used in the new grave site areas. The proposed liner configuration and detail is shown on Figure 9. Because of the shallow depth of the seasonal high groundwater, there are concerns regarding the potential for buoyance to cause liners to lift out of the ground. With perched water depths typically being about 2 to 2'/2 feet below ground surface, we would anticipate the potential for buoyancy to be minimal. If the excavations for the vaults are nominally 6 feet deep and depth to water is 2 feet, the 4 feet of hydrostatic forces would be counteracted by a combination of 2 to 2'/z feet of dry soil and the weight of the concrete vault. However, we do recommend installing under -drains within the grave site areas as shown on Figure 9. The drains will dewater the area and prevent buoyancy affects from developing. Utilities We expect that underground utilities, such as sanitary sewer, storm, and water will consist of a series of pipes, vaults, manholes, and catch basins. The utility excavations should be performed in accordance with appropriate governmental guidelines. Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications. We anticipate that the on -site, non -organic soils will be suitable for use as structural backfill. If import soil is used as utility trench backfill, it should consist of a material meeting the wet weather fill recommendations provided in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery RG.doc February 26, 2016 Page 11 We recommend that utility backfill soils be compacted according to the recommendations provided in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. Controlled -density fill (CDF) is most often suitable for use as backfill in any weather condition and could be used as a convenient, but more expensive, alternative to granular backfill soil. CDF backfill does not require compaction but should have a minimum compressive strength of 250 psi commensurate with the application. Pavement Subgrades Pavement subgrade areas should be prepared as previously described in the "Site Preparation" section of this report. The prepared subgrade should be evaluated by proof - rolling with a fully -loaded dump truck or equivalent point load equipment. Soft, loose or wet areas that are disclosed should be recompacted or removed, as appropriate. Over -excavated areas should be backfilled with compacted structural fill and sub -base material. The upper 2 feet of roadway subgrade should have a density of at least 95 percent of the MDD (ASTM D- 1577). In areas where the subgrade soils have a high percentage of fines, such as the onsite glacial lake soils in portions of the western upland area, the top 9-10 inches of the pavement section should consist of non -frost susceptible materials (HMA or less than 7% fines). Our recent experience indicates that the use of Cement Treated Base (CTB) may be a more cost effective method of preparing or remediating pavement subgrade areas versus overexcavation and replacement. We understand that a CTB ratio of 5 percent cement by weight is about one-half to one-third the cost of conventional fabric and clean fill over - excavation. For the onsite roadways, because of the variable and fine grained nature of the site soils, we recommend a minimum pavement section of 3 inches HMA over 6 inches crushed surfacing base course. Pavement Frost Conditions Frost -susceptible soil is generally regarded as having greater than 3 percent finer than 0.02 millimeter (mm). Soil with a fines content not exceeding 7 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the minus %-inch fraction, can normally be expected to have 3 percent or less finer than 0.02 mm. Based on the soil presented in the logs, most of the near -surface fill and topsoil could be considered frost -susceptible. Based on information provided in the WSDOT Pavement Guide, we recommend assuming the frost depth would be about 18 inches. WSDOT recommends that the total pavement section be at least 50 percent of the frost depth. In our opinion, the recommended pavement sections should provide adequate protection against potential frost heave damage. Pavement Materials and Construction Aggregate base course and HMA should be constructed in accordance with WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (WSDOT Standard Specifications, 2012). HMA should conform to Section 5-04 in the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Aggregate for HMA should meet Section 9-03.8 requirements for HMA subjected to less than 3,000,000 ESALs. HMA should consist of HMA Class 1/2-inch aggregate in accordance with Section 9-03.8(2). CSBC aggregate should meet the requirements of WSDOT-SS Section 9-03.9(3) for crushed surfacing base course. The CSBC should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM 1557). Prior to placing the base course, topsoil should be removed until the subgrade that was observed in the soil logs is exposed. The subgrade should be graded to its design grade, smoothed, and compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. The subgrade and base course should be proof -rolled with a loaded dump truck (or equivalent) to check for yielding JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery RG.doc February 26, 2016 Page 12 conditions. Any yielding areas should be replaced with base course compacted as described above. Utility Considerations under Pavement All utility trenches should be backfilled with clean granular material, such as sand, sand and gravel, or crushed rock with a maximum 2-inch-diameter, and with not more than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve (wet sieve analysis, ASTM D 1140). Any fines should be nonplastic. The backfill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 4 inches if compacted with hand -operated equipment or 12 inches if compacted with heavy equipment. Each lift should be compacted to a dense, unyielding condition and to at least 92 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) 18 inches or more below the pavement subgrade, and 95 percent within 18 inches of the pavement subgrade. The minimum cover over utilities is typically 2 feet from the crown of the pipes or conduits to the top of the pavement subgrade. This could vary depending on the utility type, size, and depth and should be evaluated by the utility design engineers. Catch basins, utility vaults, and other structures installed flush with the pavement should be designed and constructed to transfer wheel loads to the base of the structure. Erosion Control Weathering, erosion and the resulting surficial sloughing and shallow land sliding are natural processes that affect steep slope areas. As noted, no evidence of surficial raveling or sloughing was observed at the site. To manage and reduce the potential for these natural processes, we recommend the following: No drainage of concentrated surface water or significant sheet flow onto or near the steeply sloping portions of the site. No fill should be placed within slope setback unless retained by engineered retaining walls or constructed as an engineered fill. Grading should be limited to providing surface grades that promote surface flows away from the top of slope to an appropriate discharge location beyond the toe of the slope. Erosion protection measures will need to be in place prior to the start of grading activity on the site. Erosion hazards can be mitigated by applying Best management Practices (BMP's) outlined in the Washington State Department of Ecology's (DOE) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and the City of Federal Way's stormwater requirements (which uses the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual). Site Drainage All ground surfaces, pavements and sidewalks at the site should be sloped away from structures. The site should also be carefully graded to ensure positive drainage away from all structures and property lines. Surface water runoff from the roof area, driveways, perimeter footing drains, and wall drains, should be collected, tightlined, and conveyed to an appropriate discharge point. We recommend that footing drains are installed for any new structures in accordance with IBC 1807.4.2, and basement walls (if utilized) have a wall drain as describe above. Roof drains should not be connected to footing drains. As stated previously, it is our opinion that the infiltration of stormwater at the site is not feasible because of both the high -fine content of the most of the site soils and the relatively shallow depth to seasonal high groundwater. We understand that the old pond on the east side of the site will be used for stormwater detention. We reviewed schematics of the original pond berm design, but were not provided with detailed as-builts nor were we able to access the pond berm in order to JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery RG.doc February 26, 2016 Page 13 d characterize the soils that comprise the pond. Provided the pond is cleared of existing vegetation and lined with a synthetic (PVC, HDPE, or comparable), it should be feasible to use the pond for detention as planned. Alternative to lining the pond, would be install a low - perm (Bentonite) slurry trench along the centerline of the berm, but this would likely be a higher cost option. I To intercept groundwater, to improve slope stability, and to prevent burial vaults from becoming buoyant during the wet winter months when the seasonal high groundwater table occurs, we recommend that a combination of "French" or interceptor drains be installed along the upslope side of the new burial sites where shallow groundwater was encountered. The drain will intercept surface water that would flow uncontrolled over the slope, improving the overall stability of the site. Based on the observed subsurface conditions, we anticipate that the drain should extend a minimum of three feet into the underlying glacial lacustrine soils. The drain is typically 18 to 24 inches wide, consists of 6 inch perforated PVC pipes that is enveloped in clean, free -draining washed rock. The washed rock should extend to within 1- foot of the ground surface. A typical detail of a French or interceptor drain is attached as Figure 10. The drain should be continued until it daylights or is connected to a catch basin. As discussed above, sub or under drains will be provided in the areas where burial liners will be used. Under drains should consist of 4- or 6-inch diameter perforated or slotted PVC pipes embedded in at 12 inches of pea gravel and enveloped with filter fabric. A pattern of parallel pipes spaced about 30 to 50 feet apart and having inverts located about 12 inches below the bottom of the burial vaults should be appropriate 5 Wet Weather and Wet Condition Considerations In the Puget Sound area, wet weather generally begins about mid -October and continues through about May, although rainy periods could occur at any time of year. Therefore, it would be advisable to schedule earthwork during the dry weather months of June through September. Most of the soil at the site likely contains sufficient fines to produce an j unstable mixture when wet. Such soil is highly susceptible to changes in water content and tends to become unstable and impossible to proof -roll and compact if the moisture content significantly exceeds the optimum. In addition, during wet weather months, the groundwater levels could increase, resulting in seepage into site excavations. Performing earthwork during dry weather would reduce these problems and costs associated with rainwater, construction traffic, and handling of wet soil. However, should wet weather/wet condition earthwork be unavoidable, the following recommendations are provided: • The ground surface in and surrounding the construction area should be sloped as ` d much as possible to promote runoff of precipitation away from work areas and to prevent ponding of water. ® Work areas or slopes should be covered with plastic. The use of sloping, ditching, sumps, dewatering, and other measures should be employed as necessary to permit proper completion of the work. Earthwork should be accomplished in small sections to minimize exposure to wet conditions. That is, each section should be small enough so that the removal of unsuitable soils and placement and compaction of clean structural fill could be accomplished on the same day. The size of construction equipment may have to be limited to prevent soil disturbance. It may be necessary to excavate soils with a backhoe, or equivalent, and locate them so that equipment does not pass over the excavated area. Thus, subgrade disturbance caused by equipment traffic would be �� minimized. 11 JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery RG.doc February 26, 2016 Page 14 Fill material should consist of clean, well -graded, sand and gravel, of which not more than 5 percent fines by dry weight passes the No. 200 mesh sieve, based on wet -sieving the fraction passing the %-inch mesh sieve. The gravel content should range from between 20 and 50 percent retained on a No. 4 mesh sieve. The fines should be non -plastic. ■ No exposed soil should be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. A smooth - drum vibratory roller, or equivalent, should roll the surface to seal out as much water as possible. In -place soil or fill soil that becomes wet and unstable and/or too wet to suitably compact should be removed and replaced with clean, granular soil (see gradation requirements above). ■ Excavation and placement of structural fill material should be observed on a full-time basis by a geotechnical engineer (or representative) experienced in wet weather/wet condition earthwork to determine that all work is being accomplished in accordance with the project specifications and our recommendations. • Grading and earthwork should not be accomplished during periods of heavy, continuous rainfall. We recommend that the above requirements for wet weather/wet condition earthwork be incorporated into the contract specifications. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the Archdiocese of Seattle, Gethsemane Cemetery and members of the design team for use in evaluating a portion of this project. The data used in preparing this report and this report should be provided to prospective contractors. Our report analyses, conclusions and interpretations are based on data from others, our subsurface explorations and limited site reconnaissance, and should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Variations in subsurface conditions are possible between the explorations and may also occur with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficien� monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided by our firm during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. The scope of our services does not include services related to environmental evaluations or construction safety precautions. Our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report. If there are changes in the loads, grades, locations, configurations or type of facilities to be constructed, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may not be fully applicable. If such changes are made or site conditions change, we should be given the opportunity to review our recommendations and provide written modifications or verifications, as appropriate. ♦ ♦ JABrennan GethsemaneCemetery RG.doc February 26, 2016 Page 15 We have appreciated working for you on this project. Please do not hesitate to call at 7 your earliest convenience if you have questions or comments. Respectfully submitted, -� GeoResources, LLC 1 Seth Mattos, GIT G Keith S. Schembs, LEG Principal STM:KSS:DCB/stm;kss Doc ID: JABrennan.GethsemaneCemetary.RG Attachments: Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Preliminary Proposed Master Plan Figure 3a: Site and Exploration Plan: North Figure 3b: Site and Exploration Plan: Soulh Figure 4: SCS Soil Survey Figure 5: USGS Geology Map Figure 6: Site UDAR Imagery Figure 7: IBC Appendix J Detail Figure 8: Typical Wall Drainage and Backfilling Figure 9: Burial Liner Detail Figure 10: French Drain Detail Appendix "A": ASBuilts Appendix "B": Subsurface Exploration Appendix "C": Laboratory Test Results cc: J.A. Brennan & Associates J 3��zmrG Dana C. Biggerstaff, PE Senior Geotechnical Engineer GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 v Milton Approximate Site Location (Map created from King County iMap) Site Location Map Gethesmane Cemetery Master Plan 37600 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, WA DocID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F December 2015 I Not to Scale Figure 1 _ 1 aw�r�+auor- r:•na-a �� QfA[/fMli r `� i0111r1 PAOCQr]31rY19 1MV4•31CK 45TAa a xc■ VAA=@ arm 90„ F I - 71 r �fl i PROD" we J ieMzaurorsse! 4 VLGI f �•, •, ^�� � 4b, "S. u i .-VZO af a� r+ r ; iEA+q 6 -'W LCIT• !� `�. i � � `� r � 1 � • .bA6Y. r�"L�A7i. a7R :• ti ,.z we�C�w<t u+t. • - f J. - r •.mow v qw . xzx�arsc :wR3Cr } F - ••. -' vrr. I F.:Yf'i+ Prararrmmnwo 9 NAM� 11.. mafcruo:�wx •+rJ ' - ` •� :.- f►W 4KPM % awxii III w [•rz'ItP� cwr+u+o ctivut•a.misr - su�mr - - _ �uury ❑tea ors �' "- - _ RiN ST LOW"r ^- _ 53T - '.ens 1:_. -• _ - - :...... ;•'_ .. i• I ��""""•...•"�"'` _ �~— ,-:-• --. •- r. . -- s �.7''7 �raaaroasafrue .r �' � ••�•z t • ~ i•- ' , 10 r` �. z+MZ rM-140d G u'. •1. •. low9,rwzar�a u� ` r I II ItI4' s'1;C0.11Ya�1�9r � i wren 3 ti• P19eFl z,sil�h{tlp ` Not to Scale l�_i'� �,1 FdfR1rEY B'r C.1.xfJ�ulr-r rNiE► N GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Ph: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 H w i�a �rnuaa.K�a-oti: Preliminary Master Plan Gethesmane Cemetery Master Plan Federal Way, WA DocID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F I December 2015 I Figure 2 r� LJ A TP-3 T J - - .0.0- - - - J --QM����� Approximate Location of Subsurface Explorations ATP-1 (Test Pit By GeoResources, 2015) DTP-16 J TP— T i w GRAPHIC SCALE (Nam) 1det-=a H L;I-ILIM A EE FIGURE 28 FOR AREA TO SOUTH o r GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Ph: (253) 896-1011 Fax: (253) 896-2633 Site and Exploration Plan Northern Site Gethsemane Master Plan Federal Way, Washington Doc ID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F I November 2015 1 Figure 3A 1For `` � his°�ti• �"/-� J f • • Approximate Location of Subsurface Explorations Site and Exploration Plan GeoResources, LLC Southern Site - TP-1 (Test Pit By GeoResources, 2015) 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Gethsemane Master Plan Fife, Washington 98424 Federal Way, Washington Ph: (253) 896-1011 Fax: (253) 896-2633 ` Doc ID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F November 2015 1 Figure 3B Approximate Site Location (Map created from Web Soil Survey) Soil Soil Name Parent Material Slopes Erosion Hazard Hydrologic Soils Group Type A D Alderwood gravelly sandy loam Glacial till 15 to 30 Moderate to severe C Bh Bellingham silt loam Alluvium 0 to 2 None to slight D K B Kitsap silt loam Glacial lake sediments 2 to 8 Slight to moderate C K D Kitsap silt loam Glacial lake sediments 15 to 30 Moderate to severe C No Norma sandy loam Alluvium 0 to 3 None C/D 7 S Not to Scale � USGS Geologic Map GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Gethesmane Cemetery Master Plan Fife, Washington 98424 37600 Pacific Hwy S, Phone: 253-896-1011 Federal Way, WA Fax: 253-896-2633 DocID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F December 2015 Figure 4 Qvi- ' � I i QyAt I Qpogf Sri Approximate Site Location An excerpt from The Geologic Map L Qw Wetland deposits Qyal Younger alluvium deposits Ovri Recessional lacustrine deposits Qvt Glacial till GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 USGS Geologic Map Gethesmane Cemetery Master Plan 37600 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, WA DocID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F I December 2015 Not to Scale ' Figure 5 4374fl5 Approximate Site Location (LiDAR Imagery from King County Nap) I I `37515 I I 65.3G i �700 I Not to Scale GeoResources, LLC Site UDAR Imagery 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Gethesmane Cemetery Master Plan Fife, Washington 98424 37600 Pacific Hwy S, Phone: 253-896-1011 Federal Way, WA Fax: 253-896-2633 DocID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F December 2015 Figure 6 Natural or Finish Grade -a-- 5 FT OR GREATER Top of Scope Property Lane I I I I I F1LL SLOPE z NATURAL SLOPE ► r r r ` r ` r ` T ► r r r 2 FT MINIMUM REMOVE UNSUITABLE r IcEY MATERIAL r_1 I 5 N-- 10 FT. MINIMUM GeoResources, LLC IBC Appendix JGethesmane Cemetery Master Plan 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 37600 Pacific Hwy S, Phone: 253-896-1011 Federal Way, WA Fax: 253-896-2633 DocID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F I December 2015 Figure 8 SINGLE DEPTH LINER I FOUNDATION GRAVELY L_ TOPSOIL —' TYPE A ^� STRUCTURAL BACKFILL TYPE B 4" PVC PERFORATED DRAIN LINE, DEPTH OF TRENCH VARIES TO MAINTAIN PIPE SLOPES. LINER INSTALLATION ADJACENT TO TIN MONUMENT ROWS ONLY TOPSO TYPE AIL I I I=I I I I� SINGLE DEPTH LINER DIMENSIONS; `r CO.MPACT • H = 31" BACKFILL W = 33" TYPE B L = 85" V - FILTER FABRIC FOUNDATION GRAVEL �J B _LINER SECTION 1 /2" =1.4. FINISH GRADE FXISTIN OR FUTURE CURB EDGE (NOT IN CONTRACT) NG AND FUTURE ROADS UTLITY ZONE FINISH GRADE - CONCRETE FOOTING FOR MONUMENT e,optM:oCPAN 4" PVC PERFORATED DRAIN LINE. PLACE IN TRENCH - DEPTH VARIES AS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN PIPE SLOPE, Details provided by JA Brennan Architects (Sheet L-8) GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Burial Liner and Underdrain Detail Gethesmane Cemetery Master Plan 37600 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, WA DocID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F December 2015 Figure 9 FINISHED GRADE __�A WEATHERED/FILL SOIL (LOOSE—MED DENSE) UNDISTRUBED SOIL —TILL (VERY DENSE) NON PERMEABLE LINER (30 MIL MIN) CUTOFF DRAIN SCALE : NTS GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 12" MIN 1 /2" — 1 " WASHED ROCK k� FILTER FABRIC MIN 4"0 PERFORATED P.V.C. PIPE 2" MAX FROM BOTTOM OF TRENCH French Drain Detail Gethesmane Cemetery Master Plan 37600 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, WA DocID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F December 2015 Figure 10 I Appendix A As -Built Grading Plans (Maloney, Herrington, Freesz and Lund, 1972) I J i i \OA �T$� eA•rr...>rr,Exw.Y + 4� I m ' rnYr.-.L7.r I,- f r�.. ,7.-d2'OLYCL'. fT Jr� • �'.V.rcAr D'yIV / \ •r �x� � N 99 ° /7' O.7' f 26/f_ 5- '� .. e 1 a �. %f �• r - _ _ � 84\ INDEX OF DRAWINGS I SITE RAN ' G ,� •_,_`t • v \ ` -- , _ ` I _ �' A-2 a-: D A:RAGE iL!'1 6 511 DETAILS A. SURVEY - + T ! A_ NOUN FIA:SH SCHEDULE. DOOR SCHEDULE E D^.W DETAILS A BUILDING FLO04 PLAN b ROOF PLAN 1T" �•µ� A 9U:LDINL ELEVATIONS b SECT DNS A-7 1/2' BUILD! N6 WALL SECTIONS b MISCELL'ANEWS DETAILS A-e WINDOW DETAILS A-_ SK:LIDY. CLERESTORY L C 2N. ET DETAILS l • J A-10 ENTRANCE b CDTVETM DETAILS A-i! ROOM PLANS b ELEVATIONS Sf - -2 OFFIC 3L/EEl1• (�.T, ER b HISLIIfAEDLrS DE TAILS A_]3 CHAPEL TEIA2:5 ' A-15 „ARDEN ttM- DkAl.ETAILS 2EYgRTONS S DETAILS A-16 GARDEN OF Y. i QjnS `� -- A-i5 STATION OF YIW C M DETAILS a-18 SiA-:ON OF E"6 D�.AILS 1 A -:a EN:RxXE F'A'E RA« i CE;0.:LS ,t S:RIT-AAL 1 NN\ rF y p r 7� v s-i ROW FRAMIRS PLAN GENERAL :TOTES a - Q,L'i' Yw•rrr. A \ s-3 BEAN O TAILS S-A GARDEN CRYPT xTAILS /� tail S6 � �' ^• - / '\ i k \A N • � � •'\� \ MECHANICAL •>� �0 'S+- E ME-! SITE PLAN b LEG. ME-2 GRABEN CRYPTS b JE'TATLS / M -3 FLOOR PLAN - MECHANICAL _ ELE[TR:IAL T•- . r. } `' ��- -' E_3 FLOOR RAN - l:6NT:NG E-c BOOR PLAN _ POWER. 0.NE LINE DIA'RAM L I MATERIALS & SYMBOLS r • --� --- `1 -. • �\ It •, S `. f `- -__ ® w:H OR CDMPACTD FT AS IL I WALLBOARD { ■ I'S .`. 'lN /, SPFL'F;EO = ym bLJ"m 111 \ •C- X1' _ _ GRAVEL REIF d. 1,4� '+ , - \ i! - 'l ` Y Z „•- / 1' ' V ;I,•�- �� l- CONCRETE BLOCK riMOW - _ 'Ilj ` � �-�, •�-r��' +x. . � .� � \ r � - © � Mi AL ISFRiON) L0.QGE-SCdE f BRICK HEKAL (SECT)0111 ML SCALE r"ILf /"=GC=C' /A �- �/ FIRE :ON j ! gy l M� ILL (ELEYAT) J'C: .. f•c fCR ,.:-_ .J•f,°.n%5= ) - r= /•, p`r i -� II I� ASPIWL:IC WNCaETE 7 : CERAMIC TILE ITSRAi:wY •_ GROUT � � /"'�•'F'H 5�[Lv, NGe ; / Ir' lrfL3Jr�: f !f Alm Fr��:, rrlr f r I • I r. YP deity �5V 1O'N� ����yJ•�. % x 0 _ 1 +, / 1 xe'.r Iw'v>s` r M•+i ! /6 40V1 III-m WATER CLOSET. 'L45N IALF. WALL VTD • . BRIO LIVE BESIOpITTONS u41NL-RLSM `]ACNE. WALL 1TD: GENERAL NOTES rA r••erar s-is- N �, ;�I,v<sn>, N - S-iCTUP RE=zi'm m LAYATORY - WALL !91NT6 -'-Z •i4WAC•. %q^FwY ' 1. ALL WO0.K SHALL COMPLY WITH 0. PL:CABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES. - It ' '• _ C SMN:SYL CY rrr.0 i -�• �7 =a. iCGIQI A. y`Z(: .41 CA VERIFY SINK :S LO(1�PER + 2. VERIFY ALL GRACES. DINE\STON'S AID EXISTING CONDITIONS ON T4'_ JOB BEFORE_ PRO- \ r �F,-Y v- O, r ICJ- {� E{EyATIL%1 R7, iRjtjSCE CEDING WITH THE WORK. DISCREPANCIES. ANY, ARE i0 BE REFERRED TO THE 1 y •' L / / 9 EG. .ELEVA;;9% :. SWT A-= SERVICE SINK - HALL MOH&TED ARCHITECT FOR S .,LEAEYT. } 3. 1N GENERAL. THE PLAN DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE: - \\ L l.a Af� I ,w OF fKER 1LE3[AENC[ +trl: F:'< <_),,T]OBS EP CnHI.QF.T (RECESSEOi A, TD ,11E FACE CF STUDS UNLES 5PECIFICALLY NDT_0 OTHERWISE. �. •wAr tip` H , 1 11 ^tiR• C / �J L:. D[: L1L 2. 'S'�[' C•: 9. TO TILE FACE OF HASWRY OR' CONCR-ESE, MASONRY THICKNESSES ARE GIVEN IN gCTLL1l ti pnrvrr \ / = \- / [.K- SBL:-REG_53`:O ELECTRIC wA COO:_R DIMENSIONS.. �• i -� - -{ �i 9R Doi•ALL. �% 0! RETrSSZD EITCRIC lM-�EP _^!tEi C. 70 GRID LINES. \ r.rrar , - / / + T 1 IF Ir I ` 11G11�Y ll l£"..11 9(3.SN.A: A. ALL WOWS 40T LOCATO 9Y DIMENSIONS ON PUNS OR DETAILS SHALL BE 6% FACE OF S:W jf Y ORMASOANLY TO EWE OF DOOR O 014G DR CENTERED BETWEEN ROOM PARTITIONS AS SHOW- A 3 ^x''� aR ® p1Nay jTp{ ® ILLAPL'M:_0 EX.'. SIG]' ,S. WERE CONC2-E MIISAYP.Y UNITS AGE USED FOR r: CERATEO WALLS AND ART: -IONS. PROVIDE 1' _ J �. �.B pO1dMA - ' CORK TE UNFIS OF WATERIALS SP'_C:FLED Atl0 THICKNESS SHOW RICH COF ? WITH � � - _ I ' ' � _ � ` \ /1 c �CLM:1. ANDIOB 0- FLOOR DRAIN R%L ICABLE CODE REOUIREMENIS. FOR Fi R1 PAT: YG VOTED- .5. ALL VE:SSU ELECTR:(.R AASELS AND CABINETS AYO ALL OI4ER pECESSED CA9TNET5. SHALL ) } } �`T r S��V y1y Wised[ S.i.•S4LT $'Ly .'.'Ll7[( ®- ROOF OP:.iN HAVE WALLBOARD] APPLIED TO BACK TO MAINTAIN FIRE RESISTIVE RAT: NG OF THE PARTITION ABBREVIATIONS l _ .-�werwrr-. { :b o / w�i•IF r.H.-f_Lc iaL N WRIG THE UNIT IS INSTALLED. 1 ) - }G� TLC " \ IL-i• 7. THE CONTRACTOR SMALL CONSULT PLANS OF ALL :'iADES FOR ALL OPENINGS THROUGH SLABS. ! t •+ '�,'u ! 1 ` No Lir ALLLS H. CEILING AVD ROOFS FOR DUCTS. PIPES. CONOU17. CABINETS AND EQUIPMENT, AND AC. AL'p.ytiCi'_ \ 9 Z R i S ,5� �� F;N:ESN 6MOAT ION SWILL VERIFY S12E AND LOCATION. Awl, AWWA3LE 1 -' I e. SEE STItWTU.A'LT, NECHPN:CN. AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FO0. ADDITIONAL NOTES AND ALUM" T. - AALUMINUM NGLE - L OTTOM Cm , STMBO 5. 9: COWITRACTOR SMALL YERIFT ALL RDWH-IN DIMENSIONS FOR EWIPMENT FURNISHED AGO INSTALLED BY 41!ISELF OR 0l5. ARRCCH MCNIi ^lM1R /t e� ! I l l O 1IST:NG CCfi01N! 1W'-0' 10- THE CONTRACTOR SMALL BUILD IN ALL ROtry BUM FOR GRILLES. REGISTERS. ETC. A.T. &SPRALT :IL{ -y 1 \ j flt 1 ..0 BE ALTERED) 11. ROUT FINISH SCHEDULES SMALL 40T BE 'ACEN AS A CMPLE, SPECIFICATION FOR ALL INTER- 2 AT - +y{ I`] ]OR ROOM MATERIALS: HCIfE1_R, THE`' SHALL BE BINO:W TO THE EKTENT OF THE MATERIALS GO. BOARD w 1 I 9LISTI [0'filAR IW'-0' THEY W SPECIFY. THE CONT. 'OR SHALL CHECK THESE SCVEDL'LS H111 SPECTFICATSDNS BLD. VJTLPVC } y- L A , l y 1 _ ::0 RE•�IN) A.% DRAWINGS FOR OTHER MATERIALS NOT COVERED 9Y THE SCHEDULES. }5 .] f.�V 12. ROUT AND DOOR NIDTBERS SWMM Da DRAWINDS ARE FOP. COSSTRUC7I10 PURPOSES ONLY. CDR- CAB, CABINET P • ,hG •�� 1 \• F'Yff60,f plA ZK + E:NISN COGUJP. I00'-0' SULT ARCHITECT EAR NAMES ANO 'M3ERS i0 9E PROVIDED ON D00R5 W ELSEWHERE AS 0.E- I.B. UTyI yTSTIL SS..�� } y{.. l�i -E4 yyy!!! OOI RED. C 1. CAST IRON f'" ^•x� 1CCC.F�SS�C'r TES: 900.2L&S 13. REFER TD DRAWINGS FOR ACCESS DOOR 1 :1095 AND CONSULT WITH MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR 6 Ccr.mZNL FOR EXACT LOCATIONS FOR ACCESS REQUIRED BY THEIR WORK. ACCESS MUSS BE VIDEO CLG,OR M.T. HEIGHT \ PxLI l • (�, F 1 FOR ALL CONCEALED VgLYFS, DAMPER CONTROLS. AND FIRE DAMPER LINKAGE. OBTATN ARCH]- CEIL. L7T� L :.0. INSIDE O:q+1ETER 4 TECT'S APPROVAL IN LOCATING ACCESS DODDS. CL. CLOSE7 ;.E. INVERT ELEVATION v ,E wee..ria � t I• i<. ALL CWTRA"R-FURNISHED ITEMS $HALL BE S PLIED WITH REQUIRED MECHANICAL AND C.0. (L[+Dq ; mSQT4'gr[ gtER;W IN. ]NCI! K :1YLTF+-F �. ? �1 y LGE.'D FOR SPRINKLE DIRE SL`cYFS TIMBER. ELECR'CAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE PROPER OPERATION OF :-.EMS rURN:SHED. COL, 1'�yp INSUL. •NSO'LAT:ON S {{ yy, a �yS( Tr �\ .� DRIVES L SIDEWALKS -(SEE SITE Pme. 15. ALL PIP!%. CONDUIT, DUCTS. ETC. SHALL BE FURRED -IN, I.N ALL FINISHED ROOMS. CON'C. ommTE SIN. JANITOR 16. WHHERE CERAMIC TILE WALLS OR WAINSCOTS YERHINA- AGAINST METAL. JOINT IS TO BE RAKED C01f-iR. I;QKgY,-.Gt Jul. FREE OF MORTAR AND FILLED WITH SILIWME OF A COLOR M MACH MORTAR.. C.T. DEANNIL TILE 17. ALL EXPOSED CORONERS OF ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE SHALL HAVE 1/Z" BEVEL, UNLESS SHOWN D•A, DINMrSR LAY. :AIAT'SnY ' + �• } S 1 i •+..••� 5- PTC -In - SCHEDULE KO OTHERWISE. IT, amm N, L.P- LOW VD;l C y ii ( INVERT 1'-6' BELOW FINISH GRADE IB PROVIDE CONSTRULTIM JOINTS IN COYCx.:E SLABS OI GRADE AS SHOWN AND DETAILED ON O.t. ODILF MAK. MAXMUM STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. DO, HOBBLE OR DITTO M_B. MACHIY_ SOLI 1 19 . ALL NOW IN WRTACT WITH Gd\[BETE OR MASONRY SMALL HAVE APAL-'SERVq'I1i "R.EA THE. D.S. LVIDR17R -HELM. ,NECWNICAL , 20. MET AL SLID PARTITIONS SMALL BE A' W 5' AND WOOD SW PARTTT:ONS SHALL BE 2 x R'S DWG• REWIRES �• METAL r A \ 1 .•� 1 V1 +� 1 A.'Yi'w 3" PYC PIPE - SCHEDULE AO EXL"cPT WHERE OTHERWISE NOT OR WNE0.E LARGER ST'JW ARE REWIRED TO CONCEAL FIRING EA. EAPI M-"- MAIn11AE INVERT 1'- 0' BEm FINISH GRADE ORS CONFORM TO [WE. EL- 0Y MIN. S.P-5. SPA; NCLE.° PIPE SLUE':= •. \ L+ �. C\ N 21,. ALL SUSPENDED CEILING HEIGHTS ARE TO FINISH CEILING YA R1AL. KEY. ELCMIEON MISC. M:SCELLANEWS SECT. SECTION \ H� ' 22- ALL MOW SGD PARTITIONS AID CVRRED SPACES SHALL BE FIRE -STOPPED TO PREYEN; TIMER- ELECT UU-AKA. MID. MDUMTED Str. SHE-: $ :Otl OF ANY CONCEALED SPACE_ FRO! EXCEED:RS 10'-0'. E0. Mid. MULL. MULLION S:M, "a'N'!FI 1 23_ ALL WALLBOARD A88Q: W.9.) SHOWN SMALL B 5 B" TYPE X GYPSUM WALLBOARD UNLESS N l.C. m :N CDNSRICT SPEC. SPECIE ]CAT IONS ( F / EOu:R. ESJLV!ILY SYNYt/NP _ NOTED OTHERWISE. NIP: }'.{STIR tll�! T03[L[R N0. WINNER S0. 5WA0.E 2A, COW:RALTOq 5!ALL PROVIDE A 5/8' TYPE X GTPSC:WALLBOARD 1-HOUR ENCLOSUiE AROUND 9IISi. TR7S'AS O.C. ON CENT-R S. SINK ALL RELESSEC _LECTRICAL CEILING F-X11RES. c,3- FUi i3A 0"v_ D'A:'SIDR Di�»< S.S. STAINLESS STEEL OR SERVICE SINK 25, ALL STEEL TUB COLUMNS WHERE EXTEING ABOVE SUSPENDED CEILINGS AND NJT WITHIN A F.O. RWL C1AIN P.N. ]1NIC iNAI'AIL4 STD. STANI, LARD \' - I _ Iz 1 r3 V 1-HOUR PA .f ,:RIOT SHALL 9E NRMPE_O MITH TIO W'Jt5 OF 1/2" GTPSIn WALLBOARD FOR i; EE A RATE_ STL. STEEL ! L�J..4.VO- F.E.C. TX227CJIfiSR WIFLT 1-NWa PRotaioH. ;;N. FLgO2 RAs. PLASTER s.R r.DwwE f \ \ \ , ( I ��_' GETHSEMANE CEMETERY NG'1� BE. PACK AGO :LN9 PIPES WITH SRN GLASS WERE PIPES ARE SLEEVED THROUGH WALLS. FL4. FLOPR RYWO. PLYWOOD LOT. STRUC:TNAL 1 f 1 J •••,'-x-E�� 2J- CONTACTOR SWLLL PRONTO`_ A' GRAVEL F.LL N:TM 71SQUEEN VAPOR BARRIER GNOSR CDNCRE? F: For CR FEE. P.T.M. =i.7ER TNq' F!RAER SYM. ST^MERT :CAL 9l jl V i 1 ! A,{- �L�+Yr• NLpG CODNTT, WASWL TON YLCOR SLAB ON GWTfi AS SPECIEIEO. I'P:SQ'JEEN' TO BE !OCATED OVER O9AYEL AND GA. 'J,DBE R.OR FAO. AJi;6 T.R,4• i0iLEi PAPER `]OLDER \ \ ` 1 l ' 4 ? CC! L - MQOIAiELY LXLOER [aCRE�.) F.:.LY. VLTA1ICiia R.C. ROOF iP�f7! TIP. iTPICA: 1 1 51 { - 26. EX➢AVSION JD:N;S IN SIDEWALKS AND, CURES TC BE SRACED 20'-0' MAX:MIM. a :HgYAl1YL7 :1Jp REINF. RE:NFUSED PERT. YEIrT ]CAL 1 j } j THE ARCHDIOCESE OF Sfi: A7TiE 29. PROY:OE J' Ri GiD INSUL.4Ti0R ON INTERIOR FACE OE ALL EXTERIOR 9RICT HALLS FROM 'vex 57w REDO- RMIDER tlEST. YEST:BUL ' X f 4ey Ay RLXki'AOIS(Of1 JCg1A0l6i1Cf C. SUSPENDEC CEIL[Y TO RIDE ABOVE. H.0, FpLC LTC\ R.4. ROM NppC 4/ - -H T 1 fff �• RN, RQUI N.O. WINDOW DIMENSION AI f - 1'. 1 { 1�FNF-!• i'-`m ]O%TfIL lL POCF�IA OIKL'SYORyi DC. FOR AW-TfOMAL ABBREVIATIONS SEE DRAWING A -AI 'NTH. Z. PIOAT',ax 111 L 5 I T �1 IA ALi1NEY FERRIHGTO% fLC EF82 L tun DAMP ROOF ALL ;NTER:OR SURFACES DF ALL ES?OCR PRICK WALLS NNERE BR: [K :5 CLWCEALEO M.2, OR BY FURR::C. OR 5MPENDEO CEILING. U:UI IC:F: S.C. SRSI gz*lmi u/D. YARD DRAIN qO. nt[..fAO.wa _1 E jle AIAX I W n ft` r t z•J :.�. r..lr" w:. f •� r...n.T..r•,� tiss:S`rny.'�:i--•r. r.'.ti.r: -N, a., - /r' os^ t t'' ,w.rncvr r .�•C, 4 D A 7 -F' .':i V6�.a .:l.C�: �.. � ,� v Z,L' .�^+ww.r r,.//u - l . / A `�:1' u. e.r'`.w.a"+r.�[`r.Yo :f� ` Wit` I:�v I` c r'r. `� 1 7 + "t;✓ ti.r`f`. irxir 1`L• 7 r >~ pir M1 I \ i \ r J � .err rfi A',.,.r �. �s' y"r � !„rawr..+�..� •��r.r .ml:. '� � r. r J. �) r + i � � • - �� r / / ^r. ri' re. i rr:r •r T 'Xa�i �� . • _ _' . 'AA � ,<* �. � �=• J .,. � � � /3 /> F/PE r3 ED0/NG fP1'/C rA %. r✓ f. TYPE .... � �C' i � iy � _ [4•- �rl � - cE i>:" rrrc' '� "' � •w"I, y ,•� �' ..Y .Tar � , r. � � M: �: : � s ` ':� - ��.. �t4'j i- , � Y ' rrc AlrrcN i�. H ` r� �` 1 -� h: M �� I... r ,,, J. � r R ago- ae � _$' q ,.• gr¢� • p� D:,•J - �-si `m*. `� c�� � � ay -��__. 1 . f z:r e,nz _ j �.� fir-.' - F• .Yy / r.� � . 4'- ' fI, Y�,re Cnt � aaC.v'�reei e»i'n'e- n_ . g _ � � � 1 [._.. ' tr \ /. • L T' - R� 'fie•' �i+^. 1 i;. { '� - - - � a.+.r N g - -� A_ .,- ulf. >r,es- •: -'� - - -_ _-- •'' ► ,,�.�' � • i xA*i>• � y� H: � /.► � r� 1 •'L __�_. � _ - 6-�.e' �'-�S`�'�S.:�fli w �".`�"''-� -. . 'tt♦y� _ __ �� 2.; sa`- r•� gyp. TF ,rAs�-� 1 .�y�s y� i � .} . ���i I 'v I A • 1J] �,� a. tea.• /` 1 � ) x„ _ A� _ ' �� '" , r �' a I ^ I L 1 ', ° . rr' err.-..a+.s .anr o:iT:` awrw`•n"r•e / r !m sr_ >a..a'�_ � o+' .eF.'c rrorr.n rr .avxo �'' � :. .,.^,....�,- � ' � . � .. f �.: • � • 41. rrrE e % - rr�ra, ♦ _ ilw¢,)� j H 7'- d a' L �' tL ,,� • ..,�y. �-b•' I .`var'r"��ee'! �- Y' r /2 JZrrIC/V i/ 461 15E/V(I X7, r' ,� K -- - . `rm".�w.0 ram. ��=i•' �--�'m%''ci �'��r'+• =�� - . re E / ^ _ r'o° �: T a �1 _ .¢•r w.wwc.¢¢.a: - •• r rrw-� _ _� za� r SFss• y t .wr. r: a: l•/ .% _ 'm �• � � e�ts.cM%L t�R°�„Y I cl) � -� � T t'' .r�° .' '�• 5!:" /' rS. I :.YA. r y � _ . ii, r; . aP�re¢P! f ' rrrr t jf 1. a _-`f " ��, -� 'tI Pf y, r � ;` • - �t +r .6�. i�r: �•I -.:..y .I : Y�� �s y�'.' r. •y,c . F lr - _ _ _ ` ,¢eJro°'.. -.� i:TI :5'.: _' - I ! ._r - .6•orfS: _ °w'i `s _- � T ae I rsr er , I -T xr �� • • e J JR` 'I - -- - �! 1' f � :��, � r� r��cr�ranss� - •[I i�'ir .�..er+rd. ^��Ro'.R .s[ r ^ � X •rs m.r::w� arrrrx ,�'er�d a� / ! 1 J - .ne +� � �� •[ i r=u-r=�'�%"�-_ } .°rroo'vr•.s r� _ I x r• 1 I � ;:wkii �`n.arnvF•rs.r".irr . �� •" t 1 �rrb'� w=s I � - - ~' �- - .��.;rca xw ►r�mr� - 6 i`:r \ // - P.' ro:vey . ' 1 1 � • �/ J�- - EUKS c FEHCE PLAN OETA/L'(/O ' PLAN OETA/L // ' PO..iT DETi7/L 4 E • %'. r-o' cE,r�•,,..o. (( � s•F .1. r !� � .Isr a � ea,w.e mrFs} Jr. e-Jw.s-rr',ej �e o... .Stec E: �^•."d .wx.•-w x•a'rw �� - .anc%:'f3.-e�� r°rncvc e' r. i ,[J N -r¢ax• w - % r �' � f tt.l!,,�r�/�}� .we�.evl�°`re -.� �//�4 r • - - �: rrwrr`+`wF.sni�e�r. �a:. � � � � 1 �r°/��'�.irrp.�$F p��y n+� + I unw trv��� n -^x Y•`9 L4 'r'.v ► 'wiN=;;er /� 5 'L ••.. _�- r _ �� lAM lfrcL�,rff.w=may / i ? T ` � • `� _ ! 1 � sr Pt�c cw. Acmrrnax � O� , r` (_ � 1 ( �; 1 _ �.� �r� .•�•� .I i � S'�'' - �'�i:� wg. �- - f _� `.eeri.-noe..as• . rJ� SkAK:'"' ��m . 1L G: 4 '�^y�',�:-.-iv er .vn•r•.n -- �' es.vr• rry r.•rrr,: � � i ' � _ '�.� :.. A�rr ,.o"�rl•w�� �ra.+x-_ . •�.5�-rr- w bniw [R['i[[:+- iCitea•br a:t.+c IWL• `ELEPATION'F�.- EL..Y.4TmCACO LEEENG ,. . rxv isr ar-r �- CC .� y. Srr • I ' ! -°+Frn Wlv. Y RJYOFF FUR IU YEAR FdE7_GVV - ry, .pp.1,vl�>f v'.GLE: C rrd' .]AFL,E: ,y!.FD' � . � '• 2.50 INLlIES :R 2¢ BOVBS ❑ e.A e-, lIS'r' 6rrF• :!9•+C -SCE A•/� _ - . F �� PrI.90FF COEFF:CIM - MO A"A6E _ J oa rk.�r-awrAr rrrrz�j-reEAry - = c.i ca- cc Nca-_ A-z �• • � � _ , � r �; � �, AREr. - tr-B; uBES T }��� MOM1 RFJf �c O 1CQ 7>G�� .QUiN • -•cE A• 2 - .,•r/! _ 1�•` Ir , �FGeN-itG� {=sy ��,k..e•,� f j ° Co._. CecAN -- � •' �, f fte.B7. ¢3.SB0)- 2.55' _ !• � a°4{ T =a,f: .noWR'POOT - S , Cn _ ,�F ��r+!! I Imo.}-. IO.W)' S3.9I8 LU. � -?i6 _ Sl •r 1�---�` F � __ _:C•. _-_- r2' : c•.�. cuv off %ic rr- rr r •'� �� �' . � �..:9e' . W) - ai ^-�' r r-- ` - - - � ` �. :NOTE: -r.Raxma Mma,.w' d7. caFc< � .. J'rALE �"=fW'. a• �:,, it �T ooerrm�rq r � � � � � - f ' \ l r - - . +vc sa u,+rrc. •�' . 4 ` � • t t I�V1+ [ Ei f tr • -•. r•rh•YwL.vlearrrrar-axw - .Lvr.•rwlex .e fve, f;y y1 7 . (. � yew•! �tl� I _ rf�� � E �{^ �� N++C. r-d:TR ldb'T•-E.c �"Y- N I2•riV�1l ✓^x/falrAt L�-.,� -. rL rear + _a ^' ri�•..,r. I[ '',.f�y°R.a' I` _ c'y`_.. ra• ..pw.W:vc ! Cyr Frc L jy1j r�p�L 2 O+RROd. �' /r-.wek. rp r!"' Eo" .1.7 o._ T• 1 irtlY'Ei, APING { L6 = --ys4 Y-A�+C2-' � .PLA 17ET I ri ! -_ - - -. - i - �. /j _ l * -'i :.• . r cx1S•�:a `cY�? rlrre ry-cy i c,u,:o- - N� � �„ f ���� 'A---"'• • rcvcx r.F�e • ..re•r+ein Kaci7err A +` f' .. 4-I !. �.- • I'�S"• - 'r ; $ �--�I p', .CeNC AFF.aN. -�' f T` I . e � .-T }: ; ;s Y ��� - "� � }: -c �rs�Nea ;�. :S �; �� �� �•�n• .L1 .Ot ��. �� - _e K�:.•bi.•.!�,i Y ��Ec. C.-.�6' I -� 1 _ t �� - c�nn ���+ - I°, _ '•P, .F�r Fa + j •. C? ,�.-;. ^: - � ;_,�• J tcti'c. PL AN'fac+elFnr s rralv�ov:eccurr e.du •TN'T -t dl .rc.cf• Ys• `o'rarRwr_-rnxr_raaa - . �•'- �Tn-re�mr.�avYarr-x' ram• � - -a. SEw w�n irr=r �°Fr.�cer�NR+�°c �Hrs�°a a` � Lo f�.F�mr ra•J •rs-..�m�rc' ,S : Z7'S ❑F CONC LFCREI</✓S e' C, ,,4//J L/NK FENCE e GATE Fr SER!/ICE YAA ,y r rSFm w �+rrF -= • -- ; rwr.R I r,Qr°/Nr J��jy}� ,V - AG C/l:rF1EQ Calr.0 it$4U.4r.'C£D • �pI-.Ce1OR'� lFI+CS,lLI - - r� 1a �' eR aolcc.-- -:�.} �- - •y. ray -. ri ° •4- S ;cs5rs_errr- •� -pt-. - jIII .. �><aR ccxr. CYRSi.'Src+c,yatxsj i '7y'I pep. 1 'SCwiF.•!'F�r�p� _ .A.�...__ L _ _ •Aald- r -.-.-_�m'�ra'-.--•- 1i-reo"-•_� ! j -;� {c' . R R$' �.{kt3� .�.'wJ� :'rr+a.t rr+C �s- M/"'3'LC N� aT•ns M F fj i +��.rr•Y.'t'F�ve�[�P. �` r pu..rYNc ev+AJja.�G �AS :TPC,AI`P' aE. 1 Yw•_ � = �vvc sneao — , - y --. .. _ ^zf. F- --�a • A, ?Wnnc. .•. a r+ - 60.1 GETHSEMANE CEMETERY Not2 K' KING COUNTY,THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SEAT.TLE Wt I. p,•5GP _l Y•... C.:..Fe •: M&toz"T NERYIMVo7l FRESSI lc ! A J r 1 g gJF t' - ...-1O'�u rewHa+F w�[i f n FIXgI Luu v[ �^ (� I}wing Kam wmc a comoMDESrA 1 R 111 , j r / • i }I l It • ,b , I / q / YAEE / IN#1Y I.yyy •P WET mfr ! ' ff Affi1- MA•;A4L r } _ `\ CNDT swunaj I , ` sT;+ TILL rpxA 1111 tauc. 44 44 L � wtT r�le�AA r \ (No- sA`W7 I f LEGEND a TOP OF EDGE ^�1J'I'� ■1 Q '� TOE a BODIES OF WATER �� �' • L!� Iw J�p 3 fV ��• FENCE / 1 � � `' �� �• C�',� �,,j /^..w�.�•-+ FOREST ifC]t- TREES (CONIFERS) ' , • . . SWAMP OR NET AREA DRAINAGE DIRECTION -es- CONTOURS DATUM VENCAL DATUM W45H. STATE DEFT. OF HIGHWAYS 1947 AS -BUILT OF PS.H. No.5 (OLD 99) EOUATION : W.5•DFL 1947 EL IMOO = US.Ck G.S" EL 91,72 HOMONTAL DATUM < KING COUNTY AERIAL SURVEY x 119 LEGAL DESCRIPTION •Y@ 3.-. L i70 :fQ S.N. ■ lG I`R 3.L. ><. L Ill fiE. 72. M. >n !., i.rE.r.4JF-. e 1G O1AX7..0.S4y5TO%s E[.a•'VI TH1: :l14 YI711iA' 1E �G!'14LIP iSTI0.M meu LTl1 ELc: f MT iartTIO.P L[Ji IgTNFA iN[ +'faMrF' a V. 3 [SA.511 .. .VD ECCr:.I . 801rm 1Si3C.KC'Ail �I[..^,. •4EPi-LaT'F� RS_9EiV�C9.iA lOf. ]E cf MTs. "KE _!. Y=%*'1F lw RCATr. Y?S.:.%--t fl' Ap iuiT 1P1:.cRI1vA ts' :1¢ NA- k 11F-yK 5'.v. F w SAM S[CCfd2 DFL A•Lr l9V6[71 ai iOiiTTr "M 11P. 2W i4�1 pKp`JE. SO:.': - - 'tsr" EL IO rA TMA. ECR'1'F7, ., LO:S 9. 10. 1! � 12.-10. la. 35. Ss.. -IT-. Zs eie 7l. AL: IA ill- 30 111 Tiff-PLAT•1r� FS E3.M.19L. a Os'TS7lt'b'r Iffi. 97.140}46 OF LOe m6rrT. S:I i F q0 T V Xr*: MTATTH'aTA'�.T.• +WAI+tAI Rti A P,ncl1 fl• r"",4'"Er 4l SA1P"KR- 77. LESCR:EED'R: S>7LLP4: kmM.MINcm A. -'�.lr'Orsic"-I OF Tff[ E. uh OB uc: 33'. ysR, r11s.y L R.� M.tA.. Lira T'.p(!FI'f. w9r. irL:x" �R� -A Aft -sw 17L IIY TI@11:..iT17 f1F ,SALpaw r. TaCKE 71. a8.. ]7'96' Y. HLO3G'SIIO ;L. tm AD f%:f75i@ TY�'A:�SDI.lCf OF w,a F'. T9 „E-Cyr vmm or TR:nur s i�:crr' n: L :m y) .ac.R,r,..a W am w A CL'Fre, E'-L77Ftfti Oi o11b MJIk so TA. p{L u704 - IMP L 7LaC sull rNL':A AH AxG!. THL ARC 7P A TAtlI'F- TO TI[E iEt-0A14 LVR1E"OtCL'�.•A '.R4116'OF %.M0,00 f-. �1wW. A C_-'f:F1il .W.T.'AIt =..5P".D• A P's^A1E OF lEL02 r. V AN T%:itiFO:IOt V-1k NLY11 L71L OF C..%. V OF SAM 371.�..ALVRY:TKJRS ?1.0- 1. A94 SAID V'LT L'LT A >a7:-.{F TO iSS.IS -.. 7 u i-'e� 141l1 xIc T1kLt - �4 C' 390 S:C. 3T xdL'A s. @ TfC4�S $•>2' Y. IdT iui £momi1lri S OTS7. >X :fr: TYC '�J[7r.? litc,"RC:. �.OY w 1#CIEY' IECSII•A 343 L�AE+ C'x SP6X:'• F:t-t 50. EiDe13o5:A. NOTE _ PRESENT WATER SOURCE 15 A SERVICE LINE FRONT CITY OF MILIM AT TIME OF CONSTRUOTION Afl UMNSION OF 1500- LF. ' OF WATER MMN IN HIGHWAY 99 WILL BE REOUIRED AS PER WATER DIST. NO. TOO. . I tiOP�N SCALE: 1•-90' °"-'-•- GETHSEiY{AN E•CI:lsM1ETER�C'ia2 •- -_ M1i Y _ J� /!/G:3�/9R K1N0 COYMT.'.. 'R4W�P �iO�•f � THE ARdiP14C�5: _. F ..SE'ai:TS. - - [crr %1+. �rkP.t'✓l6�a r11oYvlk C{'+.`rOiiC>?��C IsC.�;' ;' IRA101E6Y�lf[ILR[MGYIXM GEESE A LDIt7 • Appendix B Subsurface Exploration I 11 j 1 Test Pit TP-01 Location: Approximate Elevation: Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 0.2 - Topsoil/sod roots 0.2 - 5.0 SM-GM Gray gravelly SAND with silt, debris (loose, wet)(fill) 5.0 - 6.0 ML Tan blocky SILT with fine sand (stiff, moist to wet) Depth (feet) Soil Type 0.0 - 0.3 0.3 - 4.0 ML 4.0 - 6.0 ML Depth (feet) Soil Type 0.0 - 0.6 - 0.6 2.5 SM-ML 2.5 - 9.0 ML STM Terminated at 6.0 feet below ground surface. Severe caving observed in the upper 5 feet. Minor groundwater seepage observed. Test Pit TP-02 Location: Approximate Elevation: Soil Description Topsoil/sod roots Tan to gray disturbed fine sandy SILT (soft, wet)(fill) Tan lightly mottled blocky SILT (stiff, wet)(Qvrl) Terminated at 6.0 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. Test Pit TP-03 Location: Approximate Elevation Soil Description Slash/woody debris Tan to gray lightly mottled sandy SILT with some gravel (soft, wet)(fill) Tan blocky SILT with some fine sand (soft, moist to wet)(Qvrl) Terminated at 9.0 feet below ground surface. Minor caving observed in the upper 3 feet. Slow groundwater seepage observed from 2 to 2.5 feet. GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Excavated on: Nov 17, 2015 Test Pit Logs Gethesmane Cemetery Master Plan 37600 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, WA DocID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F December 2015 1 Figure B -2 Test Pit TP-04 Location: Approximate Elevation: Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 0.6 Topsoil/Forest Duff 0.6 - 2.5 SM-ML Tan to gray SILT and sand with some gravel (soft, saturated)(fill) 2.5 - 4.0 ML Tan SILT with some sand (stiff, moist) 4.0 - 8.0 GP-SP Tan gravelly SAND with some silt (dense, moist) Terminated at 8.0 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. Rapid groundwater seepage observed 1.5 to 2.5 feet bgs. Test Pit TP-06 Location: Approximate Elevation: Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 4.0 SP Brown gravelly SAND with silt, debris (loose, moist)(fill?) 4.0 - 8.0 SP Tan to gray gravelly SAND (medium dense, moist)(outwash?) Terminated at 8.0 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. Test Pit TP-07 Location: Approximate Elevation: Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 0.5 - Topsoil/Sod 0.5 - 6.0 SP-SM Brown to blue -gray silty SAND with gravel, debris (loose to medium dense, wet)(fill) 6.0 - 8.0 GM Blue silty GRAVEL with sand (medium dense, moist to wet)(ice contact?) Terminated at 8.0 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. STM GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Excavated on: Nov 17, 2015 Test Pit Logs Gethesmane Cemetery Master Plan 37600 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, WA DocID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F I December 2015 11 I Test Pit TP-08 Location: Approximate Elevation: Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 0.8 - Topsoil/Forest Duff 1.0 - 2.5 SP Brown gravelly SAND with some silt (medium dense, moist)( Weathered Outwash) 2.5 - 6.0 SP Gray gravelly SAND with occasional cobbles (dense, moist)( Advance Outwash) Terminated at 6.0 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. Test Pit TP-09 Location: Approximate Elevation: Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 0.5 _ Topsoil/Sod 0.5 8.5 SM Brown grading to gray silt, massive to laminated (stiff, moist to wet) Terminated at 8.5 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. Test Pit TP-10 Location: Approximate Elevation: Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 0.5 - Topsoil/Sod 0.5 1.5 GM Brown silty GRAVEL with sand (medium dense, moist to wet)(fill) 1.5 7.5 ML Brown grading to blue SILT (very stiff to hard, moist) Terminated at 7.5 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. by: STM GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Excavated on: Nov 17, 2015 Test Pit Logs Gethesmane Cemetery Master Plan 37600 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, WA DocID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F December 2015 Figure B - 4 Test Pit TP-11 Location: Approximate Elevation: Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 0.5 - Topsoil/Sod 0.5 - 1.5 GM Brown silty GRAVEL with sand (medium dense, moist to wet)(fill) 1.5 - 7.5 ML Brown grading to blue SILT (very stiff to hard, moist) Terminated at 7.5 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. No groundwater seepage observed. Test Pit TP-15 Location: Approximate Elevation: Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 - 0.2 - Topsoil/Sod 0.2 - 6.0 SM-ML Tan to blue fine sandy SILT (soft, saturated)(fill) Terminated at 6.0 feet below ground surface. Severe caving observed. Rapid groundwater (10 gpm) seepage observed below 3 feet. Test Pit TP-16 Location: Approximate Elevation: Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description _ 0.0 - 0.5 SP Tan silty SAND with gravel, debris (loose, saturated)(fill) 0.5 - 1.5 - Organic debris (hog fuel) 1.5 - 3.0 SM Tan sandy SILT, some gravel and debris (loose, saturated)(fill) 3.0 - 7.0 MIL Blue -gray SILT (very stiff, moist)(lacustrine) Terminated at 7.0 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. Rapid groundwater seepage below 2 feet. STM GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Excavated on: Nov 17, 2015 Test Pit Logs Gethesmane Cemetery Master Plan 37600 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, WA DocID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F I December 2015 1 Figure B -5 1 I I j I Test Pit TP-17 Location: Approximate Elevation: Depth (feet) Soil Type Soil Description 0.0 0.5 - Gravelly topsoil/roots 0.5 1.5 GP Light brown sandy GRAVEL (medium dense, moist) 1.5 3.0 SM Dark brown silty SAND (loose, saturated) 3.0 6.0 ML Tan to gray SILT with fine sand (stiff, wet)(native lacustrine) Depth (feet) Soil Type 0.0 - 0.5 - 0.5 - 1.5 SP 1.5 - 5.0 ML 5.0 - 7.5 ML by: STM Terminated at 6.0 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. Moderate groundwater seepage observed from 1.5 to 3 feet bgs. Test Pit TP-18 Location: Approximate Elevation: Soil Description Gravelly topsoil/roots Light brown gravelly SAND with some cobbles (medium dense, moist) Light brown SILT with sand, occasional gravel (stiff, wet) Blue -gray clayey SILT (very stiff, wet) Terminated at 7.5 feet below ground surface. No caving observed. Minor groundwater seepage in the upper 2 to 3 feet. Excavated on: Nov 17, 2015 GeoResources, LLC Test Pit Logs 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Gethesmane Cemetery Master Plan Fife, Washington 98424 37600 Pacific Hwy S, Phone: 253-896-1011 Federal Way, WA Fax: 253-896-2633 DocID: JABrennan.Gethesmane.F December 2015 Figure B -6 Appendix C Laboratory Test Results 100 90 80 70 W Z 60 LL Z 50 W U Of 40 W a- 30 20 10 0 Particle Size Distribution Report GRAIN SIZE - mm. % Gravel % Sand % Fines +3" Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 6.2 19.97—F 6.5 15.2 26.4 1 25.8 TEST RESULTS Opening Percent Spec.' Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 1.25 100.0 1 93.8 .75 93.8 .5 83.9 .375 80.5 #4 73.9 #10 67.4 #20 61.0 #40 52.2 #60 40.8 #100 32.5 #200 25.8 (no specification provided) Source of Sample: TP-17 GeoResources, LLC Fife, WA Material Description silty sand with gravel AtterUera Limits (ASTM D 4318 PL= NP LL= NV PI= Classification USCS (D 2487)= SM AASHTO (M 145)= A-2-4(0) Coefficients D90= 16.3027 D85= 13.2649 D60= 0.7859 D50= 0.3836 D30= 0.1155 D15= D90= Cu= Cc= Remarks Sample ID:091543 NM-17.3% Date Received: Date Tested: 12/1/15 Tested By: JPK Checked By: Title: Client: JA Brennan Project: JABrennan.Gethsemane Checked By: Date Sampled: Tested By: n�nn ui GRAIN SIZE - mm. > %+3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines @ I Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay w 99.7 (D c o 2 C)._ N 3 m L E � O O m 3 -r O U �'0 c C N '6 v c aD m � L 0-0 (D r- C > tn U X Q NCI a� c � m `o a) TEST RESULTS Opening Size Percent Finer Spec.* (Percent) Pass? (X=Fail) #200 99.7 N(no specification provided) m Source of Sample: TP-16 GeoResources, LLC a� � ro Fife, WA Material Description Atterhera Limits (ASTIIA D 4318 PL= 28 LL= 59 PI= 31 Classification USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)= Coefficients_ D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Sample I13:091542 NM-37.6% Date Received: Date Tested: 12/1/15 Tested By: JPK Checked By: Title: Client: JA Brennan Project: JABrennan.Gethsemane Date Sampled Tested By: Checked By: 100 90 80 70 IY W Z 60 LL Z 50 W U 12� 40 W 0_ 30 20 10 0 m +L (no specification provided) O Source of Sample: TP-7 _j GeoResources, LLC Fife WA Particle Size Distribution Report GRAIN SIZE - mm, % Gravel % Sand % Fines +3" Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay ` 1 63.2 TEST RESULTS Opening Percent Spec." Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) #200 63.2 Material Description Atterberg Limits ASTM D 431$ PL= LL= PI= Classification USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)= Coefficients D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Sample ID:091541 NM-26.8% Date Received: Date Tested: 12/1/15 Tested By: JPK Checked By: Title: Client: JA Brennan Project: JABrennan.Gethsemane Checked By: Date Sampled: Tested By: i w W Z LL H Z W U tY W 0- Particle Size Distribution Report CIC C O O c ,c c .d c s m 4 o ry o 0 0 0 o uJ UllnIly J1LL % +3„ % Gravel % Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium ~ to 0.0 11.6 2.4 0.7 46.5 O U C ._ c o o m � N m E @ O `o � a> L ri o u � c w 'V O c C o c6 0-0 Co ai c c-0 > u, cY U In X (D a) >_ � o 0 0 TEST RESULTS Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 3.0 100.0 2.5 100.0 2.0 100.0 1.5 88.4 1.25 88.4 1 88.4 .75 88.4 5 87.5 .375 86.8 #4 86.0 #10 85.3 #20 81.5 #40 38.8 #60 7.7 #100 3.4 #200 2.4 -- (no specification provided) o ; Source of Sample: TP-6 Depth: 5' Cn Cn GeoResources, LLC a� Fife, WA Fine 36.4 % Fines Silt Material Description poorly graded sand 2.4 Atterisero Limits (ASTIVI D 4318 PL= LL= PI= Classification USCS (D 2487)= SP AASHTO (M 145)= Coefficients 1390= 39.6307 D85= 1.8829 D60= 0.5998 D50= 0.5100 D30= 0.3659 D15= 0.2832 D10= 0.2600 Cu= 2.31 Cc= 0.86 Remarks Sample ID:091540 NM-4.2% Date Received: Date Tested: 12/1/15 Tested By: JPK Checked By: Title: Client: JA Brennan Project: JABrennan.Gethsemane Date Sampled: Tested By: Checked By: 1 WETLAND AND STREAM � DELINEATION REPORT AND WETLAND "l BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN -1 Gethsemane Cemetery 1 Federal Way, WA Prepared for: Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle 710 9`h Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 _1 J Prepared by: Otak, Inc. 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 January 27, 2017 RESUBN11TTE FEB 0 1 2017 I Q IY OF FEDERA WAY J �MM Ct tL WETLAND AND STREAM DELINEATION REPORT AND WETLAND BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN Gethsemane Cemetery Federal. Way, WA January 27, 2017 Prepared By: Otak, Inc. Kevin O'Brien, Senior Ecologist Jeff Gray, Senior Wetland Scientist (425) 822-4446 Project Representative: Richard Peterson (206) 524-1451 Archdiocese of Seattle I Executive Summary The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (Archdiocese of Seattle) is undertaking a long range planning effort for Gethsemane Cemetery in Federal Way, Washington, with the goal of achieving long-term master plan development approval from the City of Federal Way through its Process IV land use application process. A Cemetery Master Plan will be prepared, and is intended to guide cemetery development in several phases over the next 50 years. This Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan documents baseline wetland and stream boundaries and functions at the Gethsemane Cemetery to support the long range planning effort, as well as proposing wedand buffer mitigation through enhancement plantings. Methods to complete the wetland and stream delineation included reviewing background information, conducting a field investigation, and classifying wetland and streams and assessing their r functions per local and state regulations. Otak, Inc. biologists delineated wetlands using the three - parameter approach detailed in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) and the regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.• Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2010). Wetlands were classified according to Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of Untied States (Cowardin, et al.,1979) and the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) wetland classification (Brinson, 1993). Wedand functions and buffers were rated using the Washington State Wletland Hating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014). The field investigation 1 was conducted on November 4, 5 and 12, 2015. Additional field investigation was conducted on July 29, 2016 to delineate wetlands on the adjacent Katileen property. 1 Otak, Inc. biologists delineated 14 separate wetlands on the Gethsemane Cemetery properties as shown on Figure 7 in Appendix B. The total area of delineated wetlands is 3.50 acres, mostly occurring as forested and shrub wetland habitats along West Fork Hylebos Creek and along the northern property boundary. Wetlands 1, 4, 6, and 13 extend beyond the property boundaries, with Wedand 1 extending onto the adjacent Kardeen property. No wetlands or streams were observed on the undeveloped portion of the study area east of West Fork Hylebos Creek. The 14 delineated wetlands are variously rated as Category II and III per the 2014 Ecology Wedand Rating System (Hruby, 2014), and have buffers between 60 and 165 feet (Federal Way Revised Code [FWRq 19.145.420). Cowardin wetland classes include palustrine forested (PFO), scrub -shrub (PSS), and emergent (PEM) habitats. Wetlands 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are classified as PFO; wetlands 4, 10, and 13 are classified as PSS; wetlands 2, 3, and 14 are classified as PEM; and, wetlands 1, 5, and 6 have PFO/PSS/PEM habitat mosaics. Wetlands were classified as depressional, riverine, and slope per the HGM classification system. Wedand 2, artificially created in a roadside ditch along Pacific Highway South, is exempt from the FWRC per Chapter 19.145.110(3), and does not have an associated buffer. The ordinary high water mark was delineated along both sides of West Fork Hylebos Creek. West Fork Hylebos Creek is classified Type F (fish habitat) per FWRC 19.145.260, and has a 100-foot stream buffer. Artificial, intermittently flowing watercourses were delineated between Wedand 2 and Wedand 1 in a roadside ditch, and from a stormwater outfall that discharges to Wedand 6. The Gethsemane Cemetery i January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan J intermittent streams are classified Type Ns (seasonal, non -fish habitat), and do not have buffers because they are exempt per FWRC 19.145.110(3). Direct impacts to the on -site wetlands will be avoided altogether as a component of the Cemetery Master Plan and future land use decisions and activities related to implementation of the Plan. No modifications, including excavation, fill, and/or removal activities will occur in the on -site wetlands. No modifications will occur to off -site wetlands associated with the Karileen property to the east. Reduction of the wetland buffer for Wetland 1 is proposed per FWRC 19.145.440(6)—the proposed reduction will decrease the buffer by 25 percent in the outer buffer, from 165 feet to 124 feet. The remaining buffer will be enhanced with native plant species installation and non-native invasive plant removal. A mitigation plan and monitoring plan is outlined in support of the proposed buffer reduction, per allrequirements of FWRC. No net loss of ecological functions to the Wetland 1 buffer or to Wetland 1 itself will occur on either the Gethsemane Cemetery property or the Karileen property, and it is anticipated that buffer function will be enhanced through the proposed buffer mitigation. The Plan proposes to repurpose an existing stormwater pond to provide stormwater management for a portion of the site. The new stormwater facility will become an artificial wetland over time, converting existing upland habitat into wetland habitat with an aquatic bed plant community and emergent plant community developing as the hydrologic regime establishes. The proposed modifications to the existing facility, located in upland habitat, are expected to be exempt from the provisions governing use, activities, and development in wetland buffers per FWRC 19.145.110(3). Gethsemane Cemetery ii January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Table of Contents Chapter1. Introduction.........................................................................................................1 1.1 Location and Setting...................................................................................................................................1 Chapter2. Methods................................................................................................................ I 2.1 Review of Publisbed Information................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Evaluation of the Growing Season.............................................................................................................. 2.3 Field Investigation....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Wetland and Stream Classfealivn and R.Wr::gs..........................................................................................3 Chapter 3. Existing Conditions...........................................................................................5 3.1 Landscape S,,,wit;; and PmjectArea Overview.............................................................................................5 3.2 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................................5 3.3 Streams............................................................................................................25 25 3.4 Sensitive Plants, Fish, and llT/ildli.......................................................................................................... 3.5 Rega lwory Summary.................................................................................................................................26 Chapter 4. Proposed Buffer Mitigation............................................................................28 4.1 Mitigation Overview..................................................................................................................................28 T4.2 Project Impacts......................................................................................................................................... 28 1 4.3 Proposed Mitigation..................................................................................................................................32 4.4 Mitigation Design Criteria........................................................................................................................33 4.5 Proposed Wetland BarfferMitgation Plan.................................................................................................33 _ J Chapter 5. Proposed Monitoring Plan..............................................................................38 J 5.1 Proposed Monitoring Plan.........................................................................................................................38 5.2 Maintenance and Contingency Actions......................................................................................................41 Chapter6. References.........................................................................................................43 Tables Table 3-1. Delineated Wetlands within the Gethsemane Cemetery...........................................................7 Table3-2. Wetland 1 Summary........................................................................................................................ 8 JTable 3-3. Wetland 2 Summary........................................................................................................................ 9 Table3-4. Wetland 3 Summary......................................................................................................................10 Table 3-5. Wetland 4 Summary......................................................................................................................11 _ 1 Table 3-6. Wetland 5 Summary ......................................................................................................................12 Table3-7. Wetland 6 Summary......................................................................................................................13 Table3-8. Wetland 7 Summary......................................................................................................................14 Table3-9. Wetland 8 Summary......................................................................................................................15 Table3-10. Wetland 9 Summary...................................................................................................................16 Table3-11. Wetland 10 Summary.................................................................................................................17 Gethsemane Cemetery ui January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Iand J Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Table3-12. Wetland 11 Summary.................................................................................................................18 Table3-13. Wetland 12 Summary.........................................................................................................19 Table3-14. Wetland 13 Summary.................................................................................................................20 Table 3-15. Wetland 14 Summary....................................................................... ....... 21 Table 3-16. NRCS Soil Units Mapped on the Gethsemane Cemetery Property....................................22 Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map Appendix B Figure 2 Site Map Appendix B Figure 3 Topography Map Appendix B Figure 4 NRCS Soils Map Appendix B Figure 5 National Wetlands Inventory Map Appendix B Figure 6 Vicinity Map Appendix B Figure 7 Delineated Wetlands and Streams Map Appendix B Figure 7A Wetland 1 Map Appendix B Figure 7B Wetlands 2 and 3 Map Appendix B Figure 7C Wetlands 4-5 and Wetlands 7-13 Map Appendix B Figure 7D Wetland 6 Map Appendix B Figure 7E Wetland 14 Map Appendix B Figure 7F Delineated Wetland and Buffer on Karileen Property Appendix B Figure 8 Delineated Wetlands and Proposed Buffer Reduction Appendix B Figure 9: Proposed Repurposing for Existing Stormwater Facility Appendix B Figure 10: Repurposed Stortnwater Facility Partial Plan Appendix B Appendices Appendix A — Methods and Tools Appendix B — Project Figures and Background Information Appendix C — Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix D — Ecology Wetland Rating Forms Appendix E — Plant Species Observed within the Study Area Appendix F — Mitigation Plan Sheets Acronyms and Abbreviations Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology ESA Endangered Species Act FWRC Federal Way Revised Code GIS Geographic Information Systems HGM Hydrogeomorphic NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWI National Wetlands Inventory Gethsemane Cemetery iv January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan OHWM ordinary high water mark PEM palustrine emergent i PFO palustrine forested PHS Priority Habitat and Species USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area I Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer M.tiption Plan v January 27, 2017 Chapter 1. Introduction The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (Archdiocese of Seattle) is undertaking a long range planning effort for Gethsemane Cemetery in Federal Way, Washington, with the goal of achieving long-term master plan development approval from the City of Federal Way through its Process IV land use application process. A Cemetery Master Plan will be prepared, and is intended to guide cemetery development in several phases over the next 50 years. This wetland and streams delineation report documents baseline wetland and stream boundaries and functions at the Gethsemane Cemetery to support the long range planning effort. This report will facilitate efforts to: • Document wetland and stream boundary determinations for review by local, state, and federal regulatory authorities; • Document and characterize baseline wetland and stream conditions and wetland functions; • Determine wetland and stream buffer locations and widths per Chapter 19.145 (Environmentally Critical Areas) of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC); and, • Assess potential compensatory mitigation opportunities on -site. 1.1 Location and Setting The Gethsemane Cemetery is located in the City of Federal Way in King County, Washington (Appendix B - Figures 1 and 2), and includes the following tax parcels: #322104-9025, #322104- 9020, #218820-4560, #218820-4281, and #218820-4365 (herein referred to as the study area). The parcels are located in Section 32, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. The cemetery is located within the West Fork Hylebos Creek basin within the larger Hylebos Creek watershed. The study area is bordered to the west by Pacific Highway South (State Route 99), to the east by Interstate Highway 5, and to the north and south by rural residential, agricultural, and commercial land uses. West Fork Hylebos Creek runs through the center of the study area from north to south. The existing, developed cemetery grounds are mainly located west of West Fork Hylebos Creek. The undeveloped area east of West Fork Hylebos Creek is comprised of secondary -growth forest. Forest lands along West Fork Hylebos Creek are also located north and south of the cemetery. Gethsemane Cemetery 1 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Chapter 2. Methods This chapter summarizes the methods used to comply with local, state, and federal guidance in delineating wetland and stream boundaries in Washington State. See Table A-1 in Appendix A for further details regarding methods used for this report. 2.1 Review of Published Information Available site information was reviewed prior to the field effort to identify any previously documented wetlands, streams, or other site characteristics (e.g., vegetation community patterns, topography, soils, or water courses) that would indicate the presence of wetlands within the Gethsemane Cemetery properties. These maps are typically used as guidance, and do not supersede conditions in the field. As part of this effort, Otak, Inc. biologists reviewed the following sources: • Soils map from the United States Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS 2015); • National Wetlands Inventory (United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS,2016); • WDFW Salmonscape and Priority Habitat and Species maps (WDFW, 2016) ■ King County GIS Data Portal - wetlands (Ding County 2015); and Aerial photo of the vicinity using public web -based mapping service (Google Maps 2015). 1 2.2 Evaluation of the Growing Season 1 Wetland hydrologic conditions are considered present if an area has 14 or more consecutive days of flooding or ponding, or a water table 12 inches or less below the soil surface, during the growing season, depending on soil and plant community conditions (USACE 2010). In the Pacific Northwest coast region, the beginning and ending dates of the growing season can be defined based on two indicators of biological activity that are readily observable in the field: (1) above ground growth and development of vascular plants, and (2) soil temperature. However, due to seasonal fluctuations from year to year the growing season dates may also be approximated by the number of frost -free days, defined as the time from the last date in spring when the ambient air temperature drops to 28°F, to the first date in fall when it drops to 28°F, over a 30-year period (USACE, 2010). J As such, the beginning and ending dates for the growing season in the study area were estimated from long-term weather records as the median dates (50 percent probability) for the first and last 28°F days. Based on long-term weather records, the average start and end dates for the growing i season for the area are February 6 and December 9, respectively, for a total growing season of 305 _j days (MRCS 2015). Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report January 27, 2017 Iand Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 2.3 Field Investigation Wetland and stream boundaries were assessed and delineated on the Gethsemane Cemetery properties on November 4, 5 and 12, 2015. In accordance with federal, state, and local guidance and regulations, Otak, Inc. biologists delineated wetlands using the three -parameter approach detailed in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation IUanrrah Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2010). Following routine methodology, data on vegetation, soils, and hydrology were collected in areas that appeared to have wetland characteristics at 22 data points. The location of each data point is shown on the Delineated Wetlands and Streams Mapping series (Figures 7A through 7E) in Appendix B. Data for wetland and upland plots were recorded on USACE wetland determination data forms and are provided in Appendix C. Wetland boundaries were marked with sequentially numbered pink pin flags in meadow areas and pink -and -black -striped flagging in shrub and forested areas. Wetland flags were professionally surveyed and transferred to geographical information systems (GIS) mapping programs. The forested area east of West Fork Hylebos Creek was reviewed by walking transects from the east side of West Fork Hylebos Creek to the eastern parcel boundary near Interstate 5. Two wetland determination data sheets (11 and 12) are provided that document conditions in this area. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) along West Fork Hylebos Creek was marked in the field using orange flagging. Identification of OHWM was based on the presence of primary field indicators, such as: break in slope, change in sediment and vegetation characteristics, drift lines, erosion/scour, and silt deposits. If a riverine wetland influenced the channel characteristics then it was included with the stream OHWM boundary. Qualitative data on riparian condition was also included as part of the field data collection effort. 2.4 Wetland and Stream Classification and Ratings Wetlands on the Gethsemane Cemetery properties were classified using the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of Untied States (Cowardin, et al.,1979) and hydrogeomorphic (HGM) wetland classification (Brinson, 1993). Wetland functions were rated using the Washington State Wletland Rating System for Western Washington — 2014 Update (Hruby, 2014) in accordance with FWRC 19.145.420. Wetland rating forms and figures are provided in Appendix D (Ecology Rating Forms). Wetland buffer widths were determined based on wetland habitat scores and wetland categories for each wetland. Wetland buffer conditions were qualitatively assessed based on vegetation cover, land use, and presence of invasive species. Delineated streams were classified according FWRC 19.145.260, which follows the Washington Department of Natural Resources stream typing system per Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 222-16-030. Stream buffer widths were determined by stream type per FWRC 19.145.270. Gethsemane Cemetery 3 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Wetland and stream locations are described in Chapter 3 and shown on Figure 7 (Delineated Wetlands and Streams Map) in Appendix B. Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer ltiiifigation Plan 4 January 27, 2017 Chapter 3. Existing Conditions 3.1 Landscape Setting and Project Area Overview The Gethsemane Cemetery (Parcel Nos. 322104-9025, 322104-9020, 218820-4560, 218820-4281, and 218820-4365) is located in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 10 (Puyallup -White) in the City of Federal Way, King County, Washington. The western half of the study area includes the active cemetery with the administrative building, parking lot, driveways, and walkways. The eastern half of the study area is undeveloped, and includes mixed deciduous and evergreen, secondary growth forest habitat. West Fork Hylebos Creek flows from north to south within a ravine that separates the developed and undeveloped portions of the study area (Appendix B, Figure 3 — Topography Map) The study area is bordered to the west by Pacific Highway South (State Route 99), to the east by Interstate Highway 5, and to the north and south by rural residential, agricultural, and commercial land uses. An offsite wetland mitigation project borders the northern edge of the cemetery properties west of West Fork Hylebos Creek. The climate in Federal Way is characterized by the mild climate of the Puget Sound lowlands with warm, generally dry summers, and cool, wet winters. The average annual rainfall in the Puget Sound lowlands is 32-35 inches. 3.2 Wetlands 3.2.1 Overview Otak, Inc. biologists delineated 14 separate wetlands on the Gethsemane Cemetery properties as shown on Figure 7 in Appendix B. The total area of delineated wetlands is 3.50 acres, mostly occurring as forested and shrub wetland habitats along West Fork Hylebos Creek and along the northern property boundary. Wetlands 1, 4, 6 and 13 extend beyond the property boundaries. No wetlands or streams were observed on the undeveloped portion of the study area east of West Fork Hylebos Creek. Wetland determination data forms are provided in Appendix C, and Ecology wetland ratings forms and figures are provided in Appendix D. A list of plant species observed during field work is included as Appendix E. Gethsemane Cemetery 5 January 27, 2017 Wedand and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 3.2.2 Background Review Appendix B includes figures associated with the background review, including: an aerial photograph of the Gethsemane Cemetery properties (Figure 2), a topographic map (Figure 3), a NRCS soils map (Figure 4), a NWI map (Figure 5), and a Federal Way wetlands and streams map (Figure 6). _ Two NWI freshwater wetlands are mapped within the property boundaries, and include forest and shrub habitats. Federal Way maps two wetlands in the study area, and two other wetlands abutting the study area. Wetlands are shown on Parcel Nos. 322104-9025 and 322104-9020. An unnamed T tributary to West Fork Hylebos Creek is shown along the northern edge of the study area after II crossing underneath SR 99. 3.2.3 Delineated Wetlands The 14 delineated wetlands in the study area are rated as Category II and III per the 2014 Ecology Wetland Rating System (Hruby, 2014), and have buffers between 60 and 165 feet (FWRC 19.145.420). Wetland 2, artificially created in a roadside ditch along Pacific Highway South, is exempt from the FWRC per Chapter 19.145.110(3), and does not have an associated buffer. Cowardin wetland classes included palustrine forested (PFO), scrub -shrub (PSS), and emergent (PEN) habitats. Wetlands 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are classified as PFO; wetlands 4, 10, and 13 are classified as PSS; wetlands 2, 3, and 14 are classified as PEM; and, wetlands 1, 5, and 6 have PFO/PSS/PEM habitat mosaics. Wetlands were classified as depressional, riverine, and slope per the HGM classification system. Wetland classes, sizes, and buffer widths are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. Wetland 1 is located in the northwest corner of the study area. It receives stormwater runoff J collected by a roadside ditch (Wetland 2) along the east side of SR 99, and drains to a large wetland complex adjacent to West Fork Hylebos Creek. Wetland 3 is a small wetland in a depression in the western -most corner of the study area adjacent to the east side of SR 99, and likely drains into the _ municipal stormwater system. Wetlands 4, 5, and 7-13 are situated along the banks of West Fork Hylebos Creek, and are periodically inundated during high flow events. Wetland 6 is a large groundwater -supported wetland complex that maintains flows in West Fork Hylebos Creek. Wetland 14 is another small depression situated at the toe of slope adjacent to a gravel road on the neighboring property. I I Individual wetland characteristics are summarized in Table 3-1, and wetland profiles are provide in Tables 3-2 to 3-15. Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report January 27, 2017 and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Table 3-1. Delineated Wetlands within the Gethsemane Cemetery Wetlands Wetland Classification Wetland Size 4 Habitat Score from Ecology Rating System Buffer Width (feet)' Cowardin2 HGM Ecology3 Square Feet Acre W1 PFO/PSS/ PEM Depressional/Slope Unit 1: III Unit 2: III Unit 3: II >64,890 >1.49 Unit 1: 6 Unit 2: 5 Unit 3: 7 Unit 1: 165 Unit 2: 105 Unit 3: 165 W2 PEM Slope III 290 0.01 4 0 W3 PEM Depressional III 580 0.01 4 60 W4 PSS Riverine II 970 0.02 6 165 W5 PFO/PSS Riverine/Slope II 7,030 0.16 6 165 W6 PFO/PSS Depressional/ Riverine/Slope II >66,750 >1.53 7 165 W7 PFO Riverine II 480 0.01 6 165 W8 PFO Riverine II 400 0.01 6 165 W9 PFO Riverine II 6340 0.15 6 165 W10 PSS Riverine II 260 0.01 6 165 W11 PFO Riverine 11 330 0.01 6 165 W12 PFO Riverine II 480 0.01 6 165 W13 PSS Riverine II 910 0.02 6 165 W14 PEM Depressional III 2,940 0.07 4 60 TOTAL 152,650 1 3.50 ote: 1. Wetlands shown on Figure 7, and Figures 7A to 7E in Appendix B. 2. Cowardin et al. (1979). Class based on vegetation: PEM = Palustrine Emergent; PFO = Palustrine Forested; PSS = Palustrine Scrub -Shrub. 3. Ecology category according to Hruby (2014). 4. Wetlands sizes measured within the study area boundaries; Wetlands 1 and 6 extend beyond study area boundaries. 5. Wetland buffer width according to FWRC 19.145.420. Wetland 2 is artificially created and has no buffer because it is exempt from the FWRC per Chapter 19.145.110(3). Gethsemane Cemetery 7 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 1 Table 3-2. Wetland 1 Summary. I I WETLAND 1— INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Forest, shrub, and emergent wetland on Parcel No. 322104-9020 Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way WRIA 10 i'"=• Ecology Rating Unit 1: III (Hruby, 2014) Unit 2: III Unit 3: II Federal Way Rating Same Unit 1: 165 feet Federal Way Buffer Width Unit 2: 105 feet Unit 3: 165 feet Wedand Size on -site 1.49 acres Cowardin Classification PFO, PSS, PEM HGM Classification Depressional, Slope Wedand Data Sheet(s) 1, 3, 5 Upland Data Sheet (s) 2, 4, 6 Flag color Pink/black stripe & pink pin flags Dominant Salix jikbensis, Phalalans arundinacea, Typha latifolia, Spiraea doughidi Vegetation Soils Silt loam 10YR 3/1 and clay loam 10YR 5/1, with redoximorphic features. Hydrology Receives hydrology from stormwater discharges, groundwater seeps, and precipitation. Rationale for Satisfies all three wetland criteria. Delineation Rationale for Follows Ecology rating system (Hruby 2014) per FWRC 19.145.420. Local Rating Wedand Functions Summary Wetland 1 provides a moderate level of hydrologic functions because it has a slightly constricted outlet, is relatively flat with small depressions on the surface that trap water, and has a large Hydrologic contributing basin. Wedand 1 receives stormwater discharges from SR 99, and drains to West Fork Hylebos Creek. Wedand 1 provides a moderate level of water quality improvement functions because it is relatively flat with small depressions, and has dense vegetation that traps water and remove sediment and Water Quality excess nutrient/toxicants. Stormwater discharges from SR 99 increases the potential of the wetland to provide these functions. Erosion control and shoreline stabilization is also provided because a portion of the wetland is situated adjacent to a watercourse. Wetland 1 provides a high level of biological and habitat functions. Production/export of organic matter is provided since the wetland does receive overbank flooding and drains to West Fork Habitat Hylebos Creek. The wetland includes a mosaic of different vegetation communities, has multiple hydroperiods, and has accessible undisturbed habitat associated with the West Fork Hylebos corridor. Wetland vegetation is dominated by native plants. The buffer around Wetland 1 in the study area is an upland meadow dominated by non-native Buffer Condition grasses with scattered tree saplings and shrubs. A portion of the buffer is mowed regularly, and Himalayan blackberry has grown over a pile of concrete rubble near SR 99. Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 8 January 27, 2017 Table 3=3. Wetland 2 Summary. WETLAND 2 — INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Emergent wetland on Parcel No. 322104-9020 adjacent to SR 99 (Pacific Highway South) Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way WRIA 10 Ecology Rating III (Hruby, 2014) Federal Way Rating III - Federal Way Buffer Width 0 (exempt per FWRC 19.145.110(3) Wetland Size 0.01 acre ri r Cowardin Classification PEM HGM Classification Slope �# Wetland Data Sheet(s) 21 Upland Data Sheet (s) 22 • ` Flag color Pink pin flags Dominant Phalan arundinacea, Ranunculus repens, Poa pratensis, Agroistis capillaris Vegetation Soils Loam,10YR 2/1 Hydrology Receives hydrology from surface runoff and precipitation. Rationale for Satisfies all three wetland criteria. Delineation Rationale for Follows Ecology rating system (Iiruby 2014) per FWRC 19.145.420. Local Rating Wetland Functions Summary Wetland 2 provides a moderate to low level of hydrologic functions as a roadside ditch because it conveys stormwater to Wetland 1 down gradient. It has a small contributing basin including SR 99, Hydrologic and has small depression_ s on the surface that trap water, and herbaceous vegetation that slows surface runoff. Wetland 2 is located within the Hylebos Creek basin, which has flooding problems downstream, and makes these hydrologic functions valuable to society. Wetland 2 provides a moderate to low level of water• quality improvement functions because it is relatively flat with small depressions, and has dense vegetation that traps water and remove sediment and excess nutrient/toxicants. Wetland 2 receives stormwater from the adjacent roadway Water Quality (SR 99), which increases the potential of the wetland to trap toxicants and improve water quality. Water flows through the wetland unconstrained and is mowed regularly, which limits the ability of Wetland 2 to provide water quality functions. Wetland 2 provides a low level of habitat functions. Production/export of organic matter is provided to a low degree, but herbaceous plants and stormwater flows increase the potential of the Habitat wetland to provide this function. Wetland 2 is adjacent to the roadway, which limits use by wildlife. The wetland provides no habitat for aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, wetland -associated mammals, or wetland -associated birds due to no ponded or marsh areas. Buffer Condition The buffer around Wetland 2 is in poor condition. SR 99 borders the west side of Wetland 2. The buffer east of Wetland 2 includes mowed lawn and cemetery grounds that are maintained. Gethsemane Cemetery 9 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wedand Buffer Mitigation Plan ^� Table 3-4. Wetland 3 Summar_V. WETLAND 3 — INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Emergent wetland on Parcel No. 218820-4560 adjacent to SR 99 (Pacific Highway South) Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way WRIA 10 Ecology Rating III (Hruby, 2014) Federal Way Rating III Federal Way Buffer Width 60 feet Wetland Size 0.01 acre Cowardin Classification PEM HGM Classification Depression Wetland Data Sheet(s) 7 Upland Data Sheet (s) 8 Flag color Pink/black stripe Dominant Phalaris arundinacea, Sjiiraea dougdarii, Juncur effurur, Equiretum arYen.re. Vegetation Soils Loam, 10YR 4/2 with redoximorphic concentrations at 4" depth. Hydrology Receives hydrology from high groundwater, surface runoff, and precipitation. Rationale for Satisfies all three wetland criteria. Delineation Rationale for Follows Ecology rating system (Hruby 2014) per FWRC 19.145.420. Local Rating Wetland Functions Summary Wetland 3 provides a moderate level of hydrologic functions because it has a slightly constricted Hydrologic outlet that detains water during wet periods. Wetland 3 is supported by a high groundwater table, surface runoff from adjacent impervious surfaces, and precipitation. Wetland 3 provides a low to moderate level of water quality improvement functions because it has a slightly constricted outlet that causes the wetland to retain water, and has dense vegetation that Water Quality removes sediment and excess nutrient/toxicants. Wetland 3 receives stormwater from the adjacent roadway, which increases the potential of the wetland to trap toxicants and improve water quality. Wetland 3 provides a low level of biological and habitat functions. Wetland 3 is adjacent to SR 99, which limits its use by wetland -associated wildlife. Wetland vegetation is dominated by non-native, Habitat invasive reed canarygrass, which limits the establishment of native vegetation. A single piece of downed large woody debris in the wetland potentially provides habitat for amphibians. The buffer around Wetland 3 includes a mix of developed and undeveloped land cover. Wetland 3 is bordered to the west by SR 99, and to the south by a commercial business with a large gravel Buffer Condition driveway and parking area. Forested and lawn areas are located east of Wetland 3. The small forest path that borders Wetland 3 includes a multi -strata vegetation community dominated by Douglas fir trees. Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 10 January 27, 2017 Table 3-5. Wetland 4 Summary. WETLAND 4 — INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Shrub wetland on Parcel No. 322104-9025 along West Fork Hylebos Creek 4 Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way WRIA 10 _�. Ecology Rating " t ' (Hruby, 2014) Federal Way Rating II .;• , Federal Way Buffer Width 165 feet •'.. ... ' _. ���, w. Wit.. �• Wetland Size 0.02 acre Cowardin Classification PSS L � r HGM Classification Riverine Wetland Data Sheet(s) 13,15 Upland Data Sheet (s) 14,16 Flag - - color Pink/black stripe Dominant Bubus spectabilis, Acer drdnatum, Ranunculus repens, Lysichiton americanus, and Equisetum aruense. Vegetation Soils Sandy loam,10YR 3/1 and 2.5Y 4/1; G1 4/N below 12 inches. Hydrology Receives hydrology from seeps and overbank flooding from West Fork Hylebos Creek. Rationale for Satisfies all three wetland criteria. Delineation Rationale for Follows Ecology rating system (Hruby 2014) per FWRC 19.145.420. Local Rating Wetland Functions Summary Wetland 4 provides a moderate level of hydrologic functions because it provides overbank storage during high flow events, and has a dense shrub vegetation community that functions to slow down Hydrologic water velocities during floods. Wetland 4 has high potential to provide these hydrologic functions because the stream is not downcut, the upstream contributing basin is largely developed, and flows upstream are not controlled by dams or other flow control devices. Wetland 4 provides a moderate level of water quality improvement functions because it has surface Water Quality depressions that trap sediments during flood events, and dense forest and shrub vegetation that can remove sediment and excess nutrient/toxicants. Erosion control and shoreline stabilization are also provided, as the wetland is located along a watercourse. Wetland 4 provides a low to moderate level of biological and habitat functions. Production/export of organic matter is provided to a moderate degree, as deciduous plants and surface flows through Habitat the wetland increase the potential of the wetland to provide this function. Wetland 4 has forest habitat, and is situated within a ravine that provides refuge from roadways or other disturbances. Wetland vegetation is dominated by native plants. Buffer Condition Wetland 4 is situated along West Fork Hylebos Creek within a steep ravine, and the upland buffer includes secondary -growth, mixed deciduous and evergreen forest habitat with a shrub understory. Gethsemane Cemetery 11 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan ITable 3-6. Wetland 5 Summarv. 1 I I I I I WETLAND 5 — INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Forested and shrub wetland on Parcel No. 322104-9025 along West Fork Hylebos Creek Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way WRIA 10 + Ecology Rating II (Hruby, 2014) Federal Way Rating II Federal Way Buffer Width 165 feet Wetland Size 0.16 acres Cowardin Classification PFO/PSS HGM Classification Rivenne Wetland Data Sheet(s) 13,15 Data Sheet(s) 14,16 Upland Flag color Pink/Black Stripe ... Dominant Alnus rubra, Populus balrimifera s p. tnchocarpa, Rubus spectabilis, Lysicbdon amencanus, Tolmiea men iesii Vegetation Soils Sandy loam,10YR 3/1 and 2.5Y 4/1; G1 4/N below 12 inches. Hydrology Receives hydrology from seeps and overbank floodusg from West Fork Hylebos Creek. Rationale for Satisfies all three wetland criteria. Delineation Rationale for Follows Ecology rating system (Hruby 2014) per FWRC 19.145.420. Local Rating Wetland Functions Summary Wetland 5 provides a moderate level of hydrologic functions because it provides overbank storage during high flow events, and has dense forest and shrub vegetation communities that function to Hydrologic slow down water velocities during floods. Wetland 5 has high potential to provide these hydrologic functions because the stream is not downcut, the upstream contributing basin is largely developed, and flows upstream are not controlled by dams or other flow control devices. Wetland 5 provides a moderate level of water quality improvement functions because it has surface depressions that trap sediments during flood events, and dense forest and shrub vegetation that can Water Quality remove sediment and excess nutrient/toxicants. Erosion control and shoreline stabilization are also provided, as the wetland is located along a watercourse. Wetland 5 provides a moderate level of biological and habitat functions. Production/export of organic matter is provided to a moderate degree, as deciduous plants and surface flows through the Habitat wetland increase the potential of the wetland to provide this function. Wetland 5 has forest habitat, and is situated within a ravine that provides refuge from roadways or other disturbances. Wetland vegetation is dominated by native plants. Wetland 5 is situated along West Fork Hylebos Creek within a steep ravine, and the upland buffer Buffer Condition includes secondary -growth, mixed deciduous and evergreen forest habitat with a shrub understory. JGethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 12 January 27, 2017 Table 3-7. Wetland 6 Summary. WETLAND 6 — INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Forested and shrub wetland on Parcel No. 322104-9025 along West Fork Hylebos Creek Local jurisdiction City of Federal Way ` - - WRIA 10 Ecology Rating II (Hruby, 2014) Federal Way Rating II Federal Way Buffer Width 165 feet Wetland Size on -site 1.53 acres Cowardin Classification PFO/PSS HGM Classification Depressional, Riverine Wetland Data Sheet(s) 17 Upland Data Sheet(s) 18 Flag color Pink/black stripe Dominant Populus balramifera spp. trichocarpa, Salix lasiandra, Rubus .rpectabilis, Corpus seracea, Lysichton americanus, Vegetation Equisetum arvense, Scirpus wkmcarpus Soils Organic, 10YR 2/1; sandy loam, 10YR 4/1 with redoximorphic concentrations. Hydrology Hydrology supported by seeps, overbank flooding from West Fork Hylebos Creek, and a shallow groundwater table. Rationale for Satisfies all three wetland criteria. Delineation Rationale for Local Rating Follows Ecology rating system (Hruby 2014) per FWRC 19.145.420. Wetland Functions Summary Wetland 6 provides a moderate level of hydrologic functions because it has a large contributing basin, and a slightly constricted outlet that slows surface water from entering West Fork Hylebos Hydrologic Creek. A portion of Wetland 6 receives overbank flooding from the creek, but hydrology is mainly supported by shallow groundwater in alluvial soils. These functions are valuable to the local community as flooding occurs lower in the Hylebos Creek basin. Wetland 6 provides a moderate level of water quality improvement functions as indicated by an organic layer below the soil surface, and dense vegetation that traps water and removes sediment Water Quality and excess nutrient/toxicants. Stormwater discharges from the Gethsemane Cemetery increases the potential of the wetland to provide these functions. Erosion control and shoreline stabilization is also provided because a portion of the wetland is situated adjacent to a watercourse. Wetland 6 provides a high level of biological and habitat functions. Production/export of organic matter is provided since the wetland receives overbank flooding and drains to West Fork Hylebos Habitat Creek. The wetland includes a mosaic of different vegetation communities, has multiple hydroperiods, and has accessible undisturbed habitat associated with the West Fork Hylebos corridor. Wetland vegetation is dominated by native plants. Special habitat features include large woody debris, standing snags, and permanently ponded areas. Buffer Condition The buffer west of Wetland 6 in the study area is a secondary growth, mixed deciduous and evergreen forest on a steep slope that extends up to the Gethsemane Cemetery. Gethsemane Cemetery 13 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan I j I Table 3-8. Wetland 7 Summary. WETLAND 7 — INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Forested wetland on Parcel No. 322104-9025 along West Fork Hylebos Creek Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way WRIA 10 Ecology Rating II (Hruby, 2014) Federal Way Rating II Federal Way Buffer Width 165 feet Wetland Size 0.01 acre 'j •�` Cowardin Classification PFO HGM Classification Riverine 13,15 Wetland Data Sheet(s) Upland Data Sheet(s) 14,16 Flag color Bubur rpectabilir, Lyrichiton americanur, Pink/Black Stripe Tomliea men�ierii Dominant Alnus rubra, Populus balsimifera rpp. trichocarpa, Vegetation Soils Sandy loam,10YR 3/1 and 2.5Y 4/1; G1 4/N below 12 inches. Hydrology Receives hydrology from seeps and overbank flooding from West Fork Hylebos Creek. Rationale for Satisfies all three wetland criteria. Delineation Rationale for Follows Ecology rating system (Hruby 2014) per FWRC 19.145.420. Local Rating Wetland Functions Summary Wetland 7 provides a moderate level of hydrologic functions because it provides overbank storage during high flow events, and has a dense forest vegetation community that functions to slow down Hydrologic water velocities during floods. Wetland 7 has high potential to provide these hydrologic functions because the stream is not downcut, the upstream contributing basin is largely developed, and flows upstream are not controlled by dams or other flow control devices. Wetland 7 provides a moderate level of water quality improvement functions because it has surface depressions that trap sediments during flood events, and dense forest vegetation that can remove Water Quality sediment and excess nutrient/toxicants. Erosion control and shoreline stabilization are also provided, as the wetland is located along a watercourse. Wetland 7 provides a moderate level of biological and habitat functions. Production/export of organic matter is provided to a moderate degree, as deciduous plants and surface flows through the Habitat wetland increase the potential of the wetland to provide this function. Wetland 7 has forest habitat, and is situated at the mouth of a ravine that provides refuge from roadways or other disturbances. Wetland vegetation is dominated by native plants. Wetland 7 is situated along West Fork Hylebos Creek within a steep ravine, and the upland buffer Buffer Condition includes secondary -growth, mixed deciduous and evergreen forest habitat with a shrub understory. Gethsemane Cemetery 14 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Table 3-9. Wetland 8 Summary. WETLAND 8 — INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Forested wetland on Parcel No. 322104-9025 along West Fork Hylebos Creek Local jurisdiction City of Federal Way WRIA 10 _a Ecology Rating II r (Hruby, 2014) "^'•>th ` 3»' �' " " Federal Way Rating II Federal Way Buffer Width 165 feet +d �" Wetland Size 0.01 acre `a Cowardin Classification PFO HGM Classification Riverine �' Wetland Data Sheet(s) 13,15 • $ Upland Data Sheet(s) 14,16 Flag color Pink/Black Stripe Dominant Alnur rubra, Populur balrimifera rp p. tmbocarpa, Bubus spectabihi, Lyricbiton amencanus, Tomhea men"iesii Vegetation Soils Sandy loam,10YR 3/1 and 2.5Y 4/1; G1 4/N below 12 inches. Hydrology Receives hydrology from seeps and overbank flooding from West Fork Hylebos Creek. Rationale for Satisfies all three wetland criteria. Delineation Rationale for Follows Ecology rating system (Hruby 2014) per FWRC 19.145.420. Local Rating Wetland Functions Summary Wetland 8 provides a moderate level of hydrologic functions because it provides overbank storage during high flow events, and has dense forest and shrub vegetation communities that function to Hydrologic slow down water velocities during floods. Wetland 8 has high potential to provide these hydrologic functions because the stream is not downcut, the upstream contributing basin is largely developed, and flows upstream are not controlled by dams or other flow control devices. Wetland 8 provides a moderate level of water quality improvement functions because it has surface Water Quality depressions that trap sediments during flood events, and dense forest vegetation that can remove sediment and excess nutrient/toxicants. Erosion control and shoreline stabilization are also provided, as the wetand is located along a watercourse. Wetland 8 provides a moderate level of biological and habitat functions. Production/export of organic matter is provided to a moderate degree, as deciduous plants and surface flows through the Habitat wetland increase the potential of the wetland to provide this function. Wetland 8 has forest habitat, and is situated within a ravine that provides refuge from roadways or other disturbances. Wetland vegetation is dominated by native plants. Buffer Condition Wetland 8 is situated along West Fork Hylebos Creek within a steep ravine, and the upland buffer includes secondary -growth, mixed deciduous and evergreen forest habitat with a shrub understory. Gethsemane Cemetery 15 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 1 I I J I I I j Table 3-10. Wetland 9 Summary. WETLAND 9 — INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Forested wetland on Parcel No. 322104-9025 along West Fork Hylebos Creek Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way WRIA 10 Ecology Rating II .. (Hruby, 2014) Federal Way Rating II Federal Way Buffer Width 165 feet Wetland Size 0.15 acre -� Cowardin Classification PFO - HGM Classification Riverine Wetland Data Sheet(s) 13,15 Upland Data Sheet(s) 14,16 Flag color Pink/Black Stripe Dominant Alnus rubra, Populus balsimifera spp. trichocarpa, Rubus . pectabil s, Ly richiton americanus, Tomliea mmCiesii Vegetation Soils Sandy loam, 10YR 3/1 and 2.5Y 4/1; G1 4/N below 12 inches. Hydrology Receives hydrology from seeps and overbank flooding from West Fork Hylebos Creek. Rationale for Satisfies all three wetland criteria. Delineation Rationale for Follows Ecology rating system (Hruby 2014) per FWRC 19.145.420. Local Rating Wetland Functions Summary Wetland 9 provides a moderate level of hydrologic functions because it provides overbank storage during high flow events, and has dense forest and shrub vegetation communities that function to Hydrologic slow down water velocities during floods. Wetland 9 has high potential to provide these hydrologic functions because the stream is not downcut, the upstream contributing basin is largely developed, and flows upstream are not controlled by dams or other flow control devices. Wetland 9 provides a moderate level of water quality improvement functions because it has surface depressions that trap sediments during flood events, and dense forest and shrub vegetation that can Water Quality remove sediment and excess nutrient/toxicants.$rosion control and shoreline stabilization are also provided, as the wetland is located along a watercourse. Wetland 9 provides a low to moderate level of biological and habitat functions. Production/export of organic matter is provided to a moderate degree, as deciduous plants and surface flows through Habitat the wetland increase the potential of the wetland to provide this function. Wetland 9 has forest habitat, and is situated within a ravine that provides refuge from roadways or other disturbances. Wetland vegetation is dominated by native plants. Wetland 9 is situated along West Fork Hylebos Creek within a steep ravine, and the upland buffer Buffer Condition includes secondary -growth, mixed deciduous and evergreen forest habitat with a shrub understory. Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 16 January 27, 2017 Table 3-11. Wetland 10 Summary. WETLAND 10 — INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Shrub wetland on Parcel No. 322104-9025 along West Fork Hylebos Creek Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way WRIA 10 �. Ecology Rating II ' (Hruby, 2014) �;' �• Federal Way Rating II Federal Way Buffer Width 165 feet Wetland Size 0.01 acres `� a �� ., '� 'i Cowardin Classification PSS k [ HGM Classification Riverine �51 Wetland Data Sheet(s) 13,15 Upland Data Sheet (s) 14,16 �$ r. •. Flag color Pink/Black Stripe Dominant Vegetation Rubur rpectabilis, Lysicbiton americanus, Carex obnupta, Tomliea men!ieni Soils Sandy loam,10YR 3/1 and 2.5Y 4/1; G1 4/N below 12 inches. Hydrology Receives hydrology from seeps and overbank flooding from West Fork Hylebos Creek. Rationale for Satisfies all three wetland criteria. Delineation Rationale for Follows Ecology rating system (Hruby 2014) per FWRC 19.145.420. Local Rating Wetland Functions Summary Wetland 10 provides a moderate level of hydrologic functions because it provides overbank storage during high flow events, and has a dense shrub vegetation community that functions to slow down Hydrologic water velocities during floods. Wetland 10 has high potential to provide these hydrologic functions because the stream is not downcut, the upstream contributing basin is largely developed, and flows upstream are not controlled by dams or other flow control devices. Wetland 10 provides a moderate level of water quality improvement functions because it has Water Quality surface depressions that trap sediments during flood events, and dense forest and shrub vegetation that can remove sediment and excess nutrient/toxicants. Erosion control and shoreline stabilization are also provided, as the wetland is located along a watercourse. Wetland 10 provides a low to moderate level of biological and habitat functions. Production/export of organic matter is provided to a moderate degree, as deciduous plants and Habitat surface flows through the wetland increase the potential of the wetland to provide this function. Wetland 10 has shrub habitat, and is situated within a ravine that provides refuge from roadways or other disturbances. Wetland vegetation is dominated by native plants. Buffer Condition Wetland 10 is situated along West Fork Hylebos Creek within a steep ravine, and the upland buffer includes secondary -growth, mixed deciduous and evergreen forest habitat with a shrub understory. Gethsemane Cemetery 17 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan I 1 I I I I Table 3-12. Wetland 11 Summary. WETLAND 11— INFORMATION SUMMARY 1; Location: Forested wetland on Parcel No. 322104-9025 along West Fork Hylebos Creek Local jurisdiction City of Federal Way WRIA 10 Ecology Rating II (Hruby, 2014) Federal Way Rating II Federal Way Buffer Width 165 feet Wetland Size 0.01 acres y. • - Y Cowardin Classification PFO r ! HGM Classification Riverine 13,15 o;: ; { ti '' Wetland Data Sheet(s) 14,16 a' Upland Data Sheet(s) Flag color Pink/Black Stripe Dominant Alnus rubra, Populus balrimifera pp. tnrbocarpa, Bubur .rpectabilis, Ly�icbiton americanur, Tomliea men�iesii Vegetation Soils Sandy loam, 1OYR 3/1 and 2.5Y 4/1; G1 4/N below 12 inches. Hydrology Receives hydrology from seeps and overbank flooding from West Fork Hylebos Creek. Rationale for Satisfies all three wetland criteria. Delineation Rationale for Follows Ecology rating system (Hruby 2014) per FWRC 19.145.420. Local Rating Wetland Functions Summary Wetland 11 provides a moderate level of hydrologic functions because it provides overbank storage during high flow events, and has dense forest and shrub vegetation communities that function to Hydrologic slow down water velocities during floods. Wetland 11 has high potential to provide these hydrologic functions because the stream is not downcut, the upstream contributing basin is largely developed, and flows upstream are not controlled by dams or other flow control devices. Wetland 11 provides a moderate level of water quality improvement functions because it has surface depressions that trap sediments during flood events, and dense forest and shrub vegetation Water Quality that can remove sediment and excess nutrient/toxicants. Erosion control and shoreline stabilization are also provided, as the wetland is located along a watercourse. Wetland 11 provides a low to moderate level of biological and habitat functions. Production/export of organic matter is provided to a moderate degree, as deciduous plants and Habitat surface flows through the wetland increase the potential of the wetland to provide this function. Wetland 11 has forest habitat, and is situated within a ravine that provides refuge from roadways or other disturbances. Wetland vegetation is dominated by native plants. Wetland 11 is situated along West Fork Hylebos Creek within a steep ravine, and the upland buffer Buffer Condition includes secondary —growth, mixed deciduous and evergreen forest habitat with a shrub understory. I (I j j Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 18 January 27, 2017 Table 3-13. Wetland 12 Summary. WETLAND 12 — INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Forested wetland on Parcel No. 322104-9025 along West Fork Hylebos Creek ' Local jurisdiction City of Federal Way WRIA 10 •Y - � Ecology Rating II . (Hruby, 2014) Federal Way Rating II Federal Way Buffer Width 165 feet Wetland Size 0.01 acre Cowardin Classification PFO HGM Classification Riverine Wetland Data Sheet(s) 13,15 14,16 Upland Data Sbeet(s) Pink/Black Stripe Flag color Dominant Vegetation Alnus rubra, Populus balrimifera spp. trichocar_p Bzrbus rpectabilis, Lysichiton americanus, Tomhea men iesu Soils Sandy loam,10YR 3/1 and 2.5Y 4/1; G1 4/N below 12 inches. Hydrology Receives hydrology from seeps and overbank flooding from West Fork Hylebos Creek. Rationale for Satisfies all three wetland criteria. Delineation Rationale for Local Rating Follows Ecology rating system (Hruby 2014) per FWRC 19.145.420. Wetland Functions Summary Wetland 12 provides a moderate level of hydrologic functions because it provides overbank storage during high flow events, and has dense forest and shrub vegetation communities that function to Hydrologic slow down water velocities during floods. Wetland 12 has high potential to provide these hydrologic functions because the stream is not downcut, the upstream contributing basin is largely developed, and flows upstream are not controlled by dams or other flow control devices. Wetland 12 provides a moderate level of water quality improvement functions because it has Water Quality surface depressions that trap sediments during flood events, and dense forest and shrub vegetation that canremove sediment and excess nutrient/toxicants. Erosion control and shoreline stabilization are also provided, as the wetland is located along a watercourse. Wetland 12 provides a low to moderate level of biological and habitat functions. Production/export of organic matter is provided to a moderate degree, as deciduous plants and Habitat surface flows through the wetland increase the potential of the wetland to provide this function. Wetland 12 has forest habitat, and is situated within a ravine that provides refuge from roadways or other disturbances. Wetland vegetation is dominated by native plants. Buffer Condition Wetland 12 is situated along West Fork Hylebos Creek within a steep ravine, and the upland buffer includes secondary -growth, mixed deciduous and evergreen forest habitat with a shrub understory. Gethsemane Cemetery 19 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan J Table 3-14. Wetland 13 Summary. WETLAND 13 — INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Shrub wetland on Parcel No. 322104-9025 along West Fork Hylebos Creek •� Local jurisdiction City of Federal Way WRIA 10 - Ecology Rating II (Hruby, 2014) Federal Way Rating II Federal Way Buffer Width 165 feet Wetland Size 0.02 acre Cowardin Classification PSS HGM Classification Riverine 4 . �`;` _'-•r.x Wetland Data Sheet(s) 13,15 _�-.• Upland Data Sheet(s) 14,16 Flag color Pink/Black Stripe Dominant Bubur pectabilir, Polygonum curp idatum, Lyricbiton americanus, Carex obnupta, Tomliea men!ierii Vegetation Soils Sandy loam,10YR 3/1 and 2.5Y 4/1; G1 4/N below 12 inches. Hydrology Receives hydrology from seeps and overbank flooding from West Fork Hylebos Creek. Rationale for Satisfies all three wetland criteria. Delineation Rationale for Follows Ecology rating system (Hruby 2014) per FWRC 19.145.420. Local Rating Wetland Functions Summary Wetland 13 provides a moderate level of hydrologic functions because it provides overbank storage during high flow events, and has a dense shrub vegetation community that functions to slow down Hydrologic water velocities during floods. Wetland 13 has high potential to provide these hydrologic functions because the stream is not downcut, the upstream contributing basin is largely developed, and flows upstream are not controlled by dams or other flow control devices. Wetland 13 provides a moderate level of water quality improvement functions because it has surface depressions that trap sediments during flood events, and dense shrub vegetation that can Water Quality remove sediment and excess nutrient/toxicants. Erosion control and shoreline stabilization are also provided, as the wetland is located along a watercourse. Wetland 13 provides a low to moderate level of biological and habitat functions. Production/export of organic matter is provided to a moderate degree, as deciduous plants and surface flows through the wetland increase the potential of the wetland to provide this function. Habitat Wetland 13 has shrub habitat, and is situated within a ravine that provides refuge from roadways or other disturbances. Wetland vegetation includes a patch of nonnative, invasive Japanese knotweed (Polygonum curpidatum). Wetland 13 is situated along West Fork Hylebos Creek within a steep ravine, and the upland buffer Buffer Condition includes secondary -growth, mixed deciduous and evergreen forest habitat with a shrub understory. Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 20 January 27, 2017 J Table 3-15. Wetland 14 Summary. WETLAND 14 — INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Emergent wetland on Parcel No. 322104-9025 Local jurisdiction City of Federal Way WRIA 10 Ecology Rating III �• _ V t `=- , (Hruby, 2014) Federal Way Rating III •-; �''.•f� ' �` Federal Way Buffer Width 60 feet -,,, Wetland Size 0.07 acre s' '._, .:- :,• fj Cowardin Classification PEM HGM Classification Depression .ift Wetland Data Sheet(s) 19 Upland Data Sheet (s) 20 Flag color Pink/Black Stripe Dominant Phalaris arzrndinacea Vegetation Soils Clay loam, 10YR 4/2 with redoximorphic concentrations stating at 4 inches depth. Hydrology Receives hydrology from high groundwater, stormwater runoff, and precipitation. Rationale for Satisfies all three wetland criteria. Delineation Rationale for Follows Ecology rating system (Hruby 2014) per FWRC 19.145.420. Local Rating Wetland Functions Summary Wetland 14 provides a moderate level of hydrologic functions because it has no outlet, a small Hydrologic contributing basin, and retains water during storm events and wet periods. These functions are valuable to surrounding communities due to flooding that occurs lower in the Hylebos Creek basin. Wetland 14 provides a low to moderate level of water quality improvement functions because it retains water due to the lack of an outlet, and has dense herbaceous vegetation that removes Water Quality sediment and excess nutrient/toxicants. Wetland 14 receives stormwater runoff from an adjacent gravel roadway, which increases the potential of the wetland to trap toxicants and improve water quality. Wetland 14 provides a low level of biological and habitat functions. Wetland 14 is adjacent to a Habitat gravel road and hay field, which limits its use by wetland -associated wildlife. The southwest edge of the wetland is bordered by a barbed wire fence. Wetland vegetation is dominated by non-native, invasive reed canarygrass, which limits the establishment of native vegetation. The buffer west and south of Wetland 14 includes a gravel roadway and hay field, which is mowed regularly. The buffer east and north of Wetland 14 is a steep slope dominated by Himalayan Buffer Condition blackberry (Rubus americanus). A second -growth, mixed deciduous and evergreen forest abuts the southeastern edge, and has a dense understory of Himalayan blackberry within 150 feet of the boundary of Wetland 14. Gethsemane Cemetery 21 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan J Soils Soil units mapped within the study area include Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, Bellingham silt loam, Kitsap silt loam, and Norma sandy loam (Table 3-16). The majority of Gethsemane Cemetery is mapped as Kitsap silt loam. The NRCS soils map is provided as Figure 4 in Appendix B. Table 3-16. NRCS Soil Units Mapped on the Gethsemane Cemetery Property Depth to Water Soil Series Slope % Drainage Class Parent Material Table (inches) Glacial drift / glacial 18-37 Alderwood gravelly 6-15, and Moderately well drained outwash over dense sandy loam 15-30 glaciomarine deposits Bellingham silt loam 0-2 Poorly drained Alluvium 0-12 Lacustrine deposits with a 18-36 Kitsap silt loam 2-8 and Moderately well drained minor amount of volcanic 15-30 ash Norma sandy loam 0-2 Poorly drained Alluvium 0 During the delineation, wetland soils were observed to generally consist of a low-chroma matrix with common, faint to prominent redoximorphic features occurring as soft masses or along pore linings. Matrix colors documented in wetlands generally included black (10YR 2/1), very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2), and dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2). Redoximorphic features consisted of common, dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6 and 5/6) concentrations along pore linings and depletions (10YR 5/1 and 4/2) within 8 inches of the soil surface in the soil profile. Surface soil textures consisted of loam, silt loam, and clay loam. Mixed soil matrices were also observed due to the history of land disturbance in the study area. The two most commonly used hydric soil indicators during the delineation were F3 (Depleted Matrix) and F6 (Redox Dark Surface) (USACE 2010). Upland soil profiles typically have a lighter matrix (10YR 3/3, 7.5YR 5/3), or similarly very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) matrix as wetland soils but with redoximorphic features beginning approximately 16 inches below the soil surface. Vegetation Wetlands on the Gethsemane Cemetery property have forest, shrub, and emergent vegetation communities. Forest and shrub wetland vegetation communities occur in the floodplain of West Fork Hylebos Creek, and emergent and shrub wetland vegetation communities occur along property boundaries west of West Fork Hylebos Creek. Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 22 January 27, 2017 Forested wetlands are typically dominated by a canopy of red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC) and black cottonwood (Populus balsawifera spp. trichocarpa, FAC), with a shrub understory of salmonberry (Bubus spectabilis, FAC), rcdstem dogwood (Corns sericea, FACW), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis, FACW), and Himalayan blackberry (Rebus armeniacus, FACU). Herbaceous vegetation in the forested wetlands includes slough sedge (Carex obnupta, OBL), small-f - ited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus, OBL), western skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanArs, OBL), and common horsetail (Equisetum aruense, FAC). Herbaceous vegetation in the emergent wetland vegetation communities includes soft rush (Juncus eusus, FACW), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), and colonial bentgrass (Agmstis capillans, FAC). Upland forest vegetation included Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga men#esii, FACU), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), red alder, big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FACU), common snowberry (Sympboricarpos alba, FACU), vine maple (Acer circinatum, FAC), Himalayan blackberry, red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa, FAC), osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU), and sword fern (Palystichum munitum, FACU). Upland meadows typically had a mix of bentgrass, reed canarygrass, bluegrass (Poa sp., NI), and ryegrass (Lolium perenne, FAC). See Appendix E for a list of plant species observed in the study area. Hydrology The delineated wetlands drain to West Fork Hylebos Creek. Wetlands were classified as riverine, depressional, and slope per the HGM classification system. The riverine wetlands (Wetlands 4, 5, and 7-13) along West Fork Hylebos Creek are periodically inundated by overbank flooding. Many of these riverine wetlands also receive surface water from groundwater seeps on slopes in the ravine. Wetland hydrology in depressional wetlands (1, 3, 6, and 14) is supported by high groundwater, precipitation, and stormwater runoff. Wetland 14 is in a depression with no surface water outlet. Wetland 2 is a slope wedand in a roadside ditch that collects surface runoff from SR 99 and discharges to Wedand 1. 3.2.4 Wetland Functions Wetland functions were evaluated using the Ecology's Washington State Wletland Rating System for Western Wlashin,yon (Hruby, 2014). Wetland functions were assessed according to three groups of functions: hydrologic (reduce flooding and stream degradation), water quality improvement, and habitat. All wetlands were categorized as Category II or III. Wetland rating forms and figures are provided in Appendix D (Ecology Rating Forms). HGM classes of wetlands in the study area include depressional, slope, and riverine. Depressional and riverine wetlands provide moderate to high levels of water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions, whereas as slope wetlands provide low to moderate levels of these wetland functions. Riverine and depressional wetlands directly associated with West Fork Hylebos Creek provide the Gethsemane Cemetery 23 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan I highest level of wetland functions due to the flooding problems lower in the Hylebos Creek basin and the salmonid resources in the Hylebos Creek watershed. The storage capacity and water quality functions provided by depressional wetlands is valuable to society due poor water quality in West Fork Hylebos Creek, and the flooding problems lower in the basin near the confluence with the main stem of Hylebos Creek near Interstate-5. West Fork Hylebos Creek is listed on Washington State's list of impaired waters [303(d) list] for bacterial exceedances. Riverine wetlands along West Fork Hylebos Creek provide a moderate degree of sediment and nutrient/toxicant removal due to dense vegetative communities, shallow inundations that can capture sediment, and frequent interactions during flood events. Wetland habitat functions were rated the highest in Wedand 1 (Unit 3) and Wetland 6 due to the interspersion and variety of wetland habitats (PFO, PSS, PEM), wetland habitat association with West Fork Hylebos Creek, and special habitat features (e.g., snags; large, downed woody debris; lack of invasive plant species, and plants overhanging the creek). All other wetlands were rated low to moderate for habitat functions. The potential of the surrounding landscape to support wetland habitat functions is rated medium to low due to the extent of development in the surround areas. Wetland functions for individual wetlands are summarized in Table 3-1 on page 6 of this report, and also provided in the wetland profiles in Tables 3-2 to 3-15. 3.2.5 Wetland Buffers Wedand buffer habitat around Wetlands 1, 2, 3, and 14 is disturbed due to regularly mowed lawns, roads, and maintained grass meadows. Wedand 1 is bordered to the south by a grass meadow that includes reed canarygrass, colonial bentgrass, bluegrass, and ryegrass, with small shrub patches consisting of Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana) and Himalayan blackeberry. Non-native, invasive plant species present include Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Himalayan blackberry. Wedand 2 is a roadside ditch, and is bordered to the west by SR 99 and to the east by mowed lawn. Buffer habitat around Wetland 3 includes a commercial trucking facility and parking lot to the south, SR 99 to the west, mowed lawn to the north, and upland forest with Douglas -fir trees to the north east. Wetland 14 is bordered to the north, east, and south by a Himalayan blackberry thicket, and a gravel road abuts the southern edge. Buffer habitat adjacent to Wetlands 4-13 is primarily forested. Wetlands 4, 5, and 7-13 are located along West Fork Hylebos Creek in a ravine, and the forested buffer protects water quality in the creek as well as the habitat functions provided by these riverine wetlands. The canopy in these forested buffers includes big -leaf maple, Douglas -fir, and Western red cedar. The buffer along the western edge of Wetland 6 in the study area also includes a forested steep slope, which is dominated by red alder trees. Per FWRC (19.145.420), wetland buffer widths are based on wetland categories and the habitat scores from the 2014 (Washington State Wletland bating System for Western IYlashington (Hruby, 2014). As Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 24 January 27, 2017 J such, Wetlands 3 and 14 have a buffer width of 60 feet, and Wetlands 4-13 have a buffer width of 165 feet. Wetland 2, artificially created in a roadside ditch along Pacific Highway South, is exempt from the FWRC per Chapter 19.145.110(3), and does not have an associated buffer. Wetland 1 was divided into three separate units for categorization and rating purposes based on changes in hydrology. Wetland 1 (Unit 1) has a 165-foot buffer; Wetland 1 (Unit 2) has a 105-foot buffer; and Wetland 1 (Unit 3) has a 165-foot buffer. See Table 3-1 on page 6 of this report for a summary of wetland characteristics, Ecology categories, habitat function scores, and associated buffer widths. 3.3 Streams Three watercourses were identified on the Gethsemane Cemetery property: two constructed stormwater features, and West Fork Hylebos Creek. West Fork Hylebos Creek flows south through steep -sided ravine in the center of the property east of the developed portion of the cemetery (Appendix B - Figure 7). The West Fork Hylebos system is a riffle -pool system, with a substrate characterized by dominant gravel component and subdominant fine component. Representative bankfull widths and bankfull depths averaged 20 feet and 3.5 feet, respectively. During the fieldwork, representative wetted widths and wetted depths averaged 11 feet and 0.5 feet, respectively. Large woody debris (LWD) appears abundant, measured at 12 pieces per 100 feet (LWD diameters at 12-inches or more). Riparian habitat and canopy consists of forested and shrub habitat comprised primarily of western red cedar, red alder, salmonberry, and vine maple. Riverine wetlands are situated along portions of the stream edges in the ravine (Wetlands 4, 5, and 7- 13), and at the mouth of ravine (Wetland 6). West Fork Hylebos Creek is classified as Type F (fish habitat) per FWRC 19.145.260, and has a 100-foot buffer from the OHWM per FWRC 19.145.270. Additional watercourses include a stream segment in the roadside ditch east of SR 99 that connects Wetlands 1 and 2, and an intermittently flowing stream that discharges from a stormwater outfall to Wetland 6 (Figure 7). Both of these watercourses flow ephemerally following precipitation events. They are manmade, but because they have an OHWM and drain to regulated wetlands, they are assumed to be regulated by the USACE. These intermittent watercourses are classified as Type Ns (seasonal non -fish habitat) per FWRC 19.145.260, but do not have associated buffers because they are artificially created in uplands and are exempt from FWRC per Chapter 19.145.110(3).. The wetlands that these two watercourses discharge to do not have surface water connections to West Fork Hylebos Creek, and preclude fish populations from using these watercourses. 3.4 Sensitive Plants, Fish, and Wildlife Several sensitive fish species are known to occur in West Fork Hylebos Creek in the study area, including: chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), coho salmon (Oncorhymbus kisutch), Pink salmon (Oncorhynchusgorbuscha), and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshaa ytscha). Breeding habitat for fall chum and coho salmon have also been identified in West Fork Hylebos Creek (WDFW 2016). Puget Sound winter -run steelhead distinct population segments Gethsemane Cemetery 25 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan I 1 I 'J PPS) and fall -run evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) Chinook salmon are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in King County, and all fish species are listed as priority species by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). No designated critical habitat for ESA -listed species was identified as occurring within or near the project vicinity. Pacific pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) is known to potentially occur in aquatic habitats within the vicinity (<0.5 mile) of the study area, and is state -listed as Endangered. It is not currently a federally - listed species under the ESA. No sensitive plant species are known to occur within or near the vicinity of the Gethsemane Cemetery. WDFW priority habitats that occur or may occur in the project vicinity (<0.5 mile) include freshwater forested/shrub wetlands, freshwater emergent wetlands, and freshwater pond (WDFW 2016). 3.5 Regulatory Summary Wetlands and streams on the Gethsemane Cemetery property are regulated by federal (USACE), state (Ecology and WDFW), and local (Federal Way) agencies. Wetland and stream buffers are regulated by the City of Federal Way and Ecology. Impacts to wetland and streams and their buffers require prior authorization and coordination with regulatory agencies. 3.5.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The USACE regulates wetlands, streams, and other drainages under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The USACE requires notification for all disturbances to wetlands, streams, and potentially to other drainages, such as roadside ditches. The USACE automatically asserts jurisdiction over some surface waters and will need to complete a "significant nexus" determination for others, depending on the degree of connection to other waters, the classification of these associated waters, and their significance in the larger drainage basin. It is anticipated that the USACE will regulate the discharge of fill material into all wetlands, streams, and ditches on the Gethsemane Cemetery property due to surface and subsurface hydrological connectivity to West Fork Hylebos Creek, which drains to Commencement Bay. 3.5.2 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW requires issuance of a Hydraulic Permit Approval (HPA) prior to any activities that may directly or indirectly affect streams or associated wetlands. WDFW is anticipated to have jurisdiction over West Fork Hylebos Creek, and stream -associated wetlands. An HPA may be required for any work near the creek and riparian corridor, and potentially on other wetlands on property if impacts could potentially alter the hydrology in the associated stream corridor. Gethsemane Cemetery Wedand and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 26 January 27, 2017 3.5.3 Washington State Department of Ecology Ecology regulates activities in wetlands and streams under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act through the Water Quality Certification proccss. Ecology has authority over discharge into all wetlands and streams, and can impose buffers and compensatory mitigation for impacts under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.48. 3.5.4 City of Federal Way The City of Federal Way regulates wetlands and streams and their associated buffers through Chapter 19.145 (Environmentally Critical Areas) of the FWRC. All wetlands and streams on the Gethsemane property are regulated by the City of Federal Way except for Wetland 2 and the two intermittent streams because these features were artificially created in uplands [FWRC 19.145.110(3)]. Activities that modify wetlands or streams or their buffers require a critical areas report that adequately evaluates the proposed action and probable impacts. Additional compensatory mitigation actions may be necessary to offset impacts to these regulated areas to be in compliance with FWRC Chapter 19.145. Gethsemane Cemetery 27 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan I Section 4—Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Chapter 4. Proposed Buffer Mitigation 4.1 Mitigation Overview Local, state, and federal agencies require projects impacting wetlands, streams or their buffers to follow mitigation sequencing that includes measures to avoid, minimize, restore, and compensate for unavoidable impacts. It is incumbent on the applicant to show and document mitigation sequencing before alterations are approved. Other opportunities exist for offsetting impacts to wetland buffers per FWRC 19.145.440, including: buffer averaging, buffer reduction with enhancement, and buffer increases. Development within buffers may be approved if one of these permitting strategies is employed, and compliance with FWRC is achieved. Buffer mitigation opportunities exist on the Gethsemane Cemetery property through one or a combination of these methods. This section proposes buffer mitigation based on a buffer reduction with enhancement approach. 4.2 Project Impacts The Cemetery Master Plan is intended to guide cemetery development in several phases over the next 50 years, and in large part to help manage locations and placement of future grave and internment sites on the property. Due to the presence of critical areas such as wetlands, streams, and their buffers on the property, avoidance and minimization of impacts to these areas is an important aspect of the Cemetery Master Plan and its support documentation. 4.2.1 Wetland Impacts Direct impacts to the on -site wetlands will be avoided altogether as a component of the Cemetery Master Plan and future land use decisions and activities related to implementation of the Plan. No modifications, including excavation, fill, and/or removal activities will occur in the on -site wetlands. Indirect impacts to one of the on -site wetlands may be associated with reduction of wetland buffer in some areas (see below). However, these indirect impacts are anticipated to be avoided or minimized as follows: buffer reduction is proposed for only one of the 14 onsite wetlands, enhancement of the reduced wetland buffer will occur, and buffer reduction will be limited to the outer 25 percent of the buffer per FWRC 19.145.440. No loss of ecological function for Wetland 1 is anticipated due to the proposed buffer reductions, coupled with the proposed buffer enhancements. On July 29, 2016 Otak biologists delineated the wetland edges and assessed wetland character for the portion of Wetland 1 that extends onto the Karileen property to the east. Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 28 January 27, 2017 Section 4—Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Continued The Karileen property is the site of wetland and buffer mitigation unrelated to the Cemetery Master Plan, to the proposed buffer reduction for Wetland 1 on the Gethsemane Cemetery property, or to any other activities that have occurred or will occur on the Gethsemane site. Figure 7F in Appendix B shows the delineated and surveyed edge of Wetland 1 on the Karileen property. Wetland data for Wetland 1 was consistent with data collected for Wetland 1 on the Gethsemane Cemetery property. The wetland vegetative community on the Karileen property was very similar to that of the wetland community on the Gethsemane property near the delineated edges. Direct impacts to Wetland 1 on the Karileen property will be avoided altogether. No modifications, including excavation, fill, and/or removal activities will occur in Wetland 1, either on the Gethsemane property or the Karileen property. 4.2.2 Wetland Buffer Impacts Wetland buffer impacts associated with the Cemetery Master Plan will be limited to those buffers where buffer reduction is proposed. Wetland buffer impacts are a result of the proposed 25% reduction in the existing 165-foot wetland buffer for Wetland 1, resulting in approximately 0.8 acres of permanent impacts associated with conversion of existing buffer to maintained and landscaped habitat. The proposed buffer reduction is intended to provide additional space for graves and sites of internment, and will generally constitute habitat vegetated with various herbaceous species and maintained, rather than developed land uses and/or impervious surfaces. Figure 8 in Appendix B illustrates the proposed wetland buffer reduction. Due to the proposed enhancement of the reduced buffer for Wetland 1 (see below), no net loss of ecological function for the wetland buffer or Wetland 1 are anticipated. Per FWRC 19.145.440, the proposed buffer reduction will comply with City requirements as follows: (a) It will not adversely affect seater quality; i. Water quality is not anticipated to be affected by the proposed buffer reduction. Although some stormwater from impervious and pervious surfaces will be discharged into the remaining, enhanced buffer, conditions within the enhanced �r buffer will not decrease the water quality functions currently provided by the existing [� La buffer. Best available science (BAS) from Sheldon et al. (2005) indicates that buffer V� functions for water quality —including removal of sediment, dissolved nutrients, and organic and metal toxins —were effective at buffer widths ranging from 16 to 131 feet, with the majority of effective sediment and nutrient removal occurring within the outermost 66 feet of buffer. Wetland buffers were particularly effective at water quality functions when buffers consisted of well -vegetated slopes of less than 5% gradient, and movement of water though the buffer as shallow, dispersed sheet l� flow —conditions which will pertain in the remaining and enhanced buffer for .,f+1 Wetland 1. Hruby (2013) has updated the BAS for wetlands and wetland buffers, ,Y largely confirming the previous work while adding additional information about other factors affecting water quality functions in wetland buffers. Gethsemane Cemetery �. Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 29 January 27, 2017 j Section 4—Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Continued ii. No adverse water quality impacts to Hylebos Creek will occur as a result of conversion of existing buffer to maintained, herbaceous -dominated habitat. The enhanced wetland buffer habitat will provide water quality treatment through removal of sediment and other suspended solids, and removal of nutrients and organic and inorganic toxins from runoff that may sheet flow from upgradient portions of the Gethsemane Cemetery. (b) It will not adversely affect the existing yuaki y of the wetland or buffer wildlife habitat; i. Wetland or buffer wildlife habitat quality is not anticipated to be adversely affected based on the proposed wetland buffer reduction for Wetland 1. Retention of 124 feet of buffer subsequent to the proposed reduction, coupled with enhancement in the form of native plant species installation and non-native invasives removal, is expected to improve wildlife habitat in the buffer and impose no adverse impacts to the wetland itself. (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilsiies; i. As noted above, stormwater from impervious and pervious surfaces will be discharged into the remaining, enhanced buffer. Existing drainage patterns are not anticipated to be significantly or adversely altered as a result of the proposed wetland buffer reduction and mitigation enhancements. Stormwater discharges into Wetland 1 will receive energy dissipation and be dispersed to allow for slow, shallow sheet - flow across the buffer —imposing no adverse effects to existing drainage patterns or capabilities. Enhancement of the remaining buffer with additional native vegetation is anticipated to slow flows through the wetland, increase the residence time of stormwater volumes discharged into the wetland, and provide increased water quality functions (see (a) above). No adverse effects to drainage or stormwater retention capabilities will occur as a result of the proposed wetland buffer reduction and mitigation enhancements. ii. Furthermore, the existing and proposed wetland buffer conditions are likely to provide relatively minimal functions with respect to water quantity and flow regime effects within Wetland 1 itself. Hruby (2013) noted that the previous BAS review (Sheldon et al., 2005) concluded that wetland buffers do little to protect the hydrologic functions of wetlands (storing water and reducing the velocity of flows within the wetland itself), and that there is no suggestion that this conclusion needs to be changed. (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; i. Under the Cemetery Master Plan, the portion of the existing buffer proposed for reduction will eventually be utilized for future grave and internment sites, and the remaining buffer will be enhanced by installing appropriate native plant species. Any earth disturbance associated with either set of activities will be temporary in nature, will be accompanied by appropriate erosion and sediment control measures and best management practices, and will not result in unstable earth conditions or erosion hazards. (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any otherpropery or the city as a whole; and i. No detrimental aspects of the proposed wetland buffer reduction and mitigation enhancements to other properties or the City of Federal Way as a whole will occur. Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 30 January 27, 2017 Section 4—Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Continued All proposed activities conform with the FWRC; are appropriate to the zoning for, land use activities of, and services provided by the Gethsemane Cemetery; and proposed reduction of the buffer for Wetland 1 and enhancement of its remaining buffer will have no adverse impacts, material or otherwise, to any adjacent properties. 0 All exposed areas are stabilised uitb native vegetation, as appropriate. i. Native vegetation will be installed for all exposed areas, per the proposed mitigation and mitigation planning associated with the Cemetery Master Plan and proposed wetland buffer reduction and mitigation enhancements. No wetland buffer reductions or other modifications will occur on the Karileen Mitigation Property. Due to the proposed enhancement of the reduced buffer for Wedand 1 on the Gethsemane site (see below), no net loss of ecological function for the wetland buffer or Wedand 1 are anticipated —either on the Gethsemane property or the Karileen property. Figure 7F in Appendix B shows the delineated edge of Wetland 1 on the Karileen property and depicts the 165-foot buffer for the wetland. 4.2.3 Wetland Buffer Exemption In addition to the proposed buffer reduction associated with the Cemetery Master Plan, reanitiation/repurposing of an existing stormwater facility is proposed. Currently, the stormwater facility receives some stormwater from Gethsemane Cemetery, but the quantity of stormwater discharging into the facility appears quite limited based on existing vegetation, soil, and hydrology conditions. The existing stormwater facility is comprised of upland habitat, and is dominated by red alder, Himalayan blackberry, and sword fern. Subdominant plant species include osoberry, trailing blackberry (Bubus ursinus), and vine maple (Acer cininatum). The plants found within the existing stormwater facility are typical of the upland plant communities found in the forested portions of the Gethsemane Cemetery site. Soil samples indicate non-hydric soils, and evidence of hydrology was limited to small depositions of sediment in the lowest portion of the facility. Much of the existing facility is located within the buffer for Wetland 6, although approximately one third of the facility lies outside of the buffer. Figure 9 depicts existing conditions with an overlay of the proposed extents of the repurposed facility. As a component of the Gethsemane Cemetery Master Plan, the existing stormwater facility is proposed to be repurposed to provide stormwater management for a portion of the site in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). As understood from available records, the existing facility was permitted and constructed in the 1970s as a sediment pond for approximately 14.9 acres of the Gethsemane Cemetery site. The pond was originally designed as a stormwater sediment pond for the improvements to the Cemetery in the 1970s. The size of the pond under existing conditions is sufficient to handle the water quality and flow control storage volumes required for implementation of the Cemetery Master Plan. Gethsemane Cemetery 31 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 1 Section 4—Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Continued A stormwater conveyance system was constructed to collect and convey stormwater from the site to the pond before discharging to Hylebos Creek. The pond includes an inlet pipe from the conveyance system, an outlet structure at the bottom of the pond, an outfall structure to the southeast of the pond, and an overflow pipe on the southwest side of the pond that discharges to a rock -lined channel. A second outfall from the conveyance system was also constructed on the southwest side of the pond, consisting of a storm drain outfall that also discharges to the rock -lined channel. The Cemetery Master Plan is required to provide water quality and flow control for stormwater runoff in accordance with the 2009 KCSWDM. Runoff from approximately 15.6 acres of the site will drain to the pond through the existing conveyance system. In order to repurpose the pond to provide stormwater management in accordance with current code, the pond is proposed to be fitted with an improved access road, new inlet pipe and rock - lined spillway to the bottom of the pond, flow control structure, and emergency overflow spillway. These additions and improvements can be constructed on the perimeter of the stormwater pond without major grading activity. Figure 10 depicts the proposed modifications of the existing facility. The proposed modifications of the existing facility willresult in storage of stormwater, and conversion of the upland habitat to wetland habitat. Under FWRC 19.145.110 exemptions to the provisions of FWRC Chapter 19 Environmentally Critical Areas are established for certain activities and developments. Under FWRC 19.145.110(3), exemptions for the following activities —emphasis added —are established: `Development involving or near Jartificially created wetlands or streams intentionally created from non -wetland sites, including but not limited tograss-lined swales, irrigation and drainage ditches, detention facilities, and landscape features, except wetlands, streams, or savales created as mitigation or that provide habitat for salmonids. " The repurposed stormwater facility is a detention facility that will } become an artificial wetland over time, converting existing upland habitat into wedand 1 habitat with an aquatic bed plant community and emergent plant community developing as f the hydrologic regime establishes. The proposed modifications to the existing facility, located in upland habitat, are expected to be exempt from the provisions governing use, activities, and development in wedand buffers per FWRC 19.145.110(3). 4.3 Proposed Mitigation Wetland buffer reduction is proposed for Wedand 1, and will result in the reduction of 25 percent of the existing 165-foot wedand buffer. Selection criteria for the proposed mitigation within the remaining Wetland 1 buffer was predicated on providing no net loss to or enhancement of ecological functions for the Wedand 1 buffer. To mitigate for the approximately 0.8 acres of permanent impacts within the 165-foot wetland buffer for Wedand 1 that this will entail, th emains Hand buffer will be enhanced to eliminate j invasive species and will b e lan a species at a 1:1 ratio. This enhancement _1 will be conducted at a :1 ratio respect to e permanent impact area associated with the reduced buffer. The en anc wetland buffe will be fenced with split -rail fencing or Gethsemane Cemetery 32 January 27, 2017 J Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan L i� 13 h Section 4—Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Continued aesthetically appropriate alternative fence design to maintain a boundary between the mitigation area and areas open to the public for recreation. Educational signage may be installed to provide an opportunity for the public to learn about the wetland and native plant community within the cemetery. 4.4 Mitigation Design Criteria This Plan has been designed in accordance with the FWRC 19.145.140. The plan has also been designed with reference to guidelines from the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (Washington State Department of Ecology et al., 2006a. and 2006b): Avoid- The project has been designed to avoid impacts to wetlands and buffers to the maximum extent possible. For example, future actions and impacts to the wetlands are being completely avoided. Minimize: The project has been designed to minimize impacts to critical areas and critical area buffers to the maximum extent possible. For example, impacts to the wetland buffers will be minimized through master planning, design, and future land use activities to be located outside of the existing vegetated wetland buffer. Proposed planning modifications to minimize buffer impacts also included limiting the number of wetlands proposed for buffer reduction to a single wetland. Additional minimization of impacts is associated with planned enhancement of the wetland buffers prior to any activities are scheduled to occur in the reduced portion of the wetland buffer. Compensate: Compensation for the permanent wetland buffer impacts associated with the proposed reduction will be provided by enhancing the remaining wetland buffer. Monitor and Report: The mitigation area will be monitored for five years with annual monitoring reporting, including photo documentation from designated photo -points and assessment of plant survivorship and vegetated cover. 4.5 Proposed Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan The buffer mitigation plan, including goals and objectives and the performance standards by which to assess their achievement, is included in Section 4. A five-year monitoring and maintenance plan is proposed for the buffer enhancement mitigation area. The monitoring plan in Section 5 outlines monitoring protocols and the reporting schedule to track the progress and success of the restoration areas. In Section 6, the maintenance plan includes recommendations for irrigation for at least the first two years after installation, and specifications for removal of non-native invasive species, replacement of installed plants that fail, and other activities —including contingency actions that will be taken if the restoration areas do not satisfy performance standards. Gethsemane Cemetery 33 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan I 1 Section 4-Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Continued This wetland buffer mitigation plan proposes several actions to enhance approximately 0.078 acres of the wetland buffer, including: • Removal of non-native invasive species • Installation of native species for wetland and upland communities within the areas 1 proposed for buffer reduction J Install fencing around the mitigation area • Install signage 4.5.1 Buffer Mitigation Goals and Objectives 1. Successfully remove invasive species from the existing wetland buffer. 2. Restore and enhance native vegetation within the wetland buffer, including wetland and r upland communities. 11 3. Install fencing to provide a barrier between the wetland buffer and areas available for recreation. 4. Provide signage notifying public of sensitive mitigation area for the purpose of keeping visitors out of the mitigation area and also to educate visitors about wetlands and buffers. �I 4.5.2 Mitigation Timing Per FWRC 19.145.140(6), proposed mitigation shall be completed concurrently with project construction. The proposed buffer mitigation plan and associated planting, under the Cemetery Master Plan, will be executed prior to any alteration of the area of buffer reduction. All activities associated with future grave and internment sites will occur several or many years after buffer mitigation has been established and the subsequent monitoring period has been completed. 4.5.3 Mitigation Performance Standards ` Performance Standards are the means to quantify whether the Mitigation Goals and Objectives listed above are being met. The City of Federal Way requires monitoring for five 1 years after installation (FWRC 19.145.140). The following parameters will be assessed for the required monitoring period (see Section 5 Monitoring): J 1) Non-native Invasive Species: ALL YEARS: Throughout the designated planting areas, the following species must be eliminated: all species included in the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board Class A Noxious Weed List; non-native invasive knotweeds including Japanese, Boehemian, giant, Himalayan, and hybrids (Pa#gonum cuspidat]vm; P. Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 34 January 27, 2017 Section 4—Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Continued bohemicum, P.sachalinense, and R polystachyum); and other species as determined by the City of Federal Way and other agencies according to permit conditions. ALL YEARS: Throughout the designated planting areas, there will be less than 10 percent total aerial cover by non-native invasive species including:, field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) and morning glory (Calystegla sepium); Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius), bird's -foot trefoil (Lotus cornkulaius), English ivy (Hedera helix), policeman's helmet (Impatiensglandulifera); yellow flag iris (Irispseudacorus); yellow archangel (L.crrarias1nim galeobdolon); purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and garden loosestrife (Lysimachia vu$aris); reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinar.ea), Himalayan and evergreen blackberries (Bubus arrneniacus and B. laciniatus); bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara); tansy (Tanacetum vulgare); and other species as determined by the City of Federal Way and other agencies according to permit conditions. 2) Survival of Installed Shrubs: • Year 1: there willbe 100 percent survival of installed shrubs due to installation warranty. Year 2: there will be at least 80 percent survival of installed shrubs. Year 3: there will be at least 75 percent survival of installed shrubs. 3) Percent Cover: • By Year 1: There will be at least 30 percent cover by native shrub species in the buffer mitigation area, including both installed species and desirable volunteer native species. • By Year 2: There will be at least 40 percent cover by native shrub species in the buffer mitigation area, including both installed species and desirable volunteer native species. • By Year 5: There will be at least 60 percent cover by native shrubs species in the buffer mitigation area, including both installed species and desirable volunteer native species. 4) Plant Health: • ALL YEARS: There will be visual evidence that installed plants are vigorous (e.g. new growth and few visible -signs of stress). 5) Establish and Maintain Species Diversity: • Years 3-5: At a minimum, a total of five (5) native shrub species will be established in the designated planting areas. To satisfy this Performance Standard, a particular species only has to be established in the mitigation site, and desirable native volunteer species can be counted. Gethsemane Cemetery 35 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan I J Section 4—Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Continued 4.5.4 Non-native Invasive Species Removal Himalayan blackberry within the existing wetland buffer shall be removed by Gethsemane Cemetery staff using their preferred method. Removal is recommended to be completed during construction and before planting with native species. Recommended removal strategies include the following: • Removal by hand. Cut the stalks, remove the root crowns, and dispose of the plant material off -site. This control method can be implemented in the spring/summer prior to or concurrent with construction. Herbicide treatment. Cut the canes and dab a glysophate-based herbicide on the cane stump immediately after cutting. Remove the canes once dead and dispose of the plant material off -site. This control method is most successfully implemented in the fall. 4.5.5 Plant Species Selection Specifications A variety of native species are included in the buffer mitigation plan plant palette (see Appendix F). The palette includes a total of 15 native shrub or small tree species, four native conifer tree species, and four native deciduous tree species. Native plant species were chosen for the following characteristics: • native to the Puget Sound area; • established presence of source populations at the project site; • suitable for expected site hydroperiod, light, and soil conditions; • known plant community associations; • ability to provide structural complexity, food, and shelter for wildlife; • availability from local sources; and • aesthetic appeal. Plants will be purchased from reputable regional nurseries that provide local genetic ecotypes of plants native to western Washington and the Puget Sound area. 4.5.6 Plant Installation Specifications Plants will be installed according to planting plan diagrams and schedules specified in the Mitigation Plan Sheet (see Mitigation Plan Sheet in Appendix F) and the following recommendations: Amend the designated restoration planting areas by tilling in a minimum of six (6) inches of compost into the top twelve (12) inches of soil. The planting hole should be no deeper than the rootball, and the bottom of the rootball should rest on undisturbed soil. The planting hole should be a minimum of three (3) to four (4) times the width of the rootball. Spread the roots and straighten circling roots as possible. Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 36 January 27, 2017 Section 4—Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Continued • The top of the rootball should be at, or approximately '/z inch above, the soil surface. • Backfill the hole with the excavated amended soil. • Apply four (4) to six (6) inches of arborist mulch or wood chips to the designated restoration planting areas. Pull mulch four (4) inches away from stems -.mulch shall not touch plant stems or trunks. 4.5.7 Best Management Practices To minimize potential impacts to critical areas and critical area buffers, best management practices (BMPs) will be followed, including strict adherence to Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) measures during construction of the project. BMPs include flagging all clearing limits and installing silt fences before the start of any grading activities adjacent to critical areas. After project construction and plant installation is completed and the site has stabilized, all silt fences and any other temporary erosion protection structures will be removed. 4.5.8 Fence and Sign Installation Following installation of native plants in the enhanced buffer, fencing should be installed around the new extent of vegetated and reduced buffer. The fence should be a wooden split - rail or similar construction. The purpose of the fence is to provide a barrier between the wetland and wetland buffer mitigation area and visitors to the cemetery. The fence should be installed on the outside border of the proposed mitigation planting area, at the edge of the reduced buffer. Up to three metal signs are recommended for installation along the reduced buffer for Wetland 1, indicating that the buffer is a mitigation area and entry beyond the fence is prohibited. The signs may be installed on metal fence posts and secured tightly with bolts. Gethsemane Cemetery 37 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Section 5—Monitoring Chapter 5. Proposed Monitoring Plan 5.1 Proposed Monitoring Plan -� The purpose of monitoring is to determine whether Performance Standards are being satisfied, whether the mitigation area is being maintained properly, and if contingency actions are necessary. The mitigation areas in the reduced buffer will be monitored for a "1 minimum of five growing seasons after the plants are installed. Monitoring visits will occur laccording to the schedule below. ^� 5.1.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots A minimum of four permanent monitoring plots are recommended to be established to accurately reflect the conditions of the communities. Metal fence posts or other permanent markers may be installed to establish the permanent monitoring plots during the as -built site l visit. It is recommended that rectangular monitoring plots be used, five meters by five If meters in size. To simplify and improve accuracy of monitoring for percent survival, flag all installed shrubs within the monitoring plots when the plots axe established. Maintain flagging on initially installed shrubs through at least Year 3 in order to be able to distinguish between installed woody plants and volunteers from rhizomes, seeds, etc. I I I During each monitoring visit, data will be collected from the plots including: which species are present (including volunteers); percent aerial coverage by species; and the condition and vigor of plants. Survival of installed plants as required by Performance Standards will also be determined. In addition to presence and percent cover by non-native invasive species in the plots, their general locations and extent of cover throughout the mitigation area will be estimated and noted. General conditions of the entire buffer mitigation area, as well as the surrounding habitat, will be noted. 5.1.2 Photo -points Photographs provide an important visual record. A minimum of four permanent photo - points will be established to accurately show the vegetation and habitat status of the mitigation areas. Metal fence posts or other permanent markers will be installed to establish the photo -points. Photographs will be taken during each vegetation monitoring visit, and they will be labeled with photo station location, date, and compass beatings. Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 38 January 27, 2017 Section 5—Monitoring Continued 5.1.3 Wildlife Presence Wildlife presence and use of the mitigation area will be noted during the monitoring visits. The monitoring staff willrecord any species present, as well as wildlife indicators such as scat, prints, nests, holes, browsing marks, etc. 5.1.4 Maintenance/Contingency Observations Observations on the need for and extent of maintenance/contingency actions will be noted at each monitoring visit and reported immediately to the appropriate staff at Gethsemane Cemetery and/or the Director of Cemeteries at the Associated Catholic Cemeteries. Maintenance actions may include (but are not limited to): repairing any damage from vandalism; removing trash; replacing/repairing buffer signs; augmenting irrigation; replacing mulch; weeding; removing non-native invasive species; replacing plants; etc. (see Section 6). 5.1.5 Monitoring Schedule Monitoring visits will occur for a minimum of five growing seasons after installation to determine whether the Performance Standards are being met. The monitoring schedule may be adjusted accordingly to match construction of the mitigation project and installation of mitigation plantings: • Following construction and installation of mitigation plantings. • Year 1: vegetation monitoring near the end of the growing season of the first year after installation (August/September). • Year 2: vegetation monitoring near the end of the growing season of the second year after installation (August/September). • Year 3: vegetation monitoring near the end of the growing season of the third year after installation (August/September). • Year 5: vegetation monitoring near the end of the growing season of the third year after installation (August/September). Gethsemane Cemetery 39 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan I I I I I I 1 Section 5—Monitoring Continued 5.1.6 Monitoring Schedule Monitoring reports will be submitted after each monitoring visit to the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, City of Federal Way, and other agencies as required by permit conditions. These reports will describe the conditions on site, the level of success of the mitigation plan in satisfying the Performance Standards, whether contingency actions are warranted, and recommended maintenance actions. The reports will include: data collected on plant species present, and their percent cover and vigor; survival of installed plants and probable causes for any losses; percent cover by non-native invasive species; photographs from the permanent photo -points; wildlife usage of the restored areas; a list of recommended maintenance actions; and observations of general site conditions. A final monitoring report shall be submitted to the City of Federal Way Community Development director administrator for review upon completion of the mitigation activities in Year 5, and will include the specifications as outlined in FWRC 19.145.140. Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 40 January 27, 2017 Section 5—Monitoring 5.2 Maintenance and Contingency Actions 5.2.1 Maintenance The designated mitigation planting areas will be maintained for a minimum of five growing seasons after installation. Maintenance activities are specified below, but generally, maintenance will include irrigating, removing non-native invasive species, replacing mulch, and installing plants as necessary to achieve the Performance Standards. Maintenance will also include replacing/repairing buffer signs, repairing the fence, removing trash, etc. 5.2.2 Irrigation Watering is critical for plant survival and establishment, especially at planting time and for at least the first summer after installation. If possible, all plantings in the designated mitigation planting areas should be watered at a rate of at least one inch per week during the dry season (approximately June through September) for the first year after installation. Under especially hot and dry conditions, the plantings may require more water. Any replacement plants installed subsequent to the initial installation, or plants that are installed in the designated restoration planting areas as the result of maintenance or contingency actions, willrequire irrigation until they become established. Watering frequency may be tapered off during the second year after installation. If installed, temporary irrigation systems may be removed after Year 2. 5.2.3 Plant Replacement Plants will be replaced or additional plants will be installed as required to satisfy Performance Standards for percent survival, percent cover, and vigor in the designated mitigation planting areas. Plant species appropriate to the conditions will be selected from the mitigation plan plant palette (see Appendix F). 5.2.4 Non-native Invasive Species Control The non-native invasive species listed in the Performance Standard will be controlled throughout the designated restoration planting areas. At a minimum, control efforts will satisfy the Performance Standards of either no cover or less than 10 percent cover for the specific species. Control will occur a minimum of two times per year (in the spring and late summer) for Years 1 through 5. More frequent maintenance will prevent non-native invasive species from becoming established (or re- established in the case of Himalayan blackberry). Invasive plants (including roots and crowns) will be removed by hand or with manual tools. All cut and pulled non-native vegetation will be removed from the mitigation area and disposed of properly offsite. If manual control methods prove to be ineffective for certain species (e.g. Japanese knotweed, Himalayan blackberry, etc.), herbicide use may be necessary. Only herbicides approved for use in or near aquatic areas (e.g. Rodeo®, AquaMaster) may be used, and only licensed Gethsemane Cemetery 41 January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan I J I J J Section 5—Monitoring Continued applicators with endorsements for aquatic pest control shall apply herbicides. Herbicide application methodologies should be those recommended by the City .of Federal Way. Application techniques include: cutting the invasives and dabbing stems; foliar wiping; etc. Stem injection is not recommended. The least amount of herbicide necessary should be applied at the most effective time(s) of year, and adjacent desirable native species must not be damaged. 5.2.5 Other Maintenance Actions Repair any damage from vandalism and remove trash from the designated mitigation planting areas. Repair and/or replace any damaged signs or fence segments. Repair/replace habitat features as necessary. 5.2.6 Contingency Actions Based on the monitoring data and photographic record, it may be necessary to implement contingency measures to ensure that the Performance Standards are met. The proposed restoration plan can fail under certain circumstances such as unplanned human activity; fire; extreme cold, heat and/or drought; plant loss by disease and/or insect attack; browsing by deer; etc. The monitoring reports will include observations of which plants are lost and the probable cause for the loss. If necessary, plants will be replaced during the dormant season. Care will be taken to correct for the cause of the loss (e.g. providing better maintenance or increased irrigation); replanting species better adapted to actual site conditions; replacing diseased plants with resistant native species; installing herbivory protection devices; etc. Any damages caused by erosion, settling, or other geomorphological processes will be repaired. Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 42 January 27, 2017 Section 6—References Chapter 6. References Brinson, M.M. 1993. Hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Technical Report. WRP-DE-4. 79 pp. Washington, D.C: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Research Program. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-70/31. 131 pp. Washington, D.C: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. Google Maps. 2015. Available at http://maps.google.com/, accessed October 23, 2015. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — 2014 Update. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-029. King County. 2015. King County GIS Center — King County GIS Data Portal. Available at htrls://.vww5.kingc_o_tiiiLy.gov/gijsdataportal/, accessed October 29, 2015. Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast: 2014 Regional Wedand Plant List. Phytoneuron 2014-41: 1-42. Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2015. WETS Station — Seattle Tacoma INTL AP, WA 233. United Sates Department of Agriculture. Available at: http://www.wcc.nres.usda.gov/climate/navigate_wets.html, accessed November 10, 2015. NRCS. 2015. Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/., accessed December 2011. NRCS. 2015. The PLANTS Database (last updated October 19, 2015). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved October 2015, from http://plants.usda.gov. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report. Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory. USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wedand 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, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. Available at: http:l,I�vw�a.fus.got=/�vetla��ds Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. 2006a. iI>etland Mitigation in Washington State - Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidelines (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-011a, Olympia, WA. Gethsemane Cemetery 43 January 27, 2017 Wedand and Stream Delineation Report and Wedand Buffer Mitigation Plan I I I I j j j j Section 6—References Continued Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10.2006b. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State - Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-011b, Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2016. PHS on the Web. Available online at htW: / /aj2j2s.wdfw-.,w-a.gov/ 12lisonrlie■veb , accessed on January 4, 2016. Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 44 January 27, 2017 Appendix A Methods and Tools Table A-1. Methods and Tools Used to Prepare the Report. Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference Wetland Delineation WSDOT Delineation Guidance Documents httg://www.wsdot.wa,gov/E Website nvironment/Biology/Wetian ds/Delineation.htm#DelinG uidDocs Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual http://ei.erdc.usace.army.mi U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manuel. Environmental Laboratory Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. I/elpubs/pdf/wlman87.pdf Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual WMVC httn://www.usace.army.mill 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. Wakely, R. W. Lichvar, and C.V. noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Portals/2/dots/civilworks/re gulatorxlreq supplwest mt finalsupp.pdf Wetland Classification USFWS / Cowardin Classification System hilo://www.fws.govinwi/Pub Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. s Reports/Class Manual/c_l ass titlepq.htm Hydrogeomorphic Classification (HGM) System http://ei.erdc.usace.army.mi Brinson, M. M. (1993). "A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands," Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. NTIS No. AD A270 053. I/wetlands/pdfs/wrpde4;pdf Wetland Rating Washington State Wetland Rating System: Western WA http://www.ecy.wa.govrI)ii)li rl)ii)li Hruby. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington —2014 Update. Publication # 14-06-029. o/0406025.html Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) htto:llwww.codepublishing. Website. Requires compliance with FWRC (19.145.420) and use of 2014 Ecology rating system. com/WAIFederalWayl Stream Delineation OHWM hUp://www.usace.army.mil/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2014. A Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation for the Non -Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region of the United States, ed. M.K. Mersel and R.W. Lichivar. ERDCUCRREL TR-14-13. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Portals/2%dots/civilworks/re gulatory/req supp/west mt fnalsupp aug2014.pdf OHWM http://www.ecfr.govlccii- bin/text- Congressional Federal Register 33 Part 328 Definition of Waters of the United States. Gethsemane Cemetery January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference idx?t l=lecfrbrowselTitle33/ 33cfr328 main 02.tp1 Stream Department of Forest Practices Water Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 222- Classification Natural Resources Typinu: 16-030. DNR Water typing system. (DNR) Water htto://www.stage.dnr.wa-go vlforestoractices/watertvpin Typing System 93 WAC 222-16-030: http://apps.IU.wa.gov/WA Cld efau It. a s ox?cite=222- 16-030 Water Type Mapping http://www3.wadnr.gov/dnr app 5/we bs ite/foa rs/v i ewer. htm Federal Way http:/Iwww.codepublishing. Federal Way Revised Code 19.145.260 of com1WA/FederalWa Revised Code Article III (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas). Wetland Western http:llrspisias.crrel.usace.ar Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, mv.mil/NWPL/ Indicator Mountains, Valleys, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. Western Status and Coast 2014 Mountains, Valleys, and Coast: 2014 Regional Regional Wetland Wetland Plant List. Phytoneuron 2014-41: 1- Plant List 42. Plant Names USDA PLANTS http://plants.usda.ciovl Website Database Report Federal Way http://www.codepublishing. Federal Way Revised Code 19.145.080 and comlWA/FederalWavl Preparation Revised Code 19.145.410. Soils Data Soil Survey Web Soil Survey: Websites htt ://websoilsurvp .nres.us da.gov/aPPNVebSoilSurvey .aspx Soil Data Mart: htta:llsoildatamart.nres. usd as / Threatened and Endangered Species Washington Natural Heritage Program http://wvvw.dnr.wa.gov/nh 1 Washington Natural Heritage Program (list updated September 2014). Endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants of Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, WA Threatened and Endangered Species Washington Priority Habitats and Species http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Program —August 2008 Washington State Priority Habitats and Species List. Website reviewed January 3, 2016. page.htm Gethsemane Cemetery January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference (continued) NOAA fisheries http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/E Websites SA -Salmon - species list and maps Listings/Salmon - P op u l at ions/ I nd ex. cf m and http: //www. n mf s. noaa. gvvl prlspeciesl USFWS species King County: Website lists by County http://ecos.fws.gov/iess pu b I i c/repo its/species-by- current-range- county?fips=5.3Q33 Gethsemane Cemetery January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan I 1 I I I I J J Appendix B Project Figures and Background Information This appendix includes: ■ Figure 1: Vicinity Map ■ Figure 2: Site Map (aerial photograph) ■ Figure 3: Topography Map ■ Figure 4: NRCS Soils Map ■ Figure 5: National Wetlands Inventory Map ■ Figure 6: City of Federal Way Wetlands Map ■ Figure 7: Wetlands and Streams Delineation Map ■ Figure 7A: Wetland 1 Map ■ Figure 7B: Wetlands 2 & 3 Map ■ Figure 7C: Wetlands 4-5 and Wetlands 7-13 Map ■ Figure 7D: Wetland 6 Map ■ Figure 7E: Wetland 14 Map ■ Figure 7F: Delineated Wetland and Buffer on Karileen Property (Survey sketch map) ■ Figure 8: Delineated Wetlands and Proposed Buffer Reduction ■ Figure 9: Proposed Repurposing for Existing Stormwater Facility ■ Figure 10: Repurposed Stormwater Facility Partial Plan Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer lVitigation Plan January 27, 2017 S t ftnth- Cqi rs L We P.A Q h [aj11�S aN, m 7ill 1+ il.t mjlc Pxk Wash an Maple - SW 3 th St Spy 61A Ave5 Af nines Valley " Kent aN a q project Co,ington N O 3 .�ele•I al Location nrtbtun i SW 3491h PI t}' m ` t.liU n-t 1 -11 Writ way NE, Q` C WastHy*bm 8onnev E-lilll W-9ugiP&* Puyallup, -' Lake Parkl an d 3 Bluebrry South 295anawath51NE , SW3361hSi a SW"wt,st F'"° s3361hS1 FoilLedsP Y Hill pit hlMary .- RtvSetVali0n ltiercc - I !- o' S 3601h St ro w <� Z Y W >c 2 u t a 63 :itl o nv PaA 4, a u. E cy.\v o r Th... k• S c c` > �� u 5 > NaPa O a WFeemd* QQ c r _ W ` n n rIf'C Y` pad• ¢' -A g:� ; 3. 370Ui Sty e e to m o A N �Or ' W Cnlgatc : Q O 161 jJ� i� n 4r - - 17 L,cr, St o D C > N -1 < fi W +�nSIE a a Emeraldst N 4w Porter 1t a a W c �¢ti 6[h St E a MO ton Way Y " a All ton a' n W 12111 S► E R Pacific Hwy C, n P ; Taylar St E L _ F 3 ,1L1, 20th St 20th St Yuma St 20th S t E W Y a, a FI fe a' Edo to "`' '= T pC 241h St E g 261h St E c °f• n u J m W - V c Note: "CE11an Ce Blvdf. a-Basemap provided by ArcGIS Online. Al project speck data was made by Yg Otak, Inc. Figure 1 Legend Vicinity Map Q Gethsemane Cemetary 1 inch = 3,000 it Wetland Delineation on Gethsemane Feet Cemetary, Federal Way, WA 0 3,000 W,Wolecn326M2fi551CADDOG1S1AXDslFlafll Vidn+tvMaa.mxd D":112712DiS 1 I I I I I i i j j l l 1 7 V) w a SW 37ATH ST L� �L \ \ \\ 7TH ST NE i I f JOHNSON RD NE ++f MILTON f L�..r Figure 4 Legend MRCS Soils Map Gethsemane e y Jurisdiction L _ J Wetland Delineation on Gethsemane Stream = Lakes/Ponds Cemetary, Federal Way, WA NRCS Soils =Kitsap silt loam, 15 to 30 Alderwood and Kitsap percent slopes .' soils, very steep � Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 Alderwood gravelly percent slopes [©sandy loam, 15 to 30 =Norma sandy loam percent slopes =Pits Alderwood gravelly =Seattle muck sandy loam, 6 to 15 =Semiahmoo muck percent slopes =Water ®Bellingham silt loam rOVA : .FEDERAL:.,WAY w- Note: -Basemap provided byArcGIS Online. -Municipal data is from City of Federal Way. -Soils data is from the NRCS Soils Survey Geographic Database- -All project specific data was made by Otak, Inc.. 1 inch = 500 feet Feet 0 500 i K:lprofect�326 01326551CADMGI$WXWFig04—Soils.tnxd Date: 112712016 I j I E _ ' i Pvt.drop Wetland 9 10 Ir� ? � r1r �� 4• i . '0 qL000i A -_ Figure7A Legend Wetland 1 Map . . . Estimated Wetland Gethsemane Boundary Cemetary Delineated Wetland Culvert (approx. Boundary location) Wetland Delineation on Gethsemane �,,,.. Cemetary, Federal Way, WA `.T' - ak Wetland Area x Data Point N:Iproiectl326M3E6WCADMGl SW[xDslFfg07A_Wetlnndl.mxd r+r F" Note: --Basemap provided by ArcGIS Online. -Municipal and wetland data is from City of Federal Way. I -All project specific data was made by Otak, Inc. Ordinary High Water 1 inch = 100 feet ..r■ Feet 0 100 Date:2nf2016 2 Wetland 1 7 •'z _ } i ` Note: Wetland 3 -Basemap provided by ArcGIS Online. -Municipal and wetland data is from City of Federal Way. -All project specific data was made by i Otak, Inc. Figure713 Legend Wetlands 2 and 3 Map Estimated Wetland Gethsemane Ordinary High Boundary Cemetary Water Delineated Culvert (approx. Wetland Boundary location) 1 inch = 100 feet Wetland Delineation on Gethsemane T Cemetary, Federal Way, WA ,, Wetland Area DataPoint 0 100eet Uproject132600S326551CADDIG}S1MXD5%rig078_WeVend2&3.mxd Date: 2/112016 Wetland 13 Wetland 4 13 14 - r Wetland 12 16 '1.5 Welland 11' Wetland 5 Wetland 10 Wetland g . Wetland 9 Wetland 8 ' �. 72 Wetland 7 �n s r• ••-� Note: ��- - -Basemap provided byArcGIS Online. ..[ ' T- s- I -Municipal and wetland data is from City of Federal Way. -All project specific data was made by _ .. .r.- - .. - - - Otak, Inc. Figure7C Legend Wetlands 4-5 and . . . Estimated Wetland Gethsemane Boundary Cemetary Wetlands 7-13 Map Delineated Wetland Ordinary High Water Boundary 1 inch = 120 feet Wetland Delineation on Gethsemane ,, ;_ Wetland Area � n ^ J Data Point Feet Cemetary, Federal Way, WA !�, ;�I, 0 100 K:tpro3ecA32sm32dsscADMGIS%MXD7W W7C_We9and4-5&7-13.mxd Bate:21212016 l I I I f' 7 6-1 Figure7E Legend Wetland 14 Map ... Estimated Wetland Gethsemane Boundary Cemetary Delineated Wetland l n ? Data Point Boundary Wetland Delineation on Gethsemane Cemetary, Federal Way, WA% Wetland Area K:loroiec(132600%326551CADDIGISVv XDS)Fip07F_Welisnd14.mxd 'I wiftm- - .- Note: -Basemap provided by ArcGIS Online. -Municipal and wetland data is from City of Federal Way. Al project specific data was made by Otak, Inc. 1 inch = 100 feet Feet s 0 100 Date: 217 I I I I I 1 1 I I •� \XIA+I�n,l 1�nntin»n,l nntn TlnrilPPn nrntiarty Delineated wetIand edge ' .. . mow...— � • -'�• •.•:.:.."- ..- . �\ 165 foot buffer µ� """ •:" for Wetland 1 Karilccn Property - . . . . . . . . :ram#'J� L\ •+� . . n'� "I' f Ise�IGL`hsW��1�1• d�. pe Figure 7F. Delineated Wetland and Buffer on Karileen Property —derived from topographic survey by Goldsmith Land Development Services j Wetland 1 a Wetland 3 , i rl A� , t :iL Wetland 14" .s i r• y. r i ,� 0, Figure 8 Legend Delineated Wetlands Ordinary High Water Wetland Buffer Gethsemane Cemetary and Proposed Buffer e u Estimated Wetland Boundary Wetland Area _ :Lakes/Ponds Reduction _ Delineated Wetland Boundary Wetland Delineation on Gethsemane K trxeiecti326=3WS West iFark H' lebos Creek Vlfetl n-d' -3 Wetland 12 - Wetland 11 Wetland 10 Wetland 9 A � F aIf ' r Wetland B r i� Note: -Basemap provided by ArcGIS Online -Municipal data is from City of Federal Way. -AII protect specific data was made by Otait Inc 1 inch = 250 feet Feet 125 250 Date 1111112D16 1 I I I I N 1 /2, SW 1 /4 AND NE 1 /4. SE 1 /4 SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON x ],a r ,ua '"-° •'•+' +' ?^ WPARM N 3221049O?5 ti , r- r a•o _ >v .k --•i 'r `�'t--.is. �yp y 37W0 PAC ;G kfGHWAY& ..�� 7 "'" � ',iy ► :ram"`" FEDERAL WAY. WA 04=3 'I JsJ �xs:^ aA OWNER:CGASPROPERTY 9 CONVSTRUCTM ro osed artifici -created I f0 wetland s- etention facility L; MIA OL -24 - W ALA ��� m r a y. { S'. a. -r • fry �. . . . _ . . . . . . �•. wl^ + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • �c�' A • ca ;r--• r - :. a ;r �y \`�'S...� r „i_ -. -. . . . . M 1. '/ ' - ,+•. ya{r• Y"`. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .�R` ' . . . . . . . '. _... •'• r„."s. r.J .ntiy :t i•� .-- .-. .-Iwa . _ _ . . .-. . .-..... ....... . ...._ .-.-_ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...-_ .-. . . . `. . . '................................................................ 1 I• i [IrA4 y•a., :. -i ' • !' 7 anti *ti iS. vim.}'R �`1 I: a�+' Z?°Y �f•0. •. .•. •- .•• •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. ` i i J Lr�n_y�n�r a _.- -a•-• -ryr; f.,........•.•.••.•,.-...•.,•,...•..'•...'.•_••.'....•.'..-•.•:..•.•••...-.•.-.�••.-...'..•:.:•. .�: :-.....-:•:•..:.•.,•_..-•'- � �w]:':•:•:•;•: 1 � � II �1'+a wftr oA+ri �r �i II — ............. WL B........;.,.:.;.:.,.:...:.,-;....... i ! -.-.-. .-.-.-. .-.-. ......:.......... •.-.-. .,. .-_..-. . . .-.-.-:•.-.-.-. .-.-... .-_ •.-.•. -.,. . . . j1 e0'"4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' RCd 1 .-. .-.-. -- -•. .... . ............... ..... ..... ... ... ......... . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . -------.-. - pp - •* .p1 Y� pA I� II .....__.._.................................... WET •. .-. •. •. .,.•. ••. •. •,••,-.•• .. . ... . . . .. . •'.-. .•. .•. •. . .. _ .. _ .. •. ..... -.-.•. - wa K I * _. . _.. __.. __... Ida n vt /.......8........................_..........._...................... ......` I. ..... 9w� f .................... . ...:,►fi....:.......:_:.....:.:...:.:...:.;.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:...:.;.:...:.;.:-......;.....:..N .:.;......._.1 .:..................... . . o_ .lo -ia.. . . . . . ..I r ,........................................................... a GOLDSMITH LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES i]�lliM/w 9.6Yi.a YVAMOM l geal56,.s+R MNfIE01 +.nw m s.nwnn � n�mna� �m � n�. nuns .rur rvrwmv�rn,.,rnm„nmoinw '• `1 fl ., eyr� '"� �••'� VI GETHSE\CFMtAY ET lo. na 14162 , insw+a immon-art„mano ruoaamsanw�ue,®aa,sa,s]aw m++mimrana.a], axarn owr rw,m TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR GETHSEMANE CEMETERY 3I501) PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH, CRY OF FEDERAL WAY. PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON rm] 11/12 f- - -- ---''-". Figure 9. Proposed Repurposing for Existing Stormwater Facility —Extent of Created Wetland j IYPRpVC E1C AOC(SS ROAD - rti+ IY WOE CStipF1 dPrii CO MT W PRE Ta 17I CB TEpuls a SD m ALDLM -� a CS IV iG" --, E21 ARATCfAI Tx Sfl � ,r � 1 ASAWLW --J IX OOTFALL PM OOTFALL Ed7A ETD51nIG � EASnNC STORITBAIER PCRiO TOP OF FLOW CORTROL SMWE � {FLOW oDlTrea vr;ER UvAnu+} � TSiV, 5a.07 _ TOP wpm OHSE X am J I Y AA ♦TOR i,ON CMFPX KEY FLEVATRIN) f _ l Ei.EY. 56.50 POND MICI'v r 1 �. F-59'� IA£I v TOP OF SOAM 5rMW 5 _ - ' A' jgo7 Y OF YEIPLI(%.) 1:AT Fi TLASM T1M-2 W/ 2 { ♦, FLOW SMILE. r' DOrw OF FM .� / E% RO(%i1E1F 77 NIDE TTmT¢TrcY 05fAFltlir SY�Li.NAY � MAM .IX. 511E DUVAGE PATIO TO UM 1 i � r r r I ,I 1 REPURPOSED STORMWATER POND PARTIAL PLAN iQ 1•=w IX SLOPE (FMEQiM) CO TYPE 2 x IL■ 2 vv I'„ r� IX POND BEN v — F]EV=SB.O7 E.S� �p�v — — — — — — — — — — OPOF�----�— F F1A3t(,7)ICY ^.�v r... ovffFLOW IX ELiri 17,7. / I.. '2' MIET PPE (FDRECADIMD) DD1TD11 � v�~� WATER QUALITY/FLOW CONTROL POND TYPICAL SECTION A M115 -- IX ROCK -LINED CHANNEL es�x'�Am.r.An�auc A [? CEMETERIES nr�s�.rw� wr,rsrmr. } K w H N w L W w � w LU�(7 O CO) C] Xo W a ED U_ Ca w CO) as z w OOZ �Q Ir Z O F N a BEHK CRATE ja.6rcnnan�� RY•99.5D — 54 MA C'AXH BASSI 7YPE 2 .r REinSICITa: FILVATION�SAOO .• STANDPIPE CUTIROL f---L•2T OWM K {TE f � BI17E RlESCYiB�i1[]fF. MIVERT-%00 STANDARD OALVAIN2TA MVERT.56.50 STEEL LADDER OR STEPS MV OMFICE PLATE . VME: ASSHOWN 12_-� jr SDSD BATE: 03MS IB _ BRAYM BY: BE.wBNEOW MVEAT-55.50` APPROVED BY. - I.Mr WM PLATE C 1.0 Call 811 FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE 2 g fm F , ow'w. Figure 10. Repurposed Stormwater Facility Partial Plan Appendix Wetland Determination Data Forms Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report 1 and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan J January 27, 2017 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery City/County: Federal WaylKing Sampling Date: 1115/15 Applicant/Owner: ArchdioceseofSwill e State: WA Sampling Point: 1 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: S32. T21 N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): dearession Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0=2 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: _ Long: _ Dalurn. Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham slit loam NWI classification: - Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: All three wetland indicators present. Datapoint located 10' north of flag Al2. vtut i A i run — use sciennrrc names or pranrs Tree Slralum (Plot size: 30' radius} Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: %Cover scecles) Status 1. Salix sitchensis 15 y9s FACW Number of Dominant Species 2. 3 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 3 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata: 50% = 7_5, 20% = 3 15 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species SaplinglShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 1. Salix sitchensis 85 Yes FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus sr}ectahilrs 8 no FAC Total % Cover of: Mullioly by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = 46.5, 20% = 18.6 93 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius UPL species x5 = 1. Phalaris arundinacea 55 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Eouiserum arvense 10 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Athvrium filix-temina sop. cyclosorum 5 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6• ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7• 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting El 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 50% = 35, 20% = 14 70 = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' radius 1. _- 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes © No ❑ 50% = 20% _ =Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 25 (51/ water) Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 Project Site: Gethsemane CemeterY I enu Samnlina Point: t 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_3 10YR 211 100 silt loam 3-14 10YR 3/1 100 10YR 4/6 3 C M silt loam 14-20+ 10YR 5/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M clay 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 (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) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F6 present. r�r_v 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) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ® Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (132) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (66) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 2 Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 10 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 8 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: - Remarks: Wetland hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery— City/County: Federal WayiKina Sampling Date: 11/5/15 Applicant/Owner: Archdiocese of Sealtie State: WA Sampling Point: 2 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: 532. T21N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillsippe Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 2=5 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: _ Long: = Datum: _ Soil Map Unit Name: Beliinpham slit loam NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 19 Remarks: Datapoint not in a wetland; all three wetland indicators not present. Datapoint located 10' south of flag Al2. vCbC i H I Airy — use scientiric; names oT plants Tree Stratum (Plot size. MY radius] Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status 1 • Number of Dominant Species 3 (A) 2. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant 3 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata: 50% = 20% _ = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species SaolinolShrub Stratum (Plot size: 75' radtu That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 1. Rubus armeniacus 10 no FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Salix sitchensis 40 yes FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by. 3. Sambucus racemosa 5 no FACU OBL species x1 = 4. - u FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = 27.5, 20% = 11 55 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = He Stratum (Plot size: 5'radiyls UPL species x5 = 1. Phalaris arundinacea 75 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Eouiselum arvense 25 yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3. 4. ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6• ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7• -- 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting ❑ g. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. _ ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 50% = 50, 20% = 20 100 = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1Tnpdi s 1. _- u 2 Hydrophytic TTo — Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ 50% = 20% _ =Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 Project Site: Gellisemare Cemetery enu Samniino Point 2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loe Texture Remarks 0-18 2.5 Y 5/3 100 SCLtexture: sandy clay 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 (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) O 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) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophylic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: No hydric soil indicator present. IL. W my:701 r■rN7 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 (B9) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ 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 (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 Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetand Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indiactors present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery City/County: Federal Wav/KW Sampling Date: 11/5/15 Applicant/Owner: 6rchdiocese of Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 3 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: 532. T21 N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0=2 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: = Long: = Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam NW] classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: All three wetland indicators present. Datapoint located 8' west of flag A18. vr-ur I A I ruN — use scieminc names oT praniS Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 = Number of Dominant Species 2 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3• Total Number of Dominant 3 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata: 50% = 20% _ = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 66.7 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radlus That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. Rubus armeniacus 2 ves FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. _ OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = 1, 20% = <1 2 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5'radiu5 UPL species x5 = 1. Phalads arundinacea 73 ves FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Cirsium arvense 2 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. AgfOSriiC pi//arm 25 ves FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6• ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7• 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting ❑ 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. _ 50% = 50, 20% = 20 100 = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' radjus) 1. - 2 Hydrophytic _ _ _ Vegetation Yes ® No El = 20% _ =Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery [� r Samnlino Point: 3 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 0-8 10YR 412 100 clay loam 8-18+ 10YR 4/2 85 10YR 41ii 8 C M silty clay '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 Soils3: ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ® Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F3 present. 14vn9an nrw 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) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) ® High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (610) ❑ 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 (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133) ❑ Iron Deposits (65) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (135) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses 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 ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 4 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 3 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ (includes capillary fringe) 1 Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: - Remarks: Wetland hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gelhsemane Cemetery City/County: Federal WaylKing Sampling Date: 11/5/15 Applicant/Owner: Archdiocese of Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 4 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: S32. T21N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0=2 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: _ Long: _ Datum: _ Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt foam NWI classification: _ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Data point not located within a wetland; all three wetland indicators not present. Data point located 8' east of flag A18. vtut I A I Ivn — use scieminc names oT pianw Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius Absolute % Cover Dominant S en ags? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 � = — Number of Dominant Species 1 (A) 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3• Total Number of Dominant (B) q Species Across All Strata: 50% = 20% _ = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 50 (A/B) Sa lin !Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 16 radius That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus armeniacus e ves FACU 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by. 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species 15 x2 = 30 5. — FAC species 85 x3 = 255 50% = 4, 20% = 1_6 8 = Total Cover FACU species 8 x4 = 32 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ra ius UPL species x5 = 1. Phalaris arundinacea 15 no FACW Column Totals: 108 (A) 317 (B) 2. Aarostis capillaris 80 ves FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.93 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3. Vicia americana 5 no FAC 4. — ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. — ® 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7• 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 8 ❑ data in Remarks oron a separate sheet) 9. ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. _— ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. _ v 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50% = 50, 20% = 20 100 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' radmi 1. - 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ❑ No 50% = 20% _ =Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery I ann Samolino Point: 4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR 3/2 100 loam 16-20+ 10YR 4/2 82 10YR 4/6 8 C M silty clay 10YR 5/1 10 D M '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 Soils3: ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problernaVc. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: No hydric soil indicators present. i►1,_r.1W 7N. 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) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ 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 (133) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (66) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (137) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 20 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 18 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators present. �+ US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 J WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date: 11/5/15 Applicant/Owner: ArOftcese of Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 5 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and i(,evin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: S32. T21 N. R"E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillsloae Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 2=5 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: _ Long: _ Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: _ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site mao showina samolina paint lecatinns_ transarts_ imnnrtant faaturac atr Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: All three wetland indicators present. Datapoint located 8' NE of flag A31. vrzuc i A i rum —use scienrrric names or piants Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species 2. _~ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: (B) 50% = 20% _ = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species SaplinalShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius] That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 1 • _ Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5• FAC species x3 = 50% = 20% _ = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Sfmatum (Plot size: 5'radius UPL species x5 = 1. Cirsium arvense 5 no FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Eeilobl m cdiafum 15 no FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. pgtasfis caAillarrs 55 ves FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Vicia americana 5 no FAC ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Rumex crispus 5 no FAC ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. Lollum perenne 15 no FAC ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting ❑ 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9• ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 50% = 50, 20% = 20 100 = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stralum (Plot size: t0' radius) 1. - 2. Hydrophytic 50% = 20% _ =Total Cover Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hyrdophytic vegetation indicator present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 1 Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery ertu Smmniinn Point 5 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=7 10YR 3/2 100 loam 7-18 10YR 5/2 81 19YR 416 15 C M silt clay 10YR 4/1 4 D M 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletlon, 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 (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) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F3 present. Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (At) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ® High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (61) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ 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) ❑ FAG -Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses 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): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 8 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 6 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery City/County: Federal Way/Klna Sampling Date: 11/5/15 Applicant/Owner: Archdiocese of Seatft State: WA Sampling Point: 6 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: S32, T21N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 2=5 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: _ Long: - Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ED Remarks: Datapoint not located within a wetland; all three wetland indicators not present Datapoint located 8' southwest of flag A31. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius Absolute Cover Dominant Species Indicator% Status Dominance Test Worksheets 1. = Number of Dominant Species (A) 2. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant (B) 4. Species Across All Strata: 50% = 20% _ = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species Sa Ifn (Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius] 100 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. C►ata_egas mon9Qma 5 ves FAC 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = 2_5, 20% = 1 5 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' rgdius UPL species x5 = 1. Avroslis caarliarrs 65 ves FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. tolium pgmnne 20 !es FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3. Earlobium cNafum 10 ne FACW 4. Vicia americana 5 no FAC ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6• _ — ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7• 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 8, ❑ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50% = 50, 20% = 20 100 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or'problematic. Woody Vine Slralum {Plot size: ID'radius] 1. _- 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ 50% = 20% _ = Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 I I J J Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery enu Samollno Pnint 8 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (mches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 3/2 100 loam 14-18 2.5Y 4/2 90 10YR 4/6 8 C M silty clay 10YR 4/1 2 D M 18-22+ 10YR 5/2 80 10YR 4/6 15 C M silty clay 10YR 4/1 5 D M '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 (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: No hydric soil indicator present. Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (At) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (611) ❑ Drainage Patterns (610) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) ❑ 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 (133) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses 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 ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 18 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 17 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery City/County: Federal WaylKing Sampling Date: 11/5/15 Applicant/Owner: Archdiocese_of_Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 7 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: S32, T21N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0=2 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: _ Long: _ Datum: _ Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsao silt loam. 2-8% slopes NWI classification: - Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: All three wetland indicators present. Datapoint located 10' southwest of flag C6. vCbC i A i iury — use scienTiTic names OT piarim Tree Stralum (Plot size: 39 radius Absolute Dominant % Cover Species? 1. - 2. 3. 4. 50% = 20% _ SapllnulShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius 1. Fraxinus latifolia 12 2. Acer circinatum 4 3. 4. 5. 50% = 8, 20% = 3_2 16 Herb Slra;uri (Plot size: 5' radius 1. Pha/axis arundinacea 96 2. Juncus effusus 4 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 50% = 50, 20% = 20 100 WoodyMne Stratum (Plot size: 10' radiusY 1. - 2. 50% = 20% _ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator present Indicator Status = Total Cover Les FACW t'eS FAC = Total Cover Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species 3 (A) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant 3 (B) Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species 100 (A/B) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x1 = FACW species x2 = FAC species x3 = FACU species x4 = UPL species x5 = ves FACW Column Totals: (A) _ no FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% — ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' — ❑ 4 - Morphologicat Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) = Total Cover — 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ Total Cover Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 I Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery Coal I Sampling Point: 7 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 0-4 10YR 4/2 100 clav laam 4-18 10YR 412 78 10YR 5/6 18 C PL/M silty clay 10YR 5/1 4 D M '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 (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) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F3 present. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ® Surface Water (At) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ 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 (B4) ❑ 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 Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 2 Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland hydrology indicator present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery City/County: Federal WaylK:na Sampling Date: 11/5/15 Applicant/Owner: A[0050ms of Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 8 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: 532. T21N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 5=8 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: _ Long: = Datum: _ Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsao slit loam, 2-8°% slopes NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No ED within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Data point not located within a wetland; not all three wetland indicators present. Data point located 8' northeast of flag C6. veue r A r rury — use sciennrrc names or piants Tree Stratum Plot size: 30' radius ( Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: —� % CoverSpecies? Status 1. Pseuedoisuoa menzlesii 55 yes FACU Number of Dominant Species 2. 3 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3• Total Number of Dominant 7 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata: 50% = 27.6, 20% = 11 55 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species SaplinglShrub Slralum (Plot size: 15' radlus That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 43% (A/B) 1. Rubus spectabills 15 YQ—S FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus armeniacus 10 YQ—S FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. Oemleria cerasiformis 10 Y91S FACU OBL species 5 x1 = 5 4. Co 1u— _ri_s cornuta 5 no FACU FACW species 20 x2 = 40 5. Gaultheria shallon 10 y9s FACU FAC species 50 x3 = 150 50% = 25, 20% = 10 50 = Total Cover FACU species 90 x4 = 270 Herb Stratum (Plot size: F radius UPL species x5 = 1. Phalaris arundinacea 20 yes FACW Column Totals: 165 (A) 465 (B) 2. Carex ohnupia 5 no OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.82 3. Eguisetum arvense 7 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Tolmiea menziesii 8 no FAC ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Poa oratensis 5 no FAC ❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. Aarostrs ca In, lar+s 10 �s FAC ® 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7. Cirsium arvense 5 no FAC 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 8, ❑ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. i ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 50% = 30, 20% = 12 60 = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' radius 1. _- 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ 50% = 20% _ =Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery J cnu Samnliria Point: 8 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loe Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 3/3 100 loam 6-18 2.5Y 4/3 70 silty clay 2.5Y 5/3 30 '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 (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) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weuand hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: No hydric soil indicator present. uvnonr nr_v 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 (B9) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Water Marks (61) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) ❑ 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 (B4) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (135) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery City/County: Federal WayXino Sampling Date: 11/5/15 Applicant/Owner: Archdiocese Qf Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 9 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: S32_T21N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 5=8 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: _ Long: _ Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: _ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showinq sampling point locations. transects. important features. etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Data point not in a wetland; not all three wetland indicators present. Data point located at flag DPI. V VUV I A I IUN — use SCIentiric names or plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. = Number of Dominant Species 3 (A) 2, That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant 3 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata: 50% = 20% _ = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species $apJim1Shrub_Slraturn (Plot size: 15' ra fus That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 1. Rosa nootkana 5 Y§—S FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: MUltiDIV bv: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. �. FAC species x3 = 50% = 2_5, 20% = 1 5 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = He Stratum (Plot size: ' radius UPL species x5 = 1. Poe Mlensis 70 ves FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Lolium oerenne 20 Yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3. Cirsium arvense 5 no FAC 4. Vicia americana 5 no FAC ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6• — ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7. ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 8, data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. ` 50% = 50, 20% = 25 100 = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' Mdius} 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes to No ❑ 50% = 20% _ =Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Gelhsemane Cemetery i :711.1 n Samolino Point: 9 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 0-4 10YR 4/2 100 ciav loam 4-12 10YR 4/2 92 10YR 4/6 8 C M silty clay redox con.. have sharp boundaries 1212=18 2.5Y 5/2 85 10YR 4/6 10 C M silty clay 10YR 412 5 D M '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 (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (fF12) ❑ 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) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F3 present, but sharp boundaries of redox concetrations indicate that they are likely relic features. uvnRni nr.v 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) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ 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 (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (132) ❑ 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 Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (137) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethseman-e Cemetery City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date: 11/5/15 Applicant/Owner: Archdiocese of Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 10 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: S32 T21N R4ER4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hills[ope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 5=8 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: _ Long: = Datum: _ Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations. transects, important features. etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ED Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Yes [I No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Datapoint not located within a wetland; all three wetland indicators not present Datapoint located at flag DP2. vr-ur i A i run — use sciennric names or plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3U radius Absolute % Cover Dominant Snecies? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 • = i Number of Dominant Species (A) 2. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. v Total Number of Dominant 4 (B) 4, Species Across All Strata: 50% = 20% _ = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species SaplinglShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius] 50 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) 1. f=rarr Gla AyElhiany 5 ves FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus armeniacus 3 yes FACU Total % Cover of: Mutt_ iply_b� 3• OBL species 0 x1 = 4• FACW species 0 x2 = 5• FAC species 85 x3 = 255 50% = 4, 20% = 1_6 8 = Total Cover FACU species 23 x4 = 92 Herb Slralum (Plot size: 5' radius UPL species x5 = 1. Daucus carota 20 y9_S FACU Column Totals: 108 (A) 347 (B) 2. j8gLosfis ca fflads 60 y9_S FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.21 3. Holcus lanatus 12 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Trilolfum reaens a no FAC ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5• f ❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6• ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting ❑ 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9• _ _ ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 50% = 50, 20% = 20 100 = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. WWy Vie tratu (Plot size: 10' radius 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ❑ No 50% = 20% _ =Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: No hydrophytic vegetation indicator present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Gelhsemarke CemeteN J I J ¢nu Samo[inp Point: 10 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 10YR 3/2 95 10YR 416 5 C M clad loam Redox features start at 4" 1212=18 10YR 4/2 80 10YR 416 10 C M silty clay 10YR 3/2 10 '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 Soils3: ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (rF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (fF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1) ® Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F3 present, but redox concentrations have sharp boundaries which indicates they are likely relict features. uvnoni nr_v 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) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ 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 (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: - Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery City/County: > ederal WavliCino Sampling Date: 11/5/15 ApplicantlOwner: Armh_dfQws_e_of Seattlg State: WA Sampling Point: 11 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: S32. T21N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): HIII" slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 2=5 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: - Long: - Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsa2 silt loam, 2.8°I slopes NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ED Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Datapoint not located within a wetland; all three wetland indicators absent. Datapoint located in upland forest east of West Fork Hylebos Creek VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius Absolute °I Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Acermacroohyflum 15 ves FACU Number of Dominant Species 2. A/nus rubra 30 y9—S FAC 3 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3. Thuia nlrcala 20 y9s FAC Total Number of Dominant 4. Tso-ga hetefophyf/a 10 no FACU 7 Species Across All Strata: (B) 50% = 37.5. 20% = 15 75 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species Saplin4l$hrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ° That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 43/° (A/B) 1. Oem/eria cirasiformis 12 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus—saacfab//is 8 Yes FAC Total % Cover of: multiply by 3. Rubus armeniacus 5 yes FACU OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species 58 x3 = 174 50% = 12.5, 20% = 5 25 = Total Cover FACU species 50 x4 = 200 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5'radius UPL species x5 = 1. PolysUchum munifum 8 Yes FACU Column Totals: 108 (A) 374 (B) 2• Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.46 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. _ ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting El 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 50% = 4, 20% = 1_6 ^- 8 = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' adius 1. - 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes El No 50% = 20% _ =Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Cleaf fall Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator not present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 Project Site: GethsemaneCesnnetery LY&111 Sarnollno Point: 11 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 0-3 10YR 3/3 100 loam 3-12 10YR 4/3 100 loam 12-18 2.5Y 5/3 100 clay 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 (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) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: No hydric soil indicator present. 44vnanl nry Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (A 1) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ 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 (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: - Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane _Cemeteiv City/County: Federal Wav/Kinq Sampling Date: 11/5/15 Applicant/Owner: Archdiocese of Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 12 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: S32. T21 N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 2=3 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: = Long: = Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsae sill loam, 2-8% slopes NWI classification: Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No ED within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Datapoint not located within a wetland; all three wetland indicators absent. Datapoint located near old homestead. veue I A I Ivn — use scienuric names or pianr5 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radiu Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: Cover %1. Species % Status Malus domestica 15 n/a` NI Number of Dominant Species 2. A/nus rubra 10 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 3. Total Number of Dominant 6 q Species Across All Strata: 50% = 5, 20% = 2 10 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radlu That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 1. Rubus laciniatus 5 no FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubuis armeniacus 25 Yes FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply bY: 3. Oemleria cerasiformis 12 Lqs FACU OBL species x1 = 4. Sambucus racemosa 5 no FACU FACW species 10 x2 = 20 5. — — FAC species 78 x3 = 234 50% = 23.5. 20% = 9_4 47 = Total Cover FACU species 42 x4 = 168 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius UPL species x5 = 1. ERilobium cihalum 10 no FAC Column Totals: 130 (A) 422 (B) 2. Cirsium vyl-9.0 fe 15 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.25 3. Urtica dioica 18 yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Tolmiea menzlesfi 25 y9_S FAC ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Poa so. 8 n/a" NI ❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. Egtusetum arvense 10 no FAC ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting g ❑ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. _ _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50% = 43, 20% = 17.2 86 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 70' radius] 1. Rubus ursinus 12 yes FACU 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ❑ 50% = 6, 20% = 2_4 12 = Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: 'excluded from calculations per chapter 2 guidance - no hydrophytic vegetation indicator present No (A) (B) (A/B) US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery 1 1 I LY&I I I Samplin0 Point: 12 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loe Texture Remarks 0=5 10YR 3/3 100 loam 5-13 10YR 4/3 80 loam 10YR 3/3 20 1313=18 2.5Y 5/3 100 clay 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 (Al 0) ❑ 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 (At 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or E roblematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: No hydric soil indicator present. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (At) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (611) ❑ Drainage Patterns (610) ❑ Water Marks (61) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ 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 Stresses 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 ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches). Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: - Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicator present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery City/County: Federa$_Way/K[n4 Sampling Date: 11/12/15 Applicant/Owner: Archdiocese of Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 13 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: S32. T21N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): flood pin Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0=2 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: = Long: - Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: K_Itsap silt loam, 15 to 30% slopes NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Data point located within a wetland; all three indicators present. Data point located 10' northwest of flag J1. vGur- i A i run - use sciennric names or plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radlus Absolute % Cover Dominant Species, Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Afts ruhre 35 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species 2. 5 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3• Total Number of Dominant 5 (B) 4, Species Across All Strata: 50% = 17.5, 20% = 7 35 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species SaDlinolShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radiusl That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/13) 1. Rubas spectabifis 35 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus parvillorus 5 no FACU Total % Cover of: Mull iDiv by: 3. Acer circinatum 15 yes FAC OBL species x1 = 4. Poivaanum cusprdalum 10 no FACU FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = 32.5, 20% = 13 65 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: V radius] UPL species x5 = 1. Carex obnupta 25 yes OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Tolmiea menziesii 10 Yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. — Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. ❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. — ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7. ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 6, data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. _ ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 50% = 12.5, 20% = 5 25 = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Wood y Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' radius} 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ 50% = 20% = Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 75 silt Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Project Site: Gethsemane Cernetery 1 Cnll SamDlina Point: 13 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 3/1 100 SSL sandy slit am• scour and silI deposits 10-18 2.5Y 4/1 100 SSL sandy, silt loam 18-24 G1 4/N 100 loamy sand '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 (TF2) ❑ 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 (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Data point located on vegetated flats in floodplain of Hylebos Creek. Scour during flood events inhibits development of redoximorphic features in soil profile. Hydric soil assumed to be present due to presence of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation indicators. NvnRnl nr.V 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 (B9) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ® High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ❑ 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 (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (131) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 11 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 10 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: - Remarks: Wetland hydrology indicator present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane —Cemetery City/County: Federal WavlKina Sampling Date: 11/12/15 Applicant/Owner: Archdiocese of Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 14 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: S32. T21N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): IHJIsJane Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): >30% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: _ Long: - Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsap slit loam, 15 to 30% slopes NWI classification: - Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ED Remarks: Data point located in upland; all three wetland indicators absent. Data point located 10' northeast of flag J1. vciar- i m i run — use sciennnc names or pianis Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius Absolute Cover Dominant Species: Indicator% Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Thuj�licata 45 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species 2. Acermacruohvllum 20 yes FACU 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3. Alnus rubra 5 no FAC Total Number of Dominant 5 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata: 50% = 35, 20% = 14 70 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species SaplincLIShrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.5' radius; 40 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: (A/B) 1. Acer circinatum 35 yes LAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Oemleria cerasiformis 10 yes FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. Sambucus racemosa 5 no FACU OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species 85 x3 = 255 50% = 25, 20% = 10 50 = Total Cover FACU species 70 x4 = 280 Herb Stratum_(Plot size: 5._'radius UPL species x5 = 1. Polvstichum mundum 35 yes FACU Column Totals: 155 (A) Q0 (B) 2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.4 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6• ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7• 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 8. ❑ date in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 50% = 17.5. 20% = 7 35 = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10'radius 1. - 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ❑ No 50% = 20% _ = Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 65 (leaf fafl) Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator not present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Gethsemane_C_emelery J cnu Samnlino Point: 14 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 0-18 2.5Y 5/3 85 SSL sandy silt loam 10YR 3/3 15 '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 (171) (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) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless dislurbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: No hydric soil indicator present. r-».l 7.1r.T.aA 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 (B9) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ 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 (B3) ❑ 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 (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: - Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicator present. jUS Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery City/County: Federal WavlKing Sampling Date: 11/12/15 Applicant/Owner: Archdiocese of Seatlfe State: WA Sampling Point: 15 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: S32. T21N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): flQodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0=2 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: _ Long: _ Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt Loam. 15 to 30% slopes NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation O, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Datapoint located within a wetland; all three wetland indicators present. Datapoint located 10' northwest of flag E6. vrut t A t tuN — use scientunc names or plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3V rafts Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover SDBCIe3? Status 1. A/nus rubra 35 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species 2. 6 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3• Total Number of Dominant 6 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata: 50% = 17.5, 20% = 7 35 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species SaDlinalShrub Stratum (Plot size: f5' dius That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 1. Rubus sAeclabilis 45 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Acer circinatum 15 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. Rubus parviflarus 5 no FACU OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = 32.5. 20% = 13 65 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ' ra ius UPL species x5 = 1. Lysichilon amerlcanus 10 yes OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Tolmiea menziesii 8 yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3. Aydum Mix- femina 5 yes FAC 4. ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6• ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7• 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting ❑ 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. ' 50% = 12.5, 20% = 4_6 23 = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' radius) 1. Rubus urinus 5 yes FACU 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ElPresent? 50% = 2_5, 20% = 1 5 =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 77 fsill deDosits) Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 Project Site: Gethrmmane Cemetery enu Samnlino Point- 15 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 0-8 10YR 3/1 100 saner 8-12 2.5Y 4/1 100 sandy loam 12-20+ G1 4/N 100 loamy sand '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 (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) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic_ Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Data point located on vegetated flats in floodplain of Hylebos Creek. Scour during flood events inhibits development of redoximorphic features in soil profile. Hydric soil assumed to be present due to presence of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation indicators. 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) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ 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 Stresses 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 ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 8 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 7 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: - Remarks: Wetland hydrology indicator present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery_ City/County: Federal WaylKinc Sampling Date: 11/12/15 Applicant/Owner: Archdioces_,g of Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 16 Investigator(s): Jeff Graff and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: S32. T21N_ R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslooe Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): >30 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: _ Long: _ Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsao Slit loam. 15 to 30°% slopes NWI classification: _ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Data point not located within a wetland; all three wetland indicators absent. Data point located 10' northwest of flag E6 vr-ur- i is i run — use scientinc names or pratim Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius Absolute % Cover Dominant Species') Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Thula olicata 35 t'eS FAC Number of Dominant Species 2. Acermacrophylfum 25 !eS FACU 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 50% = 30, 20% = 12 60 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species Sao Ing1$hrug Stratum (Plot size: 15' radlust That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 (A/B) 1. Mahonia nervosa e yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Acercircinatum 20 ves FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3• OBL species x1 = 4• _ FACW species x2 = 5• FAC species 55 x3 = 115 50% = 14, 20% = 5_6 28 = Total Cover FACU species 103 x4 = 412 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5'radws UPL species x5 = 1. Polystichum murrllum 70 y9_S FACU Column Totals: 158 (A) 527 (B) 2• Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.3 3• Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4• ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5• ❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6• ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting ❑ 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9• ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 50% = 35, 20% = 14 70 = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum [Plot size: 10' radius 1. - 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ❑ No 50% = 20% _ =Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30 fleaf fall] Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator not present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery —I Camnlinn Pnint 16 I Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Locz Texture Remarks 0-18 2.5Y 5/3 90 SSL sandy silt loam 10YR 3/3 10 '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 (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 (At 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: No hydric soil indicator present. Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (At) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 46) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ 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 (85) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (BB) ❑ Stunted or Stresses 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 ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: - Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicator present. IUS Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery City/County: r edera Wa iKin Sampling Date: 11/12/15 Applicant/Owner: Archdiocese of Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 17 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: 532 T_21_N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): toe of slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0=2 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: _ Long: - Datum: - Soil Map Unit Name: Bellinaham silt loam NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ H dric Soil Present? Is the Sampled Area ® No ❑ Y Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Data point located within a wetland; all three wetland indicators present Data point located 10' south of flag F12 v GVG 1 m I i%m — use sciennnc names or piarlw Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radlus Absolute % Lever Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Alnus rubra 40Les FAC Number of Dominant Species 2. 5 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 5 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata: 50% = 20, 20% = 8 40 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species SaplinolShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 1. Rubus s ectabllis 60 es FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Sambucus facemosa 5 no FACU Total % Cover of: Mulliofv bv: 3. OBL species x1 = 4• FACW species x2 = 5• FAC species x3 = 50% = 32.5. 20% = 13 65 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius UPL species x5 = 1. Lvsich4on amencanus 15 yes, OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Eauisetum amgnse 5 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Athvrium felllr-rmina 10 yes, FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Selrpus mi Mcaraus 15 yes, OBL ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5• ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6' ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting ❑ 8. data in Remarks or on a separale sheet) 9• ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 50% = 22.5, 20% = 9 45 = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' radius l 1. - 2. Hydrophytic 50% = 20% _ =Total Cover Vegetation Yes No ❑ Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 55 •:mud. leaf fall) Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation inidcator present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Gethsemane Cemelery I LTil I I SamDlino Paint: 17 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 04 10YR 2/1 100 organic mucky peat 4-18+ 10YR 4/1 70 10YR 416 18 C M sandy loam G1 5/N 12 '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 (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) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present,unless ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F3 present. HYDRIOLOGY 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) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ® High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ 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 (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 Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 2 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: - Remarks: Wetland hydrology indicator present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery City/County: Federal WavlKin❑ Sampling Date: 11/12/15 Applicant/Owner: Archdiocese of Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 18 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: S32. T21N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 1010=15 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: _ Long: _ Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bell Incham silt loam NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Data point located in upland; not all three wetland indicators present. Data point located 10' north of flag F12. veue i A i iun - use scientiric names or piams Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. psuedoWLga_men2iesri 25 y9-S FACU Number of Dominant Species 2. Alnus rubra 35 � FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3• Total Number of Dominant 6 A 4 Species Across All Strata: 50% = 30, 20% = 12 60 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius 33.3 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. flexa ua r'foffum 10 ves FACU 2. Oemleria cerasiformis 20 Yes FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: 3. Acercircinatum 15 yes FAC OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species 50 x3 = 150 50% = 22.5. 20% = 9 45 = Total Cover FACU species 90 x4 = 270 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius UPL species x5 = 1. PohiAabum munifum 35 y9-S FACU Column Totals: 140 (A) 420 (B) 2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. ❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6• -- ® 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7• — 4 - MorpholDgical Adaptations' (Provide supporting ❑ 8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must 50% = 17.5. 20% = 7 35 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' radius 1. _- 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ 50%= 20% _ =Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 65 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery enu SamDlino Point: 18 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 0-18 10YR 3/3 100 silt 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 (171) (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) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: No hydric soil indicator present. nr_v 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) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ 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 (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 (66) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (131) (LRR A) O Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (137) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: - Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicator present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane Cemelery City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date: 11/12/15 Applicant/Owner: AThdiocese of Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 19 Investigator(s): Jeff Gra_r aR_d_Keyin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: 532. T21 N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression adiacent to road Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0=2 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: - Long: - Datum: _ Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8% slaves NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Data point located within a wetland; all three wetland indicators present. Data point located 5' south of flag L5. V CUC I A 1 IVN — USe 5GIenO11G names oT ipiam5 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radfus Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. = Number of Dominant Species 1 (A) 2. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant (B) 4. Species Across All Strata: 50% = 20% _ = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species SaDllnpl5hrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius] That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 100 (A/B) 1. _ Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of; Multiplyby' 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = 20% _ = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radlus UPL species x5 = 1. Phalaris arundinacea 100 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 50% = 50, 20% = 20 100 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' radius] 1. - 2. 50% = 20% _ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator present Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting _ data In Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) = Total Cover ` 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ = Total Cover Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery cen» Samniino Point 19 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 0-18 10YR 4/2 82 10YR 4/6 18 C M clay loam redox features start at 4" 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location. PL=Pore Linrng. 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 (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 (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) O Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F3 present. uvnonm nr_v 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 (B9) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) ® High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ 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 (B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ❑ 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 (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 2 Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: - Remarks: Wetland hydrology indicator present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: aek-s-emane_Cemeterery City/County: Federal WavlKirto Sampling Date: 11/12/15 Applicant/Owner: Archdiocese of Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 20 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Br}en Section, Township, Range: S32. T21 N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hlllsi_gpe Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 151520 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: _ Long: _ Datum: _ Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsap slit loam, 2-8% slopes NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Data point located in upland; all three wetland indicators not present. Data point located 10' north of flag L5. veue r A i tun — use sctentiric names or plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius Absolute Dominant % Cover seecies7 1. A/nus rubra 15 Yes 2. 3. 4. 50% = 7_5, 20% = 3 15 Saplinc/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius] 1. Rubus armeniacus 75 2. Crataegus monogyna 10 3. 4. 5. 50% = 42.5. 20% = 17 85 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius 1. Phalaris arundinacea 5 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 50% = 2_5, 20% = 1 5 Woody Vine Stratum _(Plot size: 1o' rad us1 1. - 2. 50% = 20% _ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 95 [leaf fall) Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator present = Total Cover = Total Cover ves = Total Cover = Total Cover Status V FAC Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species 66.7 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A) (B) (A/B) FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by. OBL species x1 = FACW species x2 = FAC species x3 = FACU species x4 = UPL species x5 = FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery J ran Samollna Point: 20 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Locz Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 513 90 silt loam 10YR 3/3 10 'Type C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matnx Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: No hydric soil indicator present. uvnon� nn_v 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 (69) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ 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 (133) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (135) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (66) ❑ Stunted or Stresses 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 ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: - Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicator present. iUS Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane emeterery City/County: Federal Wavli(inq Sampling Date: 11/5/15 Applicant/Owner: Archdiocese of Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 21 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: S32S32. T21 N. R4ER4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): roadside ditch Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 3=5 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: - Long: _ Datum: _ Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam. 2;8% slopes NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ®, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ❑ No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area with! n a Wet? arrd? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Data point located in a wetland; all three wetland indicators present Data point located at flag B5. Roadside ditch mowed regularly. vtUt i A I iuN — use scientlnc names Ot pianis Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3V radius Absolute Dominant % Cover S cies? 1. - 2. 3. 4. 50% = 20% _ SaalinolShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' dius 1. - 2. 3. 4. 5. 50% = 20% _ Hera, Stratum (Plot size: 5 radiusl 1. Phalaris arundinacea 45 2. Ranunculus reaens 25 3. LOIIUm oerenne 15 4. AaruaUs capillaris 10 5. 6. 7. 6. 9. 10. 11. 50% = 47.5, 20% = 19 95 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' r diu 1. - 2. 50% = 20% _ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 water Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator present = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover Status V Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species 2 (A) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC' Total Number of Dominant 2 A Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species 100 (A/B) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x1 = FACW species x2 = FAC species x3 = FACU species x4 = UPL species x5 = FAC W Column Totals: (A) (B) FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: FAC ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting ❑ _ data In Remarks or on a separate street) ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery, cnrr SamDlinu Point: 21 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=8 10YR 2/1 100 loam hardpan at 9"; satgrated to surface '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 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 (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, O Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problemalic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: hardpan Depth (inches): 8" Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Hydric soil determined to be present due to saturation in entire soil profile, and presence of hydrophytic vegetationand wetland hydrology. uvnenr nnv 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) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ® High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (610) ❑ 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 (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 Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 8 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: - Remarks: Primary wetland hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetereu City/County: Federal WayrKino Sampling Date: 11/5/15 Applicant/Owner: Archdiocese of Seattle State: WA Sampling Point: 22 Investigator(s): Jeff Gray and Kevin O'Brien Section, Township, Range: 532, T21 N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope along roadside ditch Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 25 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: - Long: _ Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsap sill loam, 2-8'I slopes NWI classification: _ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ®, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ❑ No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ED Remarks: Data point located in upland; all three wetland indicators not present Data point located 10' east of flag B5. Area mowed regularly. vClot 1 A 1 luN —use scienTITIC names oT pla ntS Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3V radius Absolute Dominant Indical % Cover Species? Status 1. - 2. 3. 4. 50% _ , 20% = Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' radius] 1. - 2. 3. 4. 5. 50% = 20% _ Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' adi s 1. LolAum oerenne 35 2. Fesi'uca sp.. 15 3. Plantago lanceolate 5 4. Poa oratensis 25 5. Daucus carota 10 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. i 11. 50% = 45, 20% = 18 90 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' radius; 1. - 2. 50% _ , 20% _ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation indicator present = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species 2 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: — Total Number of Dominant 2 Species Across All Strata: — Percent of Dominant Species 100 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Mulliply by. OBL species x1 = _ FACW species x2 = FAC species x3 = _ FACU species x4 = UP species x5 = _ FAC Column Totals: (A) Prevalence Index = B/A = FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: FAC ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation FACU ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 4 - Morphological Adaplations' (Provide supporting El _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (A) (B) (A/B) (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Gethsemane Cemetery I enu Samnlina Point 22 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 0-7 10YR 3/3 100 loam 7-18 10YR 3/3 60 loam 2.5Y 4/3 40 '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 (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) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: No hydric soil indicator present. n!1TiSTr7STIFSTOMA 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) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ 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 (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: - Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicator present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Appendix D Ecology Wetland Rating Forms Gethsemane Cemetery December 23, 2016 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan 9 0 G aIL X ;n — 6 = s = o n � ; d A I -m , A a G y •a lac 3 'c! ='tea; �g�£ a0. xqla b c a iEt u 1° w R� n a � v _ A N N W W S N N IA:I+ N Ata S Y , m 2 N u x `+ N tu wr n m' C4 x Ix x 3 3 �"� x I x x �� 3 3�'• r r q b _ 4' r r r3•'�� 0 !+ m s d z w � r rt r Z N � N co c ¢ Z v Ouro G 0 o �j 3 cr 09 o a0 O d n n Lr Ialls O 0 Q E a W p O O T N N p C ° ti /D 11 II II N Z F+ m v z lD N VA00. O W m nCD tq 1CQ O � pOu N T�'F O aID vY b 0 O m a R 0 OW W A N n O1 m J V cow a�pff.M70 it n• r33x3xxxsx ��3�333�xx °�am0.AM@ � m c OF LZ `I W N m m a o •� C C � � Y �� g ei � 413. o qS o Sl��ealg��°10 2 £ w C. o a g ir D a 2 n Z n c 2 m m ;o X 2 m 4f N A A W III N N N 1M N a '� • S N F N N I III tz e 3 0 w. o O b R. a P" V R. j�j G w MIN c e c Sri » 08 c 3 w a as W w a o as 3 � V° a tll7 x00 O tl 0.R ilt N N N N LI IJ A F+ 1+ AI F+ 1�• 1+ S N 2 � -1 4Y Ll V � Vt ? W N F+ --._ � m G I C I ry 0. y Z y O Z Z. IH I l z0j: C �-L 9 p b S S IC Y O H H 10 m T S S I v7 w S = I y O` t 4 C S pIp S m >= `tOf �+ jo O w C m C O m i a O N O d ao o 0. m, c -+ S cn !� w m •• :. o 8 p oao m w o w o S w ff n ra m C• Cy7 c� ti y�'.J .4.�. •.v.:.*.v 2g y m 3u Q m a. m R im w e o '+o Y a .r '`� m w 'i_.c•: :'�-i, 0 y a a a n 7y d m X� , a m 7 p p a m» n p �1 n_ d Q [g- N 3 r2 OqCD O G ?np y O C C A C �� 7. rr ' d N O. y°� '3 �-�• ^J ° =• i' ° �' T S•.'A.1 `^ ? r^, '" Q p, � d m � •--, � y .< f m Za, m y � oo � G -�->� ... :0.� N c C •■ mA S a m o.m ,om � m9Wm O � mom°... 7. m n�..�'.: aQ .o. 7 T � LrJ' C m 0. O- `^ �p y � 0o ^' ji*i y •S1 � � ,5�,. O F i.. C o N p � N •O f o O CD 9, ..� d O R a7 m e S mo 'd as 060 C 'r a o 7 0. •" S � ?;op a ia'ii � o� O a v C a� IV er O 00 ^n O 7 A .9 7 m R" '0 d cc}I G" O C° a m H 7 w 0O tC� N S u m C r R-..2 p'.� A m �^. �. N '�- n d 7 ``� a. N TO•n n T N a O A 7 M R 'n O a iD 3 6 W F w O S O F �i =S ^J R. rL C. �• �. J CCDIL V tt m �p _ Cam* .So d XSR� d 3 b 1 m �ny 6 ro O Fi' m r-* m a. 3 y o VOL k .. tr '< w in' a a f o a o _ rt a c d 3� m gr 2 y cp a o �i y 5 o v m �a p "' w}'+ oaa w m •ie a Q.�- W O lu 7 W . "mn 7 R R o 9 n 6 a'a h� 3 A n .7 °+ E o N u cr m m^ c 0 c No 3 o a R o 0. n f H O v .J rdr � I ^ a a � ai C $ N B Z ; 'gyp C N n .< z o g = N z O a y is �o g 8 n w m 1 I m o a 1 pi W Ns�0—�r ab _xs�s y Z' (3 oa �` .V �p1 n y d y S N m m O a R. O d ?. ia' T'1 7 8 W m Q p'Hm O V n iar Q ° N m A g ^� ay Sxo92 ? � c o d m 44 s y.4mv ? G Gn' P a = pps� 1 O `7C.7 A C 5 m LNai �o C 0 fn o. C C ?. [O[^^ CD T •� m n 0 N O w n=%m 0. rpr O y O 7 GQ 'o. �^—� m obiv ct p�O CO N Smy y s a m� A �• �. N 'Y s V1 N F.w o ^i m A 7 '0 5'0 Mc a. 07. CD M� =1f�'jf�' I ° 7 � 0. m G. R1 O Q C 'a 0. O A �C _=r N w 7 �p .t° N N aC0 gn a d do xmzw_wo m o m o m '•°oi m0firma'a' a + F. m F W d O> d A !^ '0 a 0 x yy m a A p Yn N R e~o t� O N a— a' M< V, 0O00a ? o ff -�v m 0'O H 00.00. 'm0 w n 'cS S vqqi R N 'S7 7 c S! 0- N N N a Y' O Z7 .r�Z..oy C O qN 7 S G O l LLZ �� rmOr I'r•a;aaw x °.' :5. 00 a m m—N n Z O c cc m a.. y �� o O CytTi z,3- y d m m O , m to N a7 N n O' 1 7x 3 n y �1 h CD Q. CO) cn 1 d to 7 (� O 7 a 0 o o o p. o tt >6 >n n > 7 s• ■ Ip i Y Y} yO11�. .Aai a £ .W iD O O p G m M N �. F O• N Y r gjg9 a '1' 3a s N. A n v 2 _ M F'' �' Ana na rrrr'r e 3 W C ; . 2 R i y. V C = A V wa a'a .a .a W ilfi .� Ol O o s i'n A w ¢ IC 'Y.XXaa elw alY al el e'pa � 4 r'n M 'o�� aai� N ^ a_ n a n �1y^w� 6 a c 'liyy�i s i S. . � � W a mo 0 o NA a £ n 3 .YR. ; o £ R � .�. � � Y p � n c11 O V ■ ia; n A O Y A 0 n _ 1+ R w r c S m i k s S ".l.�i�f .r Y� a z � cr .x � a � � � a� � ■ q A W N N N u a^ a 4 K ?aa 0GG GGG>^— u GGGre�G;; ;- .� � a a n n O n O OI OI a �' N n S£� T•• R N �] � a � y-• 3 oai :: Y ai . 8 � r� f� G• � � � � O x�£ zw u i is o e a N Ra° w p: n � K pA Y N 3- o " a o 3 A O per, O O H N p e a O a a i 4 A 1Y A N A 1+ A p 0 -1-4 e w e w 0 i lc A Y e 7. y .G Y E rai ii in . Y Y �Y P. qi 0 r Da » u I'i air" o � •i .Y. le's�3e � w sin o� x� ga a m V 3 A Y a 1' y_E-•a o. R A N N x `•t n� 3 c w n a c � o iE c o c a 3 R c no 1 iL ct ti b S R Q Gi 3 rS No k $ aa'aa ac�'au�rna II II II 11 F 11 11 11 11 II II ^ aa�ir 3° c A N O W W O Y W W UI V � _ 11 11 � II N . n•�Y�" a d a W 0 C tr a V Go W W vj a» w _ n p Y O e w w YQ w Y n � F n FT p M ^ N n O q j .yy � 3 Q W V ■ � 3 � � z g s n p Q ^ IC o w n a � n �S � 'n II II 11 f �D O p II =— D Y ,� 11 w 11 3 i A A .1i g�oo-gR " 10 �a »no a S b �, qI 9 � u n � C Qpn a v w M s n 3 n c Y � Y a n O x 11 g g n o � s-- o NI NI i P A P A P jp N VI N 4 N W N N Y N A a v O N q w a ii a � j� = " w w F •�. c » pr w Y — a C Y o p g 7 y o g � uw' @0 Fl o S — � 3 s n ,2 . � •. q � a r D » � n r ILI m n n 1+ P N A 1+ Y N M N o C w 2 ° 11 o o 11 0 2 O 11 0 2 O 11 0 2 O 11 0 N S, �� a n�~ N o s w s D�• Pa aag a .� oo�nx Mn a s N Q v Tv T ? v Y R. Q v c W W g R v v a �. �•�.. w Ol Ol Y Y w� COC' x� k YZ p~1 O. O Y Y n� a a" y 0 ❑ LI Y T e a I+ — T- 3� .�- II O' � e a e z " e A a n c 1 9 m 0 q � O o a n a aaau isaa'a '•,,: O n II 11 II 11 11 II 11 II p •O W OI OI W G N A W � w o _ w g i�l.�-;.-•� a a a� Q a u e Ise � n s v 3 j ~� »� O� n 9 0 0°� o a� Y• os " � li" Epp oo•ca" 3 � n m 3 3 o c a• ^? n F W r' p G-r av S n T � D ° a n p y n d O `� o a w A"% �• C -76 < _ M N 0 — a S w n w :o st a s F " aair 'Lxa�a�a 11 11 11 � o a� II 11 II II II n .� ii O A V I+ N A OI b .? Y •� F s .o 9 0 9 r r EL 3i O Y F� O Y U g ; s M S» @ a a a E m ° ii n n x 5 _ • R c ,Gag.. �? e 3 Now pti °:n v veo.os 3 g� I� A S$ o,o,x R''1' Hg t u of q y V N G m W wpG A G i4 Y 8 s 'a � o n g 3 4 d F a ode; a gn M 5 n Z "s �o 6 y 8. R � E a c tl 9. ?GRGGa �A°n GCCR n n n 11 u u a O l- W W A OI O O Y W T n 0 n o r � 0 4 C n q n M a i a a x„ 6, m a CA q x£ n S o 11 b e= gr. 11 ° 3 S Ir M � a m s � c O 3 0 3 n o a = b 0 Y N O > 3 > g a a � g n m .Yi A r v T v v v v v n 2 o N ��xxxz p 2L 5°gwR9.�a n o o 2 z a 3£$ c c I"n n £ a r o o� A � 3 <' x x n q n n a 1Wu 'A 'A a s �• ag�xW��a a x$3 3 oae @- n q S s N n p a as e s n a c n a a 0•0888• � GGGGG as=, 3 n Al u n n - b O N A A m = a a n e G W W W 1W O c W O H n g s Q» w S h ti» o a n n a o- w � S S e c L ' •� as a 3 � o � 3 o 3 � � 3 � 3 c z � T o A w 0 11 M O 11 11 z� zn 0 1 n O Q n O A n dd N rd T m v O m O Z v,1 1 C W N Y+ ~ Fr -s v v tip.• Y lea ue n� o o y, ;R° � o, .'�`✓. h xMr ov .zY vv c X x pm g o V X a a 2 m. O s a�Ftz.. z a c 4 a a - o o 4� n g s c p R ^ o 0 0 0 0 M K M 3 w o 8 ' o ca as =t oo o a'aitG O it N N VI . . YI P;. G w » o p�v n e j S A N fi O IIp��°+n g u �3a43 r �: o 3 ?L ~ 0 G. » Ns A o a a v az o v e a a� g o n 3 a a» 9 a � 0 - a R 3 e n g o II OO C 0 C 1� 0 o II Y O � R Q G o 11 II II .D F+ N c X t o p o p w a aaWs ° o : 5F I• S n _ 3 3 ° w r� w s o 3 no $ v n e�ec .� o 0 c n N: R n PI ti a '' 3: » s ° o o w s w ao R I I z » o a � a o 3 as q11 j 11 IY V r O e o $ 9 m 3 D x = Y S �•S: i _ Y N W Co it � M �. N � 'Z' � a v 10 ° >• 10 " � a � g � ' ° n v o, � ..ro: l ° .�,' 3 ¢ Yr y m $e m _ a 3 G - v A a s 8 n s � m f � n m � 3 � a� a .°. w Q � �� a• ten: s^N•» XnX�� 1� ° j p O » aSEa 'Ix saa s - 10 o ^•`R •! �{ o e QQ a F m. p.Y m O t � `� O �. i h 6 N� 3 N W •. �� yg s Q _ s x y y 8 O O n aaa »»» v v 9 O 0 N N O O a oa 'aaaa a y n A � O H O j• n� o r.i�• '{': ';` <�•' > > II II 11 11 II II 11 p O h: C O II It 11 O O Y N A R R O Y N W O Y N A W r r=7 g gy� N iv q W i N V? C C C C 51 C •� A Y N V O n N iC M a 6 r�i C C C° L p XR W w Q w if if if U a - � S a n a° aa'aa a'aaa O 11 it .0 It N W O II N W a'• 'qu I.] M x O L l0 $ C °^ 'K d 0 2 E m ? r,' •tea^ to n•ye A ��� 3o m^S �nm ^� nn QaPa a Q`� •�"• .'�� i= a a as gga m a 3 ti h o- '•' g -• °� R. ar U R n° G o ' r^> ; a �� �o � w �� y w R H x� �c v ¢ o c�"p• $� �'•"- N �.2 0 e w A ��� � io !� •� nr $wF n9R� c r� � � h ^ >•`��' � £i a o- '" o'a5 � 8 � 3 a g �Sr r o vA� •e�� a �� ti,n a� �� $ �� �a�� s � m 63 Aso n � � � 0 p � v a � � a 9• � � � a N � °+ o °� A � � � wo gc y' R a m o o °d G v 0 N ii ii ii � fj � n f1 ii i 1 ii ii r7 'lt b LV N� b W jr Q a n gz g gg o g w v m n N r iv ja QI1 l 8 e d rLY 3R at E oSQ�d „w ° Mr ° qa' z1R�p n? r �iL R 7Ac fa � � � 2 � V � � � O � _ �r N � Y O Z Y 6 •� -,y'is nA ogre �� a� a �v i zq a rJ F v n y !S! Yg y S> > IT aN yppe$ a �8 odd a e"Sw qv °e z a�� va n.w.S og'r A� C OR 'ow oo c s c K�K� CC n y_y Y NW 4t 3° � •mil N A n r � � p. �°a � iil � n W � � II A r ,� � N w• i w a O � � p n M 02 Y: r 0 „ y V O O O O N n O n N , � ' C O w o K p r� gNN � v_ 1O/� " n d R Y g M v -°w w W Y R S `{ i� = S S O 6 is �l O ire^ O� O W N D 'yp�� �� R •F = • yo » v n �f�uul ? � NnN C F n 4 2 ii F V N m Y p :e ^ ^ S y w�� � 7 a cYi .i N� E a N e Y N• � 1� A �aR'aY^nd�T�Y� a 6 T a Q O 3 Y R p^ q n � o n ±Y >• � 7 � a cY 5�+� -Y �'-r{' n . N .�'!Sj'.. Wpo p O� ogy �' �yW Y Y 9R Y IV W jADAA iY W O ryEry ���wp N. p N. � Yn�a� 9 ° o b ^ T'. O I u O 6 00900 YC a V w ° 3 y 1. s'- 1 7. T I e y% Y 9. 6 S 7 .* w Y N SGS A N 6GIY a S.O A y O ° aN N^° 3 a 3 w 4 R Y A M G s N Y S Y^p d a .Yi W P Y °° C• �PwoAw ?o s Y g o n s �� z z z r+ V �' S o = z c G IY N 3 Gi a m 1 G l Wetland 1 - Unit 1: -Depressional -PFO, PSS, PEM -Saturated «rrw Wetland 1- Unit 2: -Slope -PEM (dense, uncut) -Saturated Wetland 1 - Unit 3 continues offsite}_: -Depressional - _ -Abuts West Fork Hylebos Creek -Saturated and occasionally inundated ->1/4 acre of PFO, PSS, and PEM n'ft•• . m _ -Basemap provided by ArcGI$ Online. ] _ -Municipal and wetland data is from City of Federal Way. fi{ -All project specific data was made by ! Otak, Inc. ` Figure 1 Legend Wetland 1 Map . . . Estimated Wetland Gethsemane Ordinary High Boundary Cemetary Water Delineated Wetland Culvert (approx. 4� Boundary location) 1 inch = 100 feet Wetland Delineation on Gethsemane Wetland Area x Data Point Feet Cemetary, Federal Way, WA i'��1 ❑ 100 It.lptojecil326001326551CADD1GISIMXDs%Figp7A_Wetlandl.mxd Data: 2 P"15 'r .1 �I k j k f t I r I 1 p 33rd AY4 E eIlryn 9 4,p 630d AV* 6E 65thAvrlt 3 rn F; i:o* AV* cl F. -59111A C'111. 434 I LP AV. �! 62Gd AVG NE- 661 Met 1w U NAVO padill 'I L 3.11N Aveg 42nd Ave S q. 43,d Ave 1 43.AJ. 3 491h Ave 11 2F1dA:1vOS L �II (D L-1 I j F � �pp Q R I� P � q -fl �� �YfY�, �• io s a�A r�� IL �o as Ig sn� r r o d 7 n va 7 C n d o e Z 9L r n n e n s C U D 4 x• - 3+ E� as g C n � D b D Y v 2 b $ S Y a 2 D 3 n13 n a n n 3 u 3 Q 0 1• o n o o. q W N a T 0 fy� gQ Z a E Is 0 E y3 d 1• n3A• e. e 6i 0 N o• a�a c b 3 o q F q 3 aka v v E �7 m i 8n b_ 2 it t ° A 0 io Yr a 3 eQ T yZ O m r o 3 W 3 IF I n a�S,'D b D Y�Y 4 M 7S m -�i• a S v g o S 9 vlF w'c C oS. f v w C � 4 ] 3 � 5 A d� W W N N A 1-• W xN x x IY G a: N N m a 0 y m ra- m m O N 01 06 0 01 n d ;2 a + r tr d '.g •, x x W A N K 0 M V V N b .]^ 0 �. 7 0 �33x3xxxxx , �°.ems='dA a do d e n= N W C O mr T z w s � am f Z a O Q C) sm�� dg c, m d3E C I 3 �• n S m Q a A a � 1dQp T p ry fl a x Ip L^m1 Z3 n Q N m L z w 0 3 CD 93 o' C N 01 7 gayy W n = C H � � C a N ID A C y O co 0 O CD 0 I J N W D I I I ? xO N 0 N 3 ?, 'O '� :' o WO fCDDCL -Oi O •r N �+ O �. 7 C p 41 o Df y p s O N O LY '9��T^,rT� 11''• "F'1 W I m 7 0 �D 3 o re G' N d ~ O fD C N• °' 0 'd A °' A O papy� QO 4m9 qg m A CL a d^r5 �D O 6 D' 'AtiT Q' � 0- A c o iD d R q 4 O. tn 7 q �• G 1 ry r Or C C ry O q yyyy ry crop R q 'A N N A Jf' R S "' 'iS 'O '9 -$' fD •O--• N N v �, j N 7 R t°nD N I N c N m O �• j "i 0— n [1'. m n a 7. an d n O a- 7. N H u0, f, . N d 7. m] '°• 3 E o C p• C N a A �• 9' r�f�j CL 'J-p 'J 1 y h 1 N p� m 0 m -c s7 '* c .� fn01 _i •O 0 C d D fD m o d c 0 aM F* om5� ° 00 y�-1N A v h u* CI A O N O C •* p N y 3 d a s v Ln N x 'N G1 �• 0 }n m z rD = -o'In�^ , O y tp N �. S 3 c+ p .0 m m m o 7 m + d N + + 7 i R A M d N 7 to ID , 7 O � to m y — N tt t- r o 3 W a 'D 3 7 x OO O O CDcl a _ C m z N ID 7 3 N 3 a m m m m w = 3 I 11 a N N p .1'n y y fill -f Ell 10= N 1 O 'D _d A n O 21, I G Dig N N T Dai m !ST N 0. A C D�i'ZO j�`•r O 5 N7 O m J¢ O -4 , O m oS> tn' Q=m2o'x ° mt°n1Cmmm� � 1e m i mac;; SL E me T W Li n'7 N 'D ID A N° y O'O Ip ry n C 7c1 �D Q' 0. ° C O C C 0—'-' ;; W 3 0 1� T C y O C �• :r N �. ^I m J N O o O 7 OV lyy m �r S� C1 �' n N A W G Ored ignn Ys. m n_ m e R1 m a 0. 0. r C o,e oax3dG'c y S,°' wag° 3�0 ID n S N m y S m K Pr qc, m onn m 7 CD A N O O 12 N Dt W N• ID 7 Dy7 R S �p -0zi y ti N ry 'a `c• m 3 O -e m 0, m v 3 0S r�r�J Oy0 FLT C `< in. C N 7 rA 0 O TTd o m rDAa� o y a d W. `3 ° � C y 0' �m S �D °' p 3do m ID°:maam L d P o Pr y O n 0 r m O O to n R •°+�A do .d m 7 ^' n m V =• y rail DyIy y 'gyprL (/d� H '0 r°� o qqN ad�y m b7t�0- a OR > 7rc.1 O S to °' io w qq 0 min o ono c n�►+�0tri 0ircm0 a m o 0.3 -aPVg° ' N0 N 7 � � � ,• T �l 8 a o v a q .. Cj m N ph" o : � n o o•• a n � G _Y c ee x P M a a O sg$ `a�8e IT it nL Y O 3 3 e a a F Ir• O 3o �, ? cP _. a¢ xl ggQ a o c n 6 n C A " $ a o ° W.• <g ="o a a r o $ _ ^ Z;L c m o a a 'm a_ Boa zKo a a - o° s G G^ G G II $ O II II S II It II O O Y 1+ e- a o a o 7 Y A W IJ w i' a as �9ur � n A n n e Y� n n m s i A 6 6 a s ii O a a a n =. S S: s c O >>> O n M N N N D Y n Gana u n�n�n n n so N � n M or j Y C C cAVVQW N x X zitp O a a a a 6 = IG Y ir S d r n, �• _. la a air_ Z I WQQ pf M M a N A V G GFu A aaaN3... b b "t 2 a KI "r a $ a• +�' 2 o r a n n v v ir 0 0 £ A a G C na 0 < O n O � f W O ? W F � 088 8888aA•888°8 S S IR GG GGGG= z GGG»G A !D N A O II W U iF+ INN W a 0 0 n Y G a � a 2 o Y 9. d ct a Ni N n O y R c e£i O i R I � o v a Cti - c^" • A A •`A+ A I c}4 �� d^ T o 6 n a a M M M y°w 2 ,YS N S N 0 H _ . S E:u N•R tl�OPu�c vn a °� �y•�.. �oa£0�� w o3 a aN ^S6 wn ^on zOR P. 0� �$0 " 0 gg O O I& W' p A" Y c c Bo a o:33 D �,^.�m rc v " p o a — w F C S ' P 9 'o R °x $888 888888 „ T " CGGG � GGGaaa f 3gi$. Y II II 11 11 U O II II II II II II G G �. G � It II Q II O I+ II A •V. J o a S A 7c Q W IY W N W Y W. p alRw g� 10 Y 0 Y o A m Y Y M of o o� s a O O S A Y O � a O rQ. 3. 3 x 1C 0 9 R d O s 3 ^ a Q n U w o 0 11 y 0 II n 11 £_ g `s 0 11 o 0 11 o 0 1+ n 3 o — ^ A a A Fn A OI a A x H + z W n o O 3 n O� Y Ij 6 w O S o S w w o n L2Taa: a d x v ^ $ s n o s AS r � 6 n w C — � n c s o d 3 n gz aaaa n ? O n n n O Y N YN N N N N SJ a V x p d .y. i• •Vri `+ c g � £ a .� w' Y p IM1• o d L• L z �' m A a D m � d p py� w ^ r w d b O C y d L F li � �r �' Inn uri Inn YV O Az 0 O O 11 0 11 0 11 '� 0 Y 0 11 0 W O M O v o g � e o q n £ W O r w - 11 7. S r C r �• D 6 d ' N s s 11 p 7 6 11 � a a � d o $ G a- � a — � n 3 n w w M � 11 11 11 3 z z z S c o 0 0 O O O Y a a n a t n n o S R S g� a 9s a j OI A aY a S C Y YW ri rS W '�'• :��ToE gaa� p m: « = s n d Y..r—r—. n r � p d d e � d o i [ C n � � :N•1. M a a A �i �:T Y {n 8 0 u n n n n u u n n O W OI OI 00 O N A OI '^Sj :�• T+a !ti u a A a A W A p a agar 'se Su3��S o - 6 O p ^ Q Q C n ii wr A i n c A n YW 3 O In n 3 1 p + » o n Y VY n U \ o W� 0 y 0 'gyp a 0 Cr a ! v M r� EL qF g n F i n n - 8 gaga�aaaaa , a" m 11 11 11 O O A V 1 11 11 11 II Y A Y N A OI V• G ,o O G T A C 0 Y N 1+ - p a Ia saaa g ryy C m a% 'ae 'F 8 o N N 1 Y F w �'• � .� C a�� T• n o° s E 3 3 o is It a Y �1�• �� •• Y N M �: a Er �'• � ?+ 'e Y M A 0—a � w 3° R F a e n 5 � � a• ii c Da Tex, e o M a- s n u °a Qo�oo� �s�ooa2 o gaaaa'Ga a",ir'aira _ 11 ,q cc II 11 11 11 11 II �» 11 II 11 II O ° a 0 1+ W W A OI O A O Y W OI n a - 0 0 n , 0 Ir I a D o, aaaa'a n n n n n O N A A OI ••••• G Y C Q W A � � 1 o c m mW — � < a 0 c a I o. d N N W N Ti W N YN+ w O' g n . c o- n a mo' �s a q. � R 5 3 j a g 4: 3 Y n � 6 3 2 S ° n Y m a S Q Y A Y z z z » Ho-_ — � Y IY N N a o o oQ N. a4-1 Y. " z S ?F 3 � a C Q C w 9 2 a ao A g o E S a a n A Q R a 0 S S S 0 o C Y Q G q II 11 11 11 II O w N W N l n O O N W n a o° n � � N m N $ aW K L7 73 g o 3 a s A N � £ O 8 o m a A n e} " a g _ a O S Y W o — O G 3 o � e 1 g a o S c a --; v e o a n„ cr G Q o n u n Q a 7 m 3 ^❑1 e Q, 9 = IFG� A. n e° ° bN R Sg ° n I Ir X c �q- n � £ a8 33 ] q e m� i II� i n r �• a n n W: li � G a o a c` � 6 8`aggp s �u ca as aG�i�Y 30^^7 aW eos A. o41 ; as»_ an q� o Sqn Q � A sn 3 a$ -3-r'd+o B co 3° xO Soo S - "a u F° TOg� v v v v a� a 1.Nwaa C x� ° 2 2 Q v: m 2 3 Q S88 ^ o o n n n3m e Y NN 88,8 0, 888 �� - �' aaa � II 11 11 °° aaaa l a II 11 11 11 U O p Y N O a s O ... N W O .• N A R° p 1+`4N� c� cc Sic n 44v can n � � O •+ 1+ j}�} 3 v o ��C R a R ■r P P Q P o v 2- s w S". ' '.a o 3 c 1�1 1: 2v ssa m aoy.1 S. C j r O I R � (r QT N N z1 r i tol 11 II 8 F 8 o vo_ ❑ o vo_ $ P a u a a a l a a a a n n u n it n u n Y 4 Y n •]—e n V r� �� M n T w Q 3 �,'w° a �k-alr3 N ..3Ri a Ir n N eppni a r 'F_I O In 2 �' 1 .� '�• S A �z' » O Pl F S I� 0 4 4 wA] °Sf•x m 3 ° °£ yr A 6 o E w eai n -` a j q < vP n� to 2� •2•`" °° A 3 Et ° zi W. a o as b ° ° 3 3 n ° °o n G �� �?•�� � s%3 `oa.� =R � 3r1 ne �� �� �� z� n •°,� Son Q� n� � �£ � 7 •g �',A� no g> j0u �� �S a. ��O ax�{°.y na$ � '� � mg 0.7 a�� vim-• Vim' R � -gn m N S nC °-ice �13 °a £c' � q� •�"• •° •°+ a� � � F �E c a R s �S u •rB. 70' v,I a S p YI � $ a e �° °=o C �b a � y Y C y O N -� L N ul Y A C O Y N �! �yf S R y P Y � Y N p O O 0 0 d •� ° � S •°i b. O O Q � to � �R n' n a, mw �oN n �R �,. �+ _d �R � � � N � � w �� •'� any saw de'� N_2 tin. =C,No Ec •3� oQw w'•�• o E� °8 C 41 m _ ms � o off" a.0 Nw a5 7 o¢ e-°i �� G � .01.E ^1p'f �ir o=nF m m .4 n£ a,a C •2 n a o� �o a B mrs i.lq g' 4R s a O gZ. n a�3 at -' gn Ef £E &c T- x'« Y �o 0o B wl T w0 'ua �'^ n¢ N F w $ 3 x o p1 a a V !Y 0 P q o le .4~. „ Y A 7 5 �y 7 ° . qW m Q S rt pFur a O C r+ a ^ BI a e ? a a's m ao a d �t-C u W n n n ty'i n n n n n n W W Y W a S u a 3 z n o o° 0 N N Y N r IN.Ilii o w« '" A O 3 - -jE 83T�st�Y $aQ Q8 ^y 6 9 £ � Fp b � V ? N9 O 3 6 W N a dw S «� N x� tl� R N O Oe 1 S 6� oo •� a O a E M OIF N a s Fe' ^ m o m m^� C yy� F � S n �� a «, s o `C p• = -{`• o c Y YI FL va d a ^ m$ s 3-pF= $m o£ its a a Y'ax X'_s s 0 3 S � n 3 o r u h o K v N 0 N Q NO K T J Y N 0 O A O Y E� O a K A n % _. •. S0 3 3Sr'. a a >: 3 a AR° >• �'ir Qz fj I W g $ = Q •°o � 1tl $ � w ZS 2rN.l $ w !°„ a Q o Z.z z� 3 s o o r o 0 0 zo a F° Z{rz ° 2 tl m m a s b o e a n II n - O ^ O 6 0 8 '6 �y 6 V m n O D n f b1 Y R u O1y r Orf� tl ° MG D3. .{1�y11 Y m •� O - N W Y y O M i b 1 W W Y b a A O~i o C o yNEr V W O p Q N O W N Y O< � N O a jy O (_� G O C 2 W N y a S s Q n n n A CI n n n n { j10 ;. m Y a 6 d 2 S Lt as F ��a A N m saC ,4d n� „ n• Y� i° O F R• Z' N e3 A b] g0Fa��� v • n n m ° s v q a r{ m � �. a= Q a R • a a �1 � �-� Y b a -• a n � quo r c G 8'Ytaasg«301 r f E $ o s a �� d n °emu « « p a N ET F °+ g • p r y ^l� a« rum o C •G - S v. M: M n q a o G' ` M a a• R r •' �' O n °n � 3' `�'S2" sVM ov w� � a u: � in N s a E a ^ 'n n o o �_ °� ° n in r� V e• N $ oY E �° S n z CL a C v 2 0, oa=�� a^ n a c 2 z3„ r A ° 3< op Ir bi ip � aR ° a g ' z"z z ° a z° son a V < Y I I O O x uoI d m NY.re Trcr rrG •' ° Z N3 g o OT �G 3 0 g c . $ a a - $���. o a J Wetland 1- Unit 2: -Slope -PEM (dense, uncut) r r Wetland 1 - Unit 1: _Saturated -Depressional _ -PFO, PSS, PEM r -Saturated Wetland 1 s 1 y J f Wetland 1 - Unit 3 (continues offsite): -Depressional -Abuts West Fork Hylebos. Creek -Saturated and occasionally inundated ->1/4 acre of PFO, PSS, and PEM Note: -Basemap provided by ArcGIS Online. -Municipal and wetland data is from City Federal Way. Al project ject specific data was made by Otak, Inc. Figure 1 Legend Wetland 1 Map Estimated Wetland Gethsemane Ordinary High J Boundary Cemetary Water Delineated Wetland Culvert (approx. 1 inch = 100 feet �■ Wetland Delineation on Gethsemane Boundary location) Feet Cemetary, Federal Way, WA 07' 7*�i Wetland Area x Data Point 0 100 X.Vprojoct1326001326551CADDlGiSIM%Ds%FIU07A_We iandl.mxd Date! 2/1/2016 _ A _ ,�i 7 � � 1p :i:::- 3..r.,l�1 l�11 � ���-� � ��►�� /may J a Nti �t7YfA AYvE r qA T o o i�l '�' •j I f _ N ' `I y 2 e 'Y4z . ° 63th Aw NE 65 ui Ave Nn A m f y —5elh Ave NE - I I S91h Ave Cl E 'I Sri �1• 62nu A4e! G2110 AV. _I f / { F - 62nd'Ave NE G6th Ave E i II 68U, Ave E ].ai Ave SIV J r'd C4PC lIwy,� —� c sl. a' Q " x- i7yyLR�1 ♦ 11 02 Fe v i •, 2r c N I O d 3 � n I _ 171H qse q. - � .r I o ti w 261h Aves �y5 a O I7 I C C w 1 I 32nd Aves I. :E I 8 I� c a Q, C - Z a wry l I m --u _ 3eeV Nlhll - i1 e III m � m ¢Fi; rely 1�6i4AvcE ! 34th AVa 7 I 36U7 AVe9`1'YA, �^ 42nd AveS gird AvesIr --45Ut 663 N � 491h Aves II �2nd AVeS 55Us Ave s it i 6 � � � CD ■m v■m § E _ �!{ � �j .. 33,._ |;46- Er }� } - k• _ _ , : A � , ` - 7 Er ' } = k| 0� / < B "f o Q EC? � | E) � $ 2k ] §a �\ �!� | £°■k�» Gr� § ! J } a & •�� §!0 2 § \ ■fZ § a m ;E 2 !$! t■� F q & ■ n o e3 • s g 0 ' Q m d N H�g3��8�s crt ` & 9.EL o R Dloana i g °, r a.— i 3ov,Ogs� :E o F 6 c 3 5YG�3�g iR N � A � S a n g ��sp n C ? �s 3cvc r^e n o m ^ � Q Q #'.'•' � �n x �+ + •� :x x . W FF • IM. C ^ 3 r r r n aQQQ- S x b : 3 3 3 4 3 r r r . r W If H N N N DI V V W W 3 ��0 ?? C r33x3xxxxx ^P4, nx �p N I+ �n- I� �D r3ay c��'aE c F 3 a te^ p a a � n 1p e1 c a 3 .a Y c ^ a � 3 g 0LT n n C m r X F p � 'n - W W N I+ N j+ N P N 1+ N b IN IJ • A W Lu 2 N A W A A S Y x N A N �y N 0 m 3 CL m c m 5 cr /Z m m d93 C O 00 A �1 01 C77 —lj 9 c w J� � C d P' Q ,< A a c n7 C m 0 I3' d c a m / p f1 d < � N ` I IIII�77 Ip Z I s x d o s .� �s ��q3o=tea': �; agYDBa�"M r d d m K 7 c Q 1 9 O ° � 7 Z ro~yQy Z p tr I I I g Z p I I O ti, Z d •� 1+ Z m N 'J ° t'!} I m m m c f° N. 0 I Voi A F o a O I rt < O m - O ro S 0 = C Al ro V! 00 O N mO P. s n :3 Q 7 ^ z y GC o75. -1n a° m � N ` O G ry O t y d N N O N D^ N rt 7 ii G ro W W 7 O• L1 C 4 p y , �1 S o a ° a sr'Haw� o H .� v N G@ '1 ' A 23 0 01aa`3 a m M, S O G. D C m Rw� 7' r-' N N V, p N fl. d T p Vf 1 N a p N 'O O 00 _^ S. 0 s r• y C K ro n a d, C K �� q C e'a m S. Q. 4 S' cA j �. o. cs A m � m : � " w c N •�•' p 3S y 9 00 4 p: } si O' �' '�T O 4 iD' 'A A _ = r N A a b d w .S. w �^ m a Q. 0 m . m mm o pc= O. —^ n" ar ip F h O• �rT�J LO, S. N y •J Q. _ N fA gr ti 's7 W 0. c 1 n c� ei SRI 1 'c w0 i uai''w A 7 a a p 0 a O < y d 7 y n Q' o O. 0. n ro 7 0. w o d _ •� vi o o 'o •C.." ggT d , H m m R a 0. O n O = �' W CS^^ H a ro tr o O N d N S O F p N O N W A.a Q. v w 1^0 C ^ y Q � Ap� N H /D�o Ln �w o0 o D"�tr� • y 7 + Si w w - `ti g m + A a 13 A + CL x B ID ro d f O O� m d 7 0 0 IP n q 1D p M m: a � ro a c N d 3 (D fD m N x0 m ID d d d04 O N rJ O O d y n KC m•p 2 m Z O 0 3 ^.•Of y ZO �+o rn N n �-I �'• w� I CN.0 ro 7 0. S I S d S OUJ ry A ro d rr. O a O ro rL p n R. 00 c v`i cr—caT� x ra d an d wno, m S F m ro CD 040 F O N ICJ N O = frail F xoab n.R m� �' � d n � °i+ m m •o � 00 w 4:; ^roi c n n I c. I W A b ~ g• _2 3 m n = C= O N n y s aN m Faro vi a m^3'< �g PI P N Eo 10 -1 B � F C o Ory d `� 0. 0 w. y Yn an `° Lf' d F q C rr �• O= n Ta ro crD,.cy a v s ro a o CD = E t ro A N Oq rs ram iL =' ' O0CC' 1 ^$ gr n ro V c ro m ro < o �N o m H i m cr y mNz S• o io G G Ci m Z .79� c C� 0. 0 g a o M. OL o u s ng Q e w E g N a Iv+ , »m i'o a � 3Er x �. d e d3 „r ry 9i S :.E o f o� Y I n a n g rx w ePi n j1 r f O 1 a y n o n w �V qx 0 o o Z 8 8 s 8.8• 8• g;� 0. � g e �I Y -; 11 N 11 •. a 'aa�aaa A3a 11 11 11 n O w Y "a o� II s o 11 0 II O O lit N O O O O 1'� • S ti q " r O a i A 0 n C O O O r 4 aaa > f e 9 f f £ f g a N"Er- u y 6 6 0 14 6 d 6$ j• '"�I O" 6 n N A �18 $e o r�rT� 1�i .a� 3 S �•. "^�. A v v a A A A S i O �• xx.1xn a a a a A A 0 p6 »g N V?: L Y Y O rlr' SI Y M p T A wi = S a a'd� " Y G' o e d �" S L. y oai q - Y O , d 3 6 a � o R n o 8 O O O O O. O a "p a a a aaaaM ; aaaas ca II 11 II II It II II II IN 11 II ��• _ LA V o O IY O N O I+ aQ p w j _�• 1� s >> 'Y. e. u N n Ejj y s d oar n c C �0— •�, a 'w' Y M S. D� O R d� l'd+ n � �O n A s n e o, ".g�P3, �n d o n_.� nc Gryryia gs8� 0 g ^A uaZ'�3 8 �n.3WP�,d dp<� o 3a 3sY�— 0 Y 3 P P i O v» w M » a 0 S Y a 33 �" f To o as HY j" 5. en »SZo S �� s u� N Cg; ? an n R a •C N O _ FIF p 6 w y y y o O O O• O g p y 9 y .c. O. O. O O• � O � 'a''r -' a a ,4 aaaa It 11 It 11 aaa 11 11 It 11 II II o w O a o a N O W N O V W W N J C N y II 11 O a A f 9 I K A A A p A YS w g w N £ • F s S 4 b r a — �F. w 5 3 b O O r M � s � k i Y G = R w O 5 b i 3 w a a• S J w M n � g w n e o O O � O q q � iYi w n a o a g o. wa aAa.e � ao•oo., a e5s��'QaQ i } w o � a a eai=oo $3v 3 F - ? :� 8 S ..:�. 0 r Qa n ' o ' Ji o h a o a ao Q R o 1 e A 5^^ D d w w N w n b � G = r w — e w a I I g y Q n a ur g u n it u In P H tj N I+ A a N u O � a w s w M m. c ox Y Q S ft ft e = � o Q w O v 43 — = c a r q d d=s n � •L � n � 3 � � O N y re S A N N M O• N w M M � z h z z a z II O II O II 11 O 11 O EL a P 2 a s aaa„�Rn��a�-i w s s F Y F F a n x w C? a } W Y r :r r 01 D. o. F �, 3 • 67 v n a a .. a � •f� sqsl 21 c S y. all, o• o n_ _ p c y a b = Q ; 1� yy pp pp RaGGQ R Gaa'� ;� .- n II 11 11 11 •O W m m w u u It u O N A w .•c_r A A A y y T N f1 _,• c a 'IAA S 2-2 n m 0 3 3 = N n g O O O V a �- 3 w W n G 4 n w a o 3 So-o- q w of ew gm r W p R r .ar a° o a t aIL` a e :� a\ ^R so $ i o w w w w w q a o a aI = Ste' nS O O A n 4� aF n R n =oo �aITF5ET O I '�xaaaaa w 3 ;aa = an l u u q 1 A J u n u If n 1+ N A m l0 c� N a 0 O N 4 ° e 0 � n g v w B Y 3 z x P 55 S O n ' �• e j < e c v v r 3 n n Q v K � v K g N N o Y rqq y 113d O n O O N u O O IT O '- I Z X Y m 6 I • � 8 2 . G N � C � O e ? 1 -0- 0 x m o 3 0. x x a A I Y _ O p a � - S a ' " " m' o 0 0 0• � II lot IY II A f �.$ssVgStieod=>� r � r a•" a» r�er�oaoasaaao' rb r 0 c c o a a N r r e o e q>> 'Ga_ xaW m 0 s 3 W W U 6 O. ra » M O NgvW `q- S,Sa I, Fi yyR 6 a O1. O , I o Q r r r r tl„ li M r zI G• M Q a O w o 3 0 u^i s e e ^ D z g G0u'QRRF „p° GGOG'� n n n n n 11 g 3 It n n At CO Y W W A p1 O� O Y W 01 O O " N = S co hF 05 •,srygT. e p Y F Y A °n Y F a r .N. a 0� X c 3 c Q a �1 D � o O 0 o. � n M B W S R � s D K C s S k V N MN v D O 1+ = o n L+ O o 5 O II 11 p II Y R p Rp D C O 0 0 0 0 g v X S N 4 a V C 0 n v a N p = G m 3 .=,•Y n! ir i v v v v �x xW 5F� 0 0 �Y�� �s ' Y n» X X n C Y $ t Y l i F R g j c G . Y n N o n d o $ n a � - C p n a e o p r Bpp K - } yy O 0 0 W N =aa=Ra o A n n n n n �c O Y N W g ° n n n u •2 1+ N W oIF . I 1 P N w o r Z U = Y pQ� g n9�.3 i w A p Y o n 3 0 a = £ c n S 3 Y- 3 0 ;P m On S „'• g � A N 0 O � G sU 4:1 4 l O �[ O d � w' p c a — e e n n n C 4 o Y ^ w n a O Y a A n cl S 11 O C X /"»•god 3 0 QDQ z o a 3 RRRD r u n n o i •0 1+ N A G a ii a a s `T� ^, 3 n n a 2 o � v � M � N c w n = S ^ � c�, � � � ^ ' a❑ a ' Y ' n `� `N r �' Y 0 6 a 3� o aes3 °ems � ►7 a � ° . E t3 Y a Q C 33ao �= aTe ;_ o0 1 � 3wa 8 ' $ o s 1 Q ,s o D 3aa �s a� 2 gno -. >• — Fyn a` a s e o• � 2hn^. - x- o rL ,'�' 2 O, o o ^ n o d tr vO, N N � O �• o A �� ¢aa ou aaa'a 'aaaaF'.. II N II II p R < C O 11 II II O O N N n 9 Y II 11 11 a s R .. >tH. o x z 44 SN.c»wMT3o 9 Q Y 3? v G 3 o° a o II!! aQo °,n a.:m a -F 3 .A �n- N I aYY�ia'aPF�a"'� ' a o n a 3 ci � r g am ' S o v o 0 a� < C R 3 0EL O II II 11 ^ 0 " o x W S N N Imo. 3' IA V C,r_ccc�c A NpY ygg 3 canna n x"F'x iEr S S p cq} ^ 'v twY roe q �c. y � � n a oQ n S y O II II �a" aaaa a'aaa 11 11 II II II II II II 11 I A O F a, x F �"—IN Ok r ;, a _ ^ jp L3 � 3 ' ' to X et a. u e Y ram• Xi e0 v u IY q •C ^ .< j O a. S RQ a ai ° g == a s E n 3 q D ;o 5° ,aga W �. n a» SM ^ •" M v n a O. W O S ^ a I 0 O ag o iy lya i yo =an w '$ a P^ a 'a8 wS a m n a n a a J ? a 3 n tTe� In o-p a e� a n 0>cz,a a Fs' 2 a c">'. R It H ^3 _ Sr 004 n a n'12 G SSE N %¢� IT �' i�ry .Ly —_ � � H..� ''� A _w 4� � O J!•„ L]� O �S �� c m nr�°� ts� a m o °g $0^ Eora'ye aUlm �v ern cm o�g �axffi a Ra $r� a a� 87 d q 4^ -a -aR a E � m R Lg$i d 0. a�Er R 'ram' :av a"v a c� e m a' fS 3•m m S m 3a p a H A C n R o� � a• � a w a 0 o. A b � n a a r`4 e n S ry 0 0 a v umi 8 XP '� S w C e •T a v E R a 'o u 3 y m w Pr a R o C Cal =$ a F►�s � F i a � �� d ry' ¢ fl ry fl W IA nN n N In 0 n ii rYi` In n In n In � 'sl 6 P N !+ Q � IY N 1+ •� N 1+ 4 2� Rwxnag$Sg+;�C� I r0 a" ^ 4 3 q, $ a �9id,a `n v s- Y S n C T Y L £ O s x$ Y^ Y c�G �S.n � : '.�.a.'.} � n E k 0•m.�� �: w a t' � �g A 3 ai IM NN a E Z. y O i 4 �A w y Ri3 SII 3 E� p¢ O aF ¢ M� R y p J p YY A e R I oo Y] 0 aSYw a 3G w?�i1r I =A. „8'=�' 0 3 n � L� nc �I an Nsa Znys a _a� ni¢��"pT, OmN y •Z cY N p Y O a Pi. a II S 57 o� n� Go vz°y ao Yo gn. Y Y �' o T 4 �• 6 ¢ o ps m r Z-$� r 3 uqva O 6 t x¢z w z �0 OR �''.� Y �' 0na GI W o an Z 9 w y S Y ` S• yQ� .i r4 O �` C1 £ S 0 O D 107 a IE O u C- 1 I I i j v m io R j W EO IQ 4741 A,., 's k Z. m jr ok -33 13.2 k, 3 two M 10 0 Q •44 di 0 7:1 W w m It - 0 'D s Ale '�l I On 7 nr _Trigctk FIVA M.M. cn: two n 0 c rr —37-- no T- IL ► ,Air X 3 CD p b ct mr•I ct '�•Ir'.� l� rR, > a T. Z. y F IA1fifAvf NE v u r~l •'l 651h A— Ni • I - fix^• .--5"Ave E 7 -- 1 aimM rl@ �AfI LlnY AYc L• m 57nd A—zlf 11 , l GClh AvelE 56111 AveE - ]rA Ave SYJ 70th AvaE - - :•' f U Y 1" Fn om c Gr h- a C _ � � $ 17q^re S�rdlGfl f""uilIR O 9 i .i. ;: •;� r- �h AvcE m 3 @AV Lilt i' d LT Z O w {L•i' � rr bf ti N 'i LI 201h AwS� !I r , - � 32nd AveS I� I ]amAYes c w i2nd AveE ae d 1, 11 AV e'J II m„ - - —4511, A43 52ntl AveE 550, Ave — enr, # � § § k a t ■ { -n (C) c CD Ol a 09 $I ! i E § ( - ' a § § | 3 ° ! $ § Or x Nn N m CC � e O �O N n ;- �'m '� p O s � � aw Ag •N � ip C li = x ¢ 4 d IC N YY £ ;x �c a - n •W �� � tJ A �' Y+ iN i+ a N W � d x s x x x r r ° r IiO W A V1 N 01 e1 V V 00 10 •HoOCX1 II II II 11 II 11 11 II If 11 Q2 7O ,r�3x3xxxxx oo��S2,m ISIn 10 aw N IIA °o"3`tFo xye°ten nl Ali 3 0» .n. a n n d G e a p3a •O• :� IG d £ R •G � a r a x ,a £ •S n a ct £ c 3 e M n e O 3 < F £ � c e � W W Y N 0• I N 1+ � r: JD iR x iv jD iu •a I'u 2 p 2 N Ip � N N All 0 m = 3 W d a z a m Q o a zk to RIGI 0 '13 A �� a � o Q m a N CN C 12� 0 m c COL W � w v a [}yam VI (^p N �ii it D p t Ntr ¢ 7' a a � L n C +3j Pg � R � Q d Ip p GaIN'x� p S T s 6 e o' n� 3 < � s � 0 0 x IC) Ia a a a r �o xlalooxx� W N N N -LUj �Ip A 1+ Y N F+ I+ S C IY A �I. v �i g Of �N a g 7 In o ?5 f0 H (Di c a o d 7 (9 c In O C) O 1 Q 1 -C7 R. � 1, m R T V° 00 n N I1'' 00 ro a F l 1 C 7 1� ❑ 1Q Id 1% o 'D » r,. n �°i Er a G7 m tl N iD' `� rD❑- w e' o. i i❑ ° n- o y u a n p °O N A)0 w �{ 7 Ai ro 7 R 7 a N a. '' p �• G -, W p. ° rnr 0 R o 0 O yn� O T. tl 7 C ra'C ^, p ; n ° "J d ^J R. 1 d w n F b K n y R o Z d:7r •Oj 7 m a 4 7. a ro n !°' . C H� LT W O ° 7 offa- ] ❑ d �' y D q [•' H C 71 W 10 •'+ . C °g. 'o N 0 p a s nv O a� p a. rwr ❑ C N 00 .°ar�Q ° d D. A w qq va R ° W O. R T in to w 21 yi 7 7. ro R m mss 3. t• n aw. �r�f�j ? om o v m �. 0. n N - D V � A. •] n p. °' 40 ;:p � a :e CDm (A m � [I . Q C _6 �ry A'jh' la N fD r�r d �I vi 3 •O h'1 C 2-7- 7 4 Q d n 4' 0. p ° R.N-0 •[ a G Oq s h C1 o p m S C C 4 N 91.-P .- 0 3 oRrrl p' $ c-.- 't R F ;. '3 p2p�� m v 50 C = Y". m cy R m w d o° c + m + Do rv, £�+wwa+O+�$ NN N °M 6r/ CD TI .� 0gyp' 0. 7 d F° i O. d � N o 5 ft k a d w : a 0 m w d p 06 maq- n z p y s fD 3 A O o G r O a A C y DK A AIL N O Li 7 ID T O d 7 m m 7 d -� a Q .ro. 7a y roW H O d, C Off',Er ocl 5' C m ^. •-7 ^ m 'v Ff. per. rwi 3. o. Co Q ro V N 6 iv 0 C C+7 d o 7. F n A F ❑ w �'i � Yr'+ � x � � � 7 w L7 a Q. _ o 0 g-j and m a n o7 c m m m R •1Di P. 5Tc n n rde d a m a �a v, m Im d a uo a ro d Qo e° n o CL O tl v a oei o- p S o�,❑H x�xon w � ° mac ° ;3 Fro 3rr n ci m m ^ av 'O 7 M pp11 rp 7r0 C d O yy rr��aa �m p N, N .�+ a a :Or �t7n7 N O m % is. O m 7° R o ocr ° ° 7 z CJ 3 A m y R m CD S� �r� S N "°Y 'rJ :. .0 l EJ 9 �i !J P- � 3 � as � °d3-o a a� o IS u 3 > N k. 6 m i p C a Y a W Q W o a 3 ° = n s �a a e N? O O� �• O OS� oa II '° A 11 11 II II II n A y C q _ Sd n u v o❑ 0 0 Y 6 6 6 6 O. s ° A a a+ a Agg a n a+ a.�goar�rrx41a� � o �: « V V YP.A A icxx$, pap a a1�� a IM6 6 R p o S d oz• � Y W M o O O C E N A V V V A V V V J< ? o �- a.- £ 3 p X o JS - w 3 rw ° D e � $g F 1 $ C p ? G a c u a o Q A D• A pv tl 0 0 9 y O O O, a a o o, o. roy o. o gGQCFC�—xiRQC»Qm n n u n n n n nu-»- O N A O 1+ W W o O O Q A A t+ ' • ; ? A a Y d a a /�I�•'' i e�i e�i n c P C�po e o o o a e eG�F' G.�'w 000 T a n lull oo ;> Gab oa >� ��oa ^ o=N 3 a0 �'.-� oa 00 C .' - � • 0. n m n O c 0 >• �gy�� e o o S m^ a u o p '� O of L 6 i- �: C»' £ w Ox o i a OOo e C A e � �Cp wY'01 °,.a � �»gig ^��� "'� •_ 0 3� 6= $ 3 < > o p 00 = £ H o a m- g RRRR GGGRGR II 11 II 11 11 11 n .5. °• > "� d7 11 11 11 II N O W. O H W W N V o G t� G O Y+ itA N r •' F- m I O p A A A p Q W N O p A 1•—r II O w a' w V 4 Y 3 o 3 0 � R $ s n 3 0 W c` C R � �• 0 0 � g S w 8 � p a s n y n n E Y O o d o o 0, a 1 j 0 A N A •p 11••�� d • Y T C , y � 3 w =a so 0. o3 F � ° a o w a n g a p w w M n v S Y a O � 3 g�Y �a'ix O V O N � � A A A A A �• N U N b N W N N Y A p y = O O h p6 O M O M T w M s N r e n » 1+ m Q v E a F a » a o s ' a a ~J E I a .°• n n S n a d s Y p St s D o G1St D p p M � m p Q a a ' w w N u lin N R M N w S 11 " IY Y nz 11 11 N1• � N 1+ N o A o o a z z- g e a o n 0 c u 0 o n 0 ° n 0 N I+ S S a a, y m a� 7 0 0 0 a O ryL S O fl O Q 2 v r N j° .} v v s s �? m r r ,• S am o s v X� a� 6° Y y y F f a n� n T 0 E 3 p A N y nIFe n 0 n ❑ •. {� n S C o n +; yy O n it cr acc O W m m W p'ac'a" O N A fq � •} L I • S A N A 1+ p yr. 'l •_l a a? d a a s n o° o N u w N o n Z � �• R�•r ° s•b�• oho» � - wa soa�oa»s r 5'R� n in 1a m a• : °' ° as !j o $ o o p >Y Fti7 ° s S W a M a R dl g_ � a a o C G p ° O O V w w � E � Ig c ti p v o o o c'a ozcca 8 0 ° �•' n n n n o ccawe I n n n n o r N IY r N N r FN+ r G N O a a e g ;mp e. n V 8 Y 6 Si'a O S 0 � n a w 6 6 w w e s g n n u - Q o a n o a n o n - 0 0 0 �t m 7 CL v oi m G O z O D s Y Y g G d n m w 9 9 Y O' Y Y� S S iil• >;� a a a a f'-�. 3 3 G 3 o 0 oIL s. xgrnwR w °aa GR tines yR ai.�xx� IN °' n n �� 'Va •^ n a° E E 3 n 6 n- W c it a w. -�- IW w.y - 2n - 2 a gage dc�aais'a �aaaaaa o g u n u n n n n S n n n n e O Y W W A O1 O� O Y W q � n O n 0 1 N W N N ` W n n n � M O j � s P R r s E e 'A G � O iL $S 3 $ tl tl � V O A m 3 n 3 S R tl � ^ F � O 1+ O a%tli Q rSrSnn o o n 0 O II i■ o x e s o T N o x, o Q R z 0 d T 6 0 co m DJ J F O W ❑ O 9 V n N„� w M M�� a n 9 •+ n n s Aci ^ n c tl 7RXo X7R� $o le .n iiL " bt 2 � X X 8 - �'Y s tltl aaxF F � � o n � y n n a M o - » h azax s aE 8 q fd 3 a v - n � I O a n N n F RRRR �o o R RR�R n n x n e ife p x n n u Z A I I Np� r g t 3 f O� a � �•: 1 ' 9 _ p w a V W b» O - 8�q <� I�• 9 .O 2 o Y d~ c n ICO n~ Yn H A p _i• ^� M � .R to N� i� n o j Xs. 2i o. n i ,5 a" T f u �• N 3 .0 0 poX 3 ..iC a, zi IZ � •+ p ~n S 3 o p� n� p n a� D .� S n � A n a W p O r/�` It I 1 n O &`r 0 F ��» O i n cN � r� S�1 x 8n`8o Fd o. s -Or .'. 0 o12In � °l r a $ .� •• 3 p . nod Sl rwn^r O1 CO. P 0 3 uy oy S� is i n� IM c SO O S as n ..rrare� a c r2,3 Od. O 9 y V V 9 v .06 3 e aaa a Se aaaa it it it t a'Raux n u it it '' It 7- I h Ilk G o a v n �• ' N$ a• v a W e F w a r~ Ol 8�� 03� av I. Ia INS saw 3 Y� v� na s o n rr kk r ua.d3x=.$a3ag ~ � A 3g �a;0V.0 a r o n e� i�nvr 3 t Mi n a n R W O S 9 pl a 9n ~ r O Y O B s7 V p• ? O �Z x N c n p a o n v m S w $ a n O } 3 ~ uM r p a a � n � n a o x i� x N N x �' x •O N In V QW 2C�C n a c ei ".L `.l `y �.rl�In I�+ wPi � � aaOp ••N. °• � c c c c p� p 3� i4 � a _�. a 3 Y Y b S 0 0 '0 5 P P P P C 63XR~-°23xcaSY M. N o441yV C 9 P i ' •�_ � � y V W � � s � I� S O• :�. r` �w cl ± w C� O 3� S N. �� 3 c A �"• s n R I ► CI 0 CIL R F QC. p I, S L4 .J n n N N _ P O 11 11 S a SSB a•I 8 va3. } Raaa G agG 1 II II II II II u II p p �. !. � � �. x 111 I N T IILY � � n S nn-0 0, F~Cow P m n n n s 4 a r B 3 F A 11 X d� n �• � N w� w R N O e w -Rrv3,«mn'° n u q ~ a A S N 6 Q 0 ate. 0 3 1 a P P d+ n A O p rbi A � j b It �a a F o ar p o V n R pa�3V' c � 3 a n s u a 'p Y g I� w p• r-i' .R 0 3 3 b n O y R:E a,a _ I I I I I S2 c Ap a�D �i w� n gy m'oo� mN -PY�a pnx M1-1 aA "� ^ siwo5' H g ~•� f z A p'. ro " 4EEq a ,vim to FX fn a� m f �vPi � r F� � 8' � $� A �Fi n E -d•" » c a K .'n nw a a o.Y c a.`2 �' Si a•g �» ii'a ra e H aE .q17 3��$ o� Hg ae3� °• Sr g�r�� az :x vD c �� � ° a� %3 a �+ P 0 7 RS � _..; $ ' X rNo o3 $❑ a aq qD �^Y i. ' y49 6 Ran ab � n m n N- O� '•g �� � � +gy3p A � � � ��n� ' � d= a Y < �i N g n` pr uY am I or., �+ d °❑ F a a A a 7 g C ii n ii X' n n iS n `�' Y n �' iL W ❑d N S-' C N W N 1+ i11 ? �•+ p 'ram i+ I.a O IS,��!!11 a a{ n v Y n n 3 a n' Fi c .. c mod= i [C '�' �^ v wFs '°a wxti a n w a vF Z n q a .� q O }' .T � � � y � � f 4 �. ¢ `VJ 41 D. q „ 1S � =• � v _ -. C � C a� A V y Y na a V E y 0 ? F P y } C a n ~ e x Q C d v e F 4 0.g� 5 N t a Ixl Aagco� G`fS M Q gain az 3 &a a•� A /i rYi 33 n 0 n i ry�ry M�y t: a❑ S• S Rn - s S °- p '�J A Z yNO� Y V q w D n ] D y m •Ri 4 0 „ ~ n 2 d 1 3 1 R °� K r0 Y T t w a° N r o N r f'1 L. X R ee .l c 19 b O wa I a- A yk pa` _ Y �1 M .�'i a ; •� c 10 4 S Z & e 3 .. av'3o a '5° n Z Z c ° o om x� ro'°j k w zZ i O L c II I r 5sc -aa�, II I z z o¢ ❑ H 44 a�a"�w� y D Wa' C a z d m 9 y o' V* V m I tm IA £ m .� � •F O� O�� w� � O � Y� S w 1� Y� S d �•f w � Y ww � d O^w E �� w »mow <�o E '—g C f $"� N£ Q M 8 R es rG w n o �aS g 1{r@`3'_n� w O G S w ins R °a ps=y9gT� y Y a ? n 00 O la SoM oc�� E iRw:,ao sFr�3'3° �f c' Y 2' n s1• 3 A s F e= n n g9wOa�� 04 ii 4gg �am MOl 0 6 Y - p+w g9 K 19+ N hWE ,� •YS.G S Zi w ny G dyyy£7 O Qi fdf G +�O J3 i (IgI� a ��I 9 � SL R • 2 if w 2' �' D' 1'• A R S a �a w' Z o 6 A 3 Y o•— ^ < 3 G w II it —u 0o A o" o o s Si u o= t�i eMi = el i o CI w /, Ei •. �� is — • ye<' .,ti- = - � � r,,, Y I t.. �' , t• 1 1 ,ram t.. I . ; y T.�•' 1 +' • r' i I �i �[ :'S • � ilk � �{ l4 ! a -- •� — I, ', 1 1. �� � � � 'K � - � ,r► � r'^fir � CQD It I L r Aw '' \'.��,,,� � ��� T r • ''4 •�� 41) Y .� � � •,{ : • i } „` .,� ,r:f i, a ,1 -: — . � '- • i it � 1 Vs - :+�'. i 4, 1�7 R E 5 Ath Avc E 5nn Ar C; I F. -5 111 Ave HE Qlkd AV. it - 112ndAvell 65th AW m Wns Avo E 6 di Ave E- 3,e Avc It'll P ifil ct ol It jb to IVA I `I- IN s nd A- I 44 Ph Avd9 HIM Arcs o 4 2j w Ay. 5 @ 43rdAY. S -450, M-O'S �21ndMeS- X -17 :0 LA CD I --I ly E? A O w D . o R� 6 i< ] a ze n Y n c 2 g ' -C b n ^ � 6 n ul n o � a33 fi VZ o Q a n 9 o ^ D a= b r b � y C p ] D D v= Y a= D 3 a � n n n n 3 n 3 n YQI C c Ir n Km a< is -KII tr ��m<II<mII tr tr K H tr n K q g n ImII N v. Q o�•=� n r{ •• 7 a n] o rS�o � (�2$�im O 's v e b N O ` 3 r= m n n 3 �• � �d` n S �t b a IZ j i v ■ l_ ti?`j 3 S t Y Fo 0 n � 9� b 2 C M m Ys r_ Ip z s c c 1� 0 N z o C 3 a 0 e m A A A Y 4 r M« w 0 ptr '3 W � % .�-• O � w S. S O b - C � e 5 P P s • _ �S VI N S .N NN = N y- 2 w 1+ 2 N � gppp R C m A o m a p x� x �.y L a x x x ►� 3 33 r �r W A 'A N Ol T V V Oo b in, q p C IA r3gx3xxxxx $_,n�S'�� N a= wi o x F E '- o' c Q 0 M p o 'po ¢g y 16 9. �� S .�„0 rv>� O'v a'S Ell Swa 6 s n sal N qy � a �p�� J R ? 4 b C « P E O O O e � A W A S W Y S A N A Y A N A Y W S M A W 2 m N A A 2 N p N 4e N O 7 I.- 9 x x 2 z m 1 > C ro acr w to 05 l m 3 m ° F a "� o 0 Z G m a O v 2 3 s w S 7 pq y cr mm w 93 I' LAI v c ro O ro CL C• I V ' N R nnm O pp N x ro In y G1 1 p - :7 to � 3o- 0 *3m N csa m ` � a C S. a a O 01 3 J2 C N O y O M Q 1 m I I J N .;i O'� 'i O O w a m q m O 0. , O a O C• Cf W i N ...P:. .mq O n O 'Oy N n w Er p p• < 7 S mp•m y '•C O mov�oA a' iu' f� O of p r h y a m T7 C�rn 2: 0. � d c .•t ~ m F �*, 7 ei ^1 O. A A uT'� m O m m o o `° ] o- � m o a'��.�• n m a O A C ern N :i N w C y 7 K p ^I N �i':L . -. no C N m �:� 07 N a W F p N F C'� S• 'Lgi m m to S C '� O 0. m o A r��! eD C m p O a m o a^ C O 3• 000 C r. n �- . -HS•1S, n�: .�. d 3 �. o „N e= c a m� a aS o atJ* dim .. mg O a N O1 pp (A m.-:.c �' mn to p O�O{{ 1 nO :. nO - . ••CC7F mO m _• T O '3 �' O. m N �' •py, O .� 7 C O C p� O �. o�i Of Sri .O.l� y R S �s O S a O O C. y O m co a AF•W .. -Sig ma �7 � b+ N Im �. 7' p Z7 In a fD d. st N n G. d• ' • o , trE] N o ^ C. $. .. l.. mo ro n LJ., ,� 3 O, 1 1 cr `rii N a c moo F a�0 a •o e 0.0 d N O a e O f� 2 ^ O y 2 ST 3 A p O S r rr A 3. OQ e'f 0. �. 403 O of y W m m n R "• Oa p, 3 N •2 b O no 0- ao �" m 3 m h �► n " F m o �' o J N C R N C L 7 6 O 7 ° C a a� y 7 ►may ;:p a 3 y m o^ A � S Gi e m o S n + OI N R m w+ m � 4 y 7 •(A O O N 7 •RmoQ 7 m 19 0-O m CL C C m O O C C to <X3 N m 7 7 m y. m m m E m 'm 2 �. o g �N z� o N �, ., ul, o mYri'~°e�+, °c',ov�iS9HE 1 Roam � mo7^m ' = co W cr v o N A m m m m y c '< m 4 m O N ' 13 N � Q L A. CD rr�� C m m qg m g- .O..l 3 O1 0 Yili A F N O C 7 or, _ 7 rail s a' .O-. O 7 ID � � m m oC :aF -mi 0O.a m,a ^� m 7 �. y1= R, o C A N h �1 10. ADN' N m� ti 3 [1 n 3 o cam O^ 22 m O N Deli m 0 7 G. A �`C 0. �j m 0 � � F O0. C p C 5 a-S R' 3 o S ^ m C 0. moo m m m pl G m o S m a y .m, .m. 193 m n d O a o by Ra p y p Y K copy 1D �^ o m '��' i $ �m �omzo+3 Imo c� > > > ?-•7o Om x oc•� m 61 5 F. 0o a 3 zp3 n ,�, 3 0 d z= 3 m X m= 0 0 0 m � a m Fr pi l W S 7 a 9 S rpr R S I C a:r 01 � m 7 O ^� n E m S y 3 in' m � CD M m 0 c. M a 00 N 0 7 c c m j^ U4 R In i m a o � �0 .�• $ o. � n 3�o3ne' n` q` w v �0 c a G ' G � � � F wP N � rY ❑;• � a3 ram;"�❑ � a So-. � 3 •+ � G s `� 3 g' �. S :• uM a Z n o s e i F o »`• o •c g n � �. •''' c + A v r d O R �- e =21 N� � O •" O� O a� � F Fo° a a^ It a w n8 O a u s n a u o O I' p _ fi55 ie>eervY.i :d�M�•F«�wa�Z< v v Y Y V y 1 < <0• a � 5. 0 c o�o•�tr � o o s .. P a o. � b u °• n � sa. a m 2 � a p � � i ��• .£i e •• 2 m O a it * L ,� i F W 80 0000aAS8'So . auk aaaa r Zcac. O �:. �•%" e a 11 11 O N A II II II II O Y+ w VI rt II n II ;- G I� (� V 7 �• - - ..ili zz 1 � Z u G� c o•a� r °, °,0 aann n T ".14 6nloseo• 1'n n°.1 Fn gn.^.a � ruo. m . - w° p • C N�5-3 0 A w i c e r F a ° � g�rt R OL T E s•o � d c gR �•� a g a'o m �_ �� O O s -� y "N= p A v o 0 R E w<' Oo ao 0 n Fi o s G 0 0 0 0 b N AGFG � J > c > aaaaGt O N O W N O Y+ W w W V O N y rt 11 P H n P - FZ t' //-�,� W 7 a 5 CD O G jw W W W W » m n ° r eni Y � � a Y 1 3 .F� a S A A• ^a S p Y OF d m: 9 n a it Y Q Y O D T V N F n 3 » a a s o = s e c s r ,M p � M n r O o F o — o r 0 u n 0 � n •o u 3 0 A A P N M •. ga w � w p p • R. o a 3 = _ � c� a3•� a D e = iiff a w S V g _ � a a = W N n — u o 'a Y a w IM = c g a n 3 Y O = o Q R Q Q I� �k s u kk sill N N N N N �i.1 A^ V F O o a G s N w Is 'R QQ IF gay Y = A D 41 n m n Dam ,q — s j v o w e N e^ m w N w w Q O A O O C O O n O n O u^ O n O n O P N P IY A fJ A j+ P C A O m a n 3 — } S a A $ IG YYYuuu 'o m » � u g C D a 4 n N a ti ; 3 n � � N � n n n w o a 0 a n 0 0 �'o• � n n n S a O n O n I � N 3-1xx1- i e w '� a a 2 7g4�s v a g'y o ava =$$w a Y v v s a>> Y Y m Y a w Fp^ �n m v v f f a �O Y Y 4 Y g Y� a v O^ p^ R1 �•! �. S � Aw a u = e s c Y x e 8o•a88• q 8880; ira=aca n n n n It O W pI m W itaaa� n o u n •O N A W i A A A opp^ ���aaao3o�� 3 a c c » a' g' A o 0 3 X " N O- na o o Y v v_ F i .2 F � r = a e a• Y = � n '4 n Y ,a F n as a $ IL F o = gp. 0 ti o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 cr a Q ir'a'a ur ur o" v h 9 11 n P u 2 « w' W ° • '0 3 u c 0. a a T 2 � n a w o r � a o o o a 3 ° A ^ A ^ $ C a n' i M ^ 0 3 � = a 0 0 a Rc ^ 88,BS u IF n n I+ I+ N i e r R J J N N N 41 01 W W W W W w S n a g d u g ^ •� d S Id-1p 7i ; -� m as c M � m g 3 ? m ao w a n b ^ c c - M N b, � g 3 � v n8 - R m � a � .p o g O o n _ a � O u A Y~+ 11 c m � � d j m ? A N 11 a r r y a c O R o a A m O p O ° O n O N 1+ N N 1+ F+ V1 Y•1 rjl IY 1.1 1+ G a vvoovg�r I o ...In0v_0 0 8"- o b ° r R P n e s of .3 I� � � r O O• o � �c n a o o n R •" Isvv °� 3 X X 'G �' u !o ao o ^< s s E. y N N a m m S b- Y � c -•• M n. R it R Y V V V ^ n n 8 d .a b c C ? 10 s s S ^ cr� K p - a �G�RRGa �o — n c CaUQ II IY 11 11 II •O N W N 1 O O N W •J O N N N 01 IJ Ol 1+ OI p a d z�11�y�s s a8a`°q.8 g, m A m � >= s b o ,g a �tlom �a3 g d a 3 �P la s n d n $ — s C g a o d N LF � d Q 0 � 3 � m ° w a � s �oa�ir'Rao 11 y II IY 11 � 6 s y N ei 1n w_ VI ;n M X 1^ P N A 1Nil 2 Id 1 4. IL 1�R� 5 G d aR — 0 � s IY w Rc sy v Wo $ Ca. 11 a f d $ c b d az S � "a o � s py n w $ � g n 8 N s N 8 0 0 zR aY x a ^ M oa o� � IGR Fa d VII j 11 11 V S n o w n a n G S 9 A ~tjY F 2 'O b A F I I = "�•� o r o a �: c^ ^� • o ��" �' s o. b K' Y s a F. d terra s C o ^ 3 c o a c 'cr Sa`. T• ii p S a � o� Y -' � o � G N n ry 9 ; x O, O? 3 E W A r R $ A' p O . M a ue C ti 6 y C c n 3 5. S O 4HE /'�jf s nzs S n n 7 v n Y p n 3 a m o e O n on m mod= =a' n.3Z u'o "elf 3rds n E 2 Q a v n' $ „—• n e c �s r ao c N .4 — o FL- fir• _• n __ a �A •co ��v't N ff O o C' A Y p �L o 8, O 8• n G R G .T .. ^ o 0 0 O• o o 'R G Ex C ya yG 9 a F O O• o• A G C C G f�f ppa O 3 3 r -- RL 11 11 0 O i+ N A 11 011 11 R R O 11 It 11 O t+ N A R _ - 0 x N x N x N J „ V C C C C �1 C A Q Np V - •1 y � y"u u s m - �s 13a o9 yY q M e S ^ N tam _ r o ' + r + C c W 3 r $ 0 a Q o a Lz c All V n r1 R Ro8R 88811 0008 Sa�' 'R vita L,� Gaitc n n n u n u n n n i u -p1 r RT x Y IJt a S hI� �FuIN oIC I»r. o Oe 'Aww o v� � Y'e XF n v w a �a�a,n9 S�•"• st 00 N O 1 8 < » r o s S oOR S<� o n ir 1-3 xw avo •o Q n m � a T r o �- s d � » s�'t.R a �• 3 n V w c a g n Q rz`• �� w Q � r 3 a n L�. m 0 a In In m 0 ^I e Q A G 9y J sp 7�j °� _ �"��i �a 11O° E.°.� $� •,� inept v0$ at,maq,� � E m n 'N< own �•. u� QN)? ° 1° 4 �`J �pO a° "Tw m �E �CC a NS � � F � �� =.�T< � 3 � •• � Y °= R �6 J�'d � R N C C1�a a m m in�m �r' f7 iia a ca S$ 5'g o �+m Ba m 3 F m �-ii 6 Y � � N QO C T O� Q00 �• 4� 3 T � ° a 0 n'6 m 7 N� � b Oa 6 �O � H nc d 0 o x � Fsa � rn Q, Cw Gv a o�T vaSir: �S e as c � 3n m Sep SQ �a QQ oo y °e o\ n N it• n p .nj N K = a_ n ' �O. tl �n O d is n ' In is W n n I m O O 9 Sin A cg �a O Y oo' - 5math m� o A = ,°. ivSro �m 3� on eQ .^<_. •• I "dn amn° E �c 83So a � N a o n �, n R� g c w OM } m10c jdN m oa7 a x o o'+° '��N m S 5 3'�.�+ i6 2 c+ mY -pe a byi c r m 3 a m o, � m �o $ n n n �m�3 2 ii n ii ii rj n n � ii �i n ii `ef'i li '"v3 2^g8<o3ow F e O N s w M a tl n 31.3 aaF m rF — ''� c Co£n 'SA D M aYg= c� a 4 'm—' y M6ao2Rn` o°�� ff. p f1 _ >> N aI G OO .i O w 3 1S o 6 n W y A _J F» rS y 3 O OO e Y p v cr via Q66a N N s a w C S S v` S n a A °m0 F R e y Fn i• _ x a m an a- a Y y d 1 Gm p o Y o ; m a I V y9. 3 � s,b, ,o u a U m� a CC s �. �� g a R n z F r n n 2 O 9 n z o �+ 'u � �"• p � n o m O e— v u°• E 1 V•1 .�i' n w n b w e Z Y p Y 8 y O R ? ° Y 3m y rm o- 9cd'o aa�=c o_Q�n ° B�Ooa nm 2a x` „ nzozu z.Ye p u z z� �aeN 0 O A 3 O S o ^ g a 2-5 9 l a O O O_ Y II II I d z 0 m u 0 9 a6 N Y y 0 D C a i W o N! Gl W d d p �Iaa (y]� n C % 1/� a •� a < A W 0 A le W Jni• m f�j y 2' S O M M B Q Q Q I? Q r IvA yU c n ' a • W " � °1 O G1 qq F 6 7s yl r a. -j: 2t j P X S % C. Ym 3"�_W" ' er_ :mil e 3 0 `� - a a s E _ Si O1n c� "o,!=a — n i'8�• �°�+.oN n��.a aQg �Q+HGCT sn p"R 5 3 y:��E r�o uV1i � •°l n� � °`� .`4. f n 3n ir Ian R g u G wB a rr8 f;is AT ' min stein o^ y'nn�oo 2$. nt M Q �' m X• '." 3 m� e �� e� a O H i C 0, L2' ° 1d N �• �G Fin z z u u n a �i a 3 i Y ° ° ?_ a o z ° �6 va � a a° a o" �LM a — xx n or of O c F, TZQ 1 m C Y 7 d 7 d O Llw.1 M Roadside ditch (no wetland indicators or OHWM observed) r�. y +TL "77 �S etland 3: jdlff�-Flows to roadside ditch EM (not mowed) _= _ ccasionally inundated; saturated ; - a t A, Note: IIUf:ilFt lld �, Basemap provided by ArcGIS Online. -Municipal and wetland data is from City of Federal Way. -All project specific data was made by I F Otak, Inc. _ Figure'l Legend Wetlands 2 and 3 Map .... Estimated Wetland Gethsemane Ordinary High N Boundary Cemetary Water Delineated Culvert (approx. 1 inch = 100 feet Wetland Delineation on Gethsemane Wetland Boundary location),•„k Feet Cemetary, Federal Way, WA `i: WetlandArea x". Datapoint 0 100 iS.lnroicct4326Q01326551CROp1G151M7fOslFigp76_Wcnland2&3.mk� t. IL(L . �I1;2fl1G n o 8 5 a !3 a �� r • 11� _ - •.r:." ~ ti a - Sf Zi - . T r ,r. • i :-tit-. rti X �'cr•., 13 Ix,� 340 kz 29 O "S U 3�' _ � `' � „/ _ . � fir, � �. � .F=+. • sir; ;Fir tu r- �.`� � �� �= t"�-� ,h`� •fit W- �,, a�,l.. ifyt �.' S y Fitt r = �` ''' CD m g s ,{r •� ai• '�' rF• y e~ ��'�,i i ,�•`' � •. �. � r' `• +ref � � i" •1ta+ �. La CR ik •Af �- 1* sir: . � "� •L: f� �� ! 4{ y'' � 'l�,�',.' ,' �����..,�. + !(:T` v-r'!�11�\�i- }L `!' �' .Y,� • •,i%�Y�'�1 ` ;'Lir ,•��y�yA' " .'�, •�Ipt �.•1�y,}�r�. `-§� 4�i ' �C' n • lrk �i,*F � } �IKA �y, �� h�t� 7 .s s ' C ,•�� I f 11y ,. 17 �' r 5• Tom., ' f. , • j + ••,` � _ i�i it j � - } ,-- j J'�L:. -�y��' �f i .I/ r. .. I �r�:f� gggjjj �� � J' f I f(r M• � I�� .•,'t � � s,}. i ! , + 1 I ti M1 r - 1 11 J �•' � � V` f �.i.l r''' ¢0'`-C -r.�t �• i• + .�; .L-t '-LIB,, J'+ �.I rr, is _ +` .Y�'1]y� [' . - • Yii. '. �: el .!' � jai "FI - ••h � + •'J' ' .�'. �.{.k � • iY . � ,•� ' +�L`�T yj}l x: i`•:S e� �y Go } IY � 1�' y{yy • a �LO � �. � ram..,, ; _!. • � t. 1 J FI ''� .. r • � ..sue=�^�'�r+ • t � .;a` � � ` y j:;,;� •,�s:±, 'y��i ••� '4 `�iY. •dar �.r +' rl�+'y �g.� .ram _� •i;;;i i .• �',r.iti ,?I' ��c� !�''a'i •.t•� .�.." fllSi-?,�+,'y a4;, r. 7� i .)JrAI A— E 2 Je Ord Ave NE 06sh AV, AVl NE 0110 AV. fj,, d Ave HE Gat h AVe'E :-Sid Ave 1w ?WA Ave E Padli t Offy L- m C6 fp = LL hot w w O ff z 'Sip' Gyp ;I$th Av slrS 3indAveS V-h Av.s 381h AV. 3- III VA — 424idAveS Lr 43rd'Ave 8 45WAve 8 4911. Ave U) 32ndMeS 5311k Ave A- If I _! � -n G (D � � a \ B N Z z u F3 S a w I F S c i o S `n p s m C W C N �i G Gi "' •Vss e n 7 m 3 log3 3 n r e ' � 2 2 W A fn V1 m m .1 .I m w n n u n n u u n n n �o �33x3xxxxxo����n rr3�333xxx aRoYA o'er. r� N W n y nN N N 0 m d z IN � Z vil� a m m' 3 C - 3 c n c m c C �. fled c o �C 0 1 I/ o to r 6 N N h n Gxs O G 'mow 7 w y [7 W I� r �z G] F IT 'o v oy ? oii�,2 z S� S it' S a C b &� y a S c E e � �v Z 0o x000vo•e O S 0 0 0 S S W N N N S PI U IY IJ A 1+ 1+ N N N S iNu a d PSi - j 0 0 m a H N ILIA N 7 m S 0 m �: v ��• Z O I p I I I G m H 0 H H m Z O I I o l O� 99 v H A n y S N ti, z p G I a "a a m N m N y. � z � ti 8 p O N m � Z O I 9 � Lj'. F7n �• . �.'w •: 'C d •o :�.� R 16 f'iD' V �. O N ,d ISC NrJ' pIp O y 7 < S 1 Q F Q 1� } 1 �p /p '' Y:• ��C,. /_� G• G 7. 7 'm0 VI ri A .Op W 7 7 p W 3 Q y. N �O^p .� ..Q--•y a a• ID ^q. N N y A• O •a... '� 0 d <• 7 •.7 pmeI O O N q• p�, � O [�.....:�. O N y 0 N� o N�� 7 y is � 0•r ri y O• 2 F l y � Iil• d O 0. COq F o •� O N N 0 N C O N 0- � N �p O F n '00 m °�ne� 0. m n T F 0 0 L� q `g ° d i11' q Iry O •� , r+ d Cf�• m �7 'vr.:_. L�-.'. :::'.7:! �' C% O -. y �o m p a.•a m m � � � n 0' m m; � � 0 o m� � w� f m z ?�' m H•� w q• raj, H d ry rr y c O F• N /o an(� d (/1 ,� m R q •�7 OF•o , rn •d R a L;' �f, 0 O m PrO �T• N W O G I y ^n N .y a q y S7 `�7 m MO. y �. �P' '[y' } :. O a ^ t m 6. O Erm 'O• ST 5• O y C i. C S� A � m..Sy p O m m M m S v'° m O , 10 v ^' mo m O "� E 0 o a° O L Cm p a °' O O R •t� N' 7 � tsD ] '' p1 ' p 0'm a� q C f d No a 5• H S a R m i q 4 n t-j oo 0.� pf Od °w ° oQ^ m om a, m_" mn b+ (a go a q• o m c Amp y m ag a- :. io m Iv m 3. ;dotb m `d m a S `` . iL: c� rc . .� p y' a=p F In' r�r�j Vl mAS2 FL 7. O. N i�i• N ^ •- w ;'q` j+ Cd 5 a n N a . ri . ❑ gyp`.•' nI �.• 3 �p1 I I �ii N . q m O m !yy (m� ^. r^�r a ON ' nn _CD N N A ::::IIII.... O _ iq •R •r�. '�G� m 7 7 n R a CL m �.`O",. re. s O m lu io 6 m m I O 4 .a• qq •. �` m O. fiI' _ a •rl a N �n s " •o 0 �• •J °$. n:: u O O. 1<0 N C 7• a q a f' 54 p ^mf v p n�. P• w m N gym+ y Gf c 4 m r r+ o G O y q+ d S O a fi .� 7 y.. s y F+a a 9 1; A wp M Im d O R CA m x Yi1 To S. 70 a N p y O a m m 0 0+ m+ D TO :E ++ pip f�m N Ci •Ow m ro m E O ' x m q. m m= Li 0 �. yCL j 7 m 7 -° O 1yp. va go m 7 ffl oft CL 0 m c n. � a w m 3 m H o O v O 13 A Z m <' m g < .3 mN m " y ; m d .� GD V n< �,•v '� S Z 0 O ^J S Z O O 7 N N �• r S "'J Z Z C ?; "3 �O''] N [n �n -Fi 0 1O m a O. R� N 10 q• m ID 0 m b A= 3 0' � c67O,y$`.o� � 0 CD ° m�� � N ^°�G I o N Imo obi&� p m m A H 1.1'' $ a• H 0, V 0 (Y A T 0orr' R. •� a ok° OD •<�i n 0 ui A' m d C m m y 5*22 so3 - z<mov �• c m on' m m m ad m ^° S y m G A •' !p N X^0 � p� 3a m m�. c F •m1 F rn a rYyyi m m y� m y G N R F lz q 0.0 a N 5' n= rdr m o w CJ'. n n `< 0 R ram' C `" o0a x• 3 0. ei F .7�• °' Im •' u C G. l 13 (C0 cr. (A . C (cC N }D ((A O N iny o G y N m m N G a� ga FiSAO �i o�mmm� y^ju ro 21 G. FSS O = 4< 0. '^� 7 ID �. Q um<i m,0a�'o (° p, m pao H as a O s a {r*�1 dA, _m mm(ny .QI y Ta R^ ID N n O s N Z OC 0 ' ID = 'm Fs'm �v CD d •p m 7 n ID n m V =. n m N (q/y� N S !n ty7 S. y yy1 p 0. m 7 ^• fD O a33 'A y p < o�Koo=h0, N D• N A N "mc'1 < d my 7 (u pOy H m.p O. 'Q y �. y .. 7 •O y a vi ° — m m 6i on°. '� m q ? Smm s^sm^n9o� O 030 QN O �j• rryy a 7 S.;-Z"( n —A a IL Z O.S 1 q m oo�, 0azv33 Croy mo a 0 Z a x �� m m ^ —:3 VI A b A i � X p3 C11 A a d' 6± - -na o•O 3 33••qq� � ' n a � N s RL 8 Y d 6 17 M i r ?❑ 3 - a s- 'o & � F• a �F ° S n o '�• rL ��� • � n � s . a R ti 2 N I 1�o•� 4+ ;.. o t a 7 w u p� pii .mi S S d e b a anna� � as a a � y ps w a .bi .bi _ Y• .Yi .bi b� oa a i� 8 M1F F" p v V V C C C C p -• p SS 4 r r i A V N a a Y=� x¢ w 1 0 ��N� A V V V O � � a_ •_S I •_ s `rl 4 P i v a a c a n z�3 n le �i R Y ws G A O pa 9 9 4 0 D 9 V V V a O O O O II pp V V O y D $ a c G RG it'aaa^ za'aa»'as ,r; m r a N N C 7 W I� I m A =1 'b3 A W A W A p Ip W `A 1.1 Y O m m 0 o C p O n nC Y n n R Y Y 3 0 3 0 d .FT O y u � n R � r w o � V a �• R � �: d a s ~ 0 n a m S y = « m 11 O 2 IY 2 11 S 2 3 Q •eO O 11 � O O II O o 11 3 O — O O1 �« a N N VI. p of S n p n c e Ode a� a $ m 3 s o a of :OE c Mcc n S .i tl M O n y R '•� _ � o e A W w g c g a 3 d m u m Q Y N w Q FF C_ O« a 3 II Na $. o'on e a V # 'a a s II O II II II O 1+ N O -'1 A YI A A A A A •P SW SN — g � n s m a 3 $ = g s O s - m R o F =d -• $ � a w = � Y n o R !� s R o S y 3 m i11 N N F M IY N? II O M IY w II G N m N Y 2 2 2 2 Z g m 0 II O 0 II O 0 II O 0 11 O 0 11 O a I+ Y 4✓1• p QQ AQQ C C« a� H a 1=i. N �• S �. m�• a R V v a n n�,• n w 10 3 o tl w w S.3E f o f S y W x Y M « y d d m W KK Mt a dd � qg sa" a A rSi 6 c *55 Eoo88rR888: ��' 11 11 II 11 11 11 11 �'"'�� 4 W Ol T W O N A 0 W N 1+ a s Y e I� S a n e S M �• n lil N R o o n n o a»% Y a F O » O O•�S� m s 3 d F o S a o ff°a T _ =uu�� o' V V R nad v Q n II $ R � Y =a n f e n �088888 2 G o80 �Siritir � cir=a=air a^ C 11 11 11 o II II 11 11 11 w -4 1 / G W or r r a ON.2 » o N G o 0 0 }o -e�irGGj3��n3Ns� s. I� n��oyeP,m °A E 3 3 A n v F '�� W n J•[ V sl m w C O G 6T Y .�' In C C O° .i' O 1.] . uMg. gg n e n - n a•5 a o �aG �� Gs s � n � 88888 a�v�8 oao ao a:rr'G 'G 'G 'GF a"•x FGQ'G n YI II 11 11 11 a 11 11 11 11 O W W A T OO Y+ W pl N 11 11 II 11 11 O N A A OI G I N N N 0 IM N Y O' N ? M '� •: n Y a 3 Y S S S r a � $ o b 0 j l FF 3 g a a a o � a o R• a p a 0 1 0 G = i � o r o z ° z q ❑ z o n u o u r NN � N N Y N$� e�M1 N NV V T" � s g asg oDa n N nr m: o i Y$ a a a a o 0 c V v v° ^ F a o- g 2e ZA m . S a o� A a- � ,❑�, a k i n.moo. •`i o �. r � r ~ G w 4 4 oa' i n a c c 3 as ac 'aaca'a �; o is aaa � - r N •Y Y a g '� I,Yy m O s Y QX� b Y a » G V O r M s S c a Y a � S R_ 0 ;Ng � o a o n $ 3 gob �aaa° A O � •O t+ N sf �t V d m S m A° n W L ° M ` r. 2 C R N O Od a �" ATTTIII R C °a n ; f alln n- S , -a A as Y C 8 =.m $£ Nk o °w A,C%ll 3 8 a• S. IInn d' �I a QR D° ` I+■%�■51 LLL]]I s n ° j W C V 1O �47¢• 0+ y 9 Q w D ol eo m N Ewe O » m N 3 2 N ': 'o aka ao M R Y O n] A nix pp sT• 8 i _ a o a a w aIT N Y6 2 2 2 o 3 as„ao —�. .. ... C� °m 888 g � NN 8.88,$ s g888a n ..• It 0 O <x p I� caaa �F C O O Y N O p II II II R Q O Y N W II II II II O� n O Y N A S Y 0 s� Y C n m' 9 RE Y-C W act n '9c '3 A Oc g mN�� n3 u gy x.6 may° np_Si s?RmoFb{ b^y ^� Rq Q OR W � 30 m3 e, m'aa •2 uci = �o �>•c6 �3 �y rOa a7i Sa �'� :^. $ c am °tS etaSew <° dga. � b3 any sA w 2 N� v o QH bo dA a'? o_Qaan dy N = >• 'e Q °� ae o m a N �< a a m a 1° o ii y o w 's1 3 'nN. R G� OR 0 8c1n0 £ a a �a c � � a I a5' �-o, G m'nd R o = c — IF. vas om o �5 arv� P RA T.. ,gym, wmtl0o 3= oa c� gd o vam y� K o°u1�m �� O £ o �=qei if F a 3 N 2 Q bo„ Ea G ?c F<TNy o = Rc5 $ N a $ o n v a 9= r� R o b q �° o• '^ m 2 .o C O P 010 . � ya _ < y a a"� m m 30 n °a a'fs' s In cv G M Q 0 cr N ii x n n Iq A 8 n A A:E 3 z o3 o n nags. o °yl c o �3 M1 �� rWi N� a � o a '� 3� •�• N` n � a X � '° a d 3 c'+. ono ou R 3'�� b o _E _o 3-4 s a s s d F y o R_ { a o in Et a ".l r N n o m a �- s • a y u a p m n s. T QIEI Z. u g Q b O O 1 sb� » n� N $ h 3 n Q b o v: r n Q n z s n o IS INI 'o u9 3 a aN e a ix oo i- S n K p ��, �aa_ Gy„�s m aZ ^G ' oU� Y b I 3. 2R d poIq eza�an � coca . a �,5. n$x g.�. .'� o �c � v i � c v� eft w iii 2 o'W jy N Z r c e e 5 Z 2 ie o n\1o1✓i a on cl =Ll 1 z\ £ o w c W e. o z O Z u a o D= Boa e I O G1N �o'o y o ,1 67w� M' L1 G1�p R<a c�gb 1i =a= 2 0ow�•• �rCs� W —r'na i a $ �- o N a grin s o .o.w � 8 m m 4 W W M l a rn A sc5 YrC�. iI O o n_ W yq n gPgXX f4 Ga NO � 2= C 2 W 1 ? � tyy 6 Y Q V r W 9 Y OI °1 °1 UI N o S o'y I- S m n= W a2 axfi 9 �8s5 a �gg�F a a,�igg� O• Y s v N r w A c— w� a O n r E F w o �f;9 a d n dF% =-1 � N o �• a o•=°y.s�'R .a o �l a s- A — s A 3 o H N alsg jo R a^ o Go p S 1 G a a ,S' I a 'o w aTC A 9 9 q w S» fC e R i O R g yA O ir sr 9 Z O X Q " = o m ° o ° n= s° o x �w u a o n pp (7 � a n 2 Z 3 M� l^ a w � m • °„ lo p 6 3 C A y 0 O S II 1 . 2 O. 1 S 1tl� Y° V 6 O N 3c ' n � s �3 k � ' c F in, E. a ni m O 3 m M I I I I I j I rn r` + 1 1 � •�• % Y Nr Al y..i• jl �� -,.S ref I ,� 4 .�� • f •-a ' ,�.'�� 'r � � •,� . r "r"M1rr bY.'� r uT� f �.' r ... 1�-• � , y e• { i yr • i 'i} �k c}; , � r ► � : ,r �� � � � ,, � r�' is • '�� '• i t 4 �� 7 ' � Jir � ''�• � r i �• tp pp '�, ~n f - t1 �f � ..•.t .btu ,� . • .. it 5 - ` • �ix'+ S R .... J' � ��,, R y .. • .� •, .; ���• '� .ram f �. ,, m! f R E JIR 3 w- Ave Cl E/ 511h AveAV& PIE- 1 p Me z Mma A,, 01 �V4 N fA E 66th Ave E 611h AV a E NA AY CSW 1010k A4c E I%yw 1. pe jaz az rL 41 V3 r k. C6 LL S w w v 0 t ;'Oil. AVe 5 T 32ndAv.,S 341h AV4.S 38111 AV. s' 4�4 live It 42nd AV. S 43rdAVeS it f m 401h AV! Isp, yet to Sri), AV. R rm 4- C4 �ZurhAVcr MA a A Z � o Br` 2 w � C xi d p � �r�i SBA A s aTR•e gY� n 5" ` u R u ` � 3 n X x Z Y n 6 s 6 ^ S. 3 6 v • A 3 6 a3 s F �3 3 X o+ g C a T Er a D v D v A a i D Y v D v D v O tl D o •+ v 9 tl D y a 3 a v c n � a � s c n o• o. v 3 n v � ItznT C e n �. 8 c a. s _ W p pW1 O] W O] W q J y n t•+ b 3 n ^ n 3 0 F Y a O, f ' O v ,,• C �C �R3 3a 0 3 e � a Gg0 '• ' .. Y � C ^ a �1 b O V9 0 d a m Gf c y � CC L A > 10 0 W A = nss f1 a f1 op N cr a ll; a C cn to us ri r N C. V' i W A In M Gt O% V V OC W �r3r333xxx � RR-�a'�:, �, r�r3r3r3x ` ti, '�0n � crm jn a� a1 c a A 43 d R n � N N x ✓✓ A iAl Pl L m N Id O m d n �� m C F o Z cr O Z �$ co rrrm d C p 93 o 4 � 3 g 9 c � S M1I N A P m I N CL � 5 0 o 3 j� a m 1 MD _ S E n m G m H z � y of N II m N � i �o C W CD A 0 C CD D O � a to Z A 5_ C Z O v I I I m z 0 I v ti, Z >v •-i m o v w J, a [y� y'4, Z a z o > � `c • o, �.m ro _� :� .a_ '•j N •"j N v •'� I "j N ^i '•j N I of S N m C I 1Ca N N c--- 6 f/1 �C � I i s Ci' CY, e 3 m ac g N e m s N.oA m '° �- ^Oi O ' O fu •p p 'B N if O ' d a ? W 7 O O C W C 0. N .O. O N is }p;O" pt- O < 7 ! CD f y O p• O N 0. ^ e er 7 '� rJ' C w n a 2 C 1 .� •") z y me ." •. y G W y O •� •'1 O m S O W O.p m r� m0..• a m n p 7 7 O R' O ]. O• C' m �. p^ [° wd:. .•7 ,',5,r:..�Y-.e�. plc' tr ... +�'. C o mpe o' C C to rwr C H •� R m 100 A y m A w m o .+ y p •-j a N o q pl Oq y W 7 o S= .j w T in ^. m C p a 0 O p n p 31 o m° o•LrTi.*' oT tigm me mo ". aaa;- Go0"o :�:T�o ya 5:��q. ,•�mv� :. o° -Ic� 3 �a��• C ui - .- m fD 7. Q w L* p 7- . N w 3. O Y• �• '�-•}. �. w iD '1 O C � ^ A N r� C C H O 0- p• Q - 1 Q tl �•. 70. •.1 C% H �. 0. ro A O `I y lb N N y c q^q N N �-' •' s a' Ca m Sip i..Ij Ci A $mg7 y ro rn . Q w 3 o f ID4� 0 fl � ff a '� H 0 T o �! w 7c�f m m 0 7 m ,~,j �^ p`Jq• 1 pO• M 0 ry` �- a as in 0 CL ( •fDt '� n. _ C A�1 L* o Ip '..7y. R.- -. •, QQ p N N R A N v '� C ft.R O OC 1"' I : 3 ju d N10 3o° 7' C % h y .-- - II1 e• fu m o z m Gs w m O W N .n 12od000v' O 0 N a . C fD 6 S+ OI w K r+ O N R r+ O 9�1 •p A A 7 N 01 �c-10 N N Q10 C a O T O m O w A w 7 N A L [N m o' o C. � ID o1Di 3 a Y v lb a v c•:s D p w 0 0 m m O w S w pe N •3 7. w 9 N •^••• •o `{ o`C Z O$� c o W Z� O N u � c F�=� � y Z OS pp� 'a 07O 7 ry i 1C. pp 0 ID `�°+R O. d w 1i.N C w 70. s 0o s' o d mxo'° C w m ag c d Sj � � zxv9 3• ao R•o�i v.w LT.y+,u N _ "j v ry N SaO. CDC O C T7 o m 3 o N, 3 0,en �� ?' En 0. •01 A 00 O N O 0. ror O 7 7 p1 014sn0.fD 33 N m o Jr•C N CO Xm F,� � 3 T ^ w w •.�� m Fr T O w S n cR C IC N S[dI��]1N O Uf w N 3 $'2 Di,a a m ono o ji'o •we o o m `Z m m g w m 0 � A* .- y �. O G m a--. O ,�, T�•rr,a, w Z o".4 � m A p �p •� I -j ° d 0 I pp E 13 N p. CA 6 C 0 N W �?1 CD O w N `� d m s f o' n 0 (/1 C 0 7 n x Z� w 7 C o' 3 m T fD '[ S'O C1 V1 •.]• 3 SYa < a p. n Fr i a p. n tii A 'O •t 'O N O '� V N' y S S" 'O m [a 0 Hn w O a faD N ID a ..j f� N• 7 N 3' O a -0f/1 �< m �• O'N N R t� b.�Wa 'd y o v 9 ro m O^^ N Er y, � 1 o 0 00 T ID w .O n tp 'i7 't7 a O �.s[nz� 0' 'A O • a R G p O O 7 N cl < O' C 0 tCn tt ° 0 •-,• 7 a �'O'��z°-3 • ] d 7°c' tT S. fD G i m n •I 0 7 h CD m a yS y 1 lu W rqL 7 n G N u v m � o N c 01 A a g S o Mm a sGE M y al p� n F$$ n 3$ o ti I n Y O ] M y � . .tt g o a 'a it » it 's it 11 9 II II M w IN q Li O , 1 v v v C; :Aaaasa°R gRRw;n"sd� Y O.O• Oy AY y€ P. o N U !Y R O'Y A Y KAR 9 y S ` ] N ej' Y N � In A�� � � V � q• 3N I Ho3 O�•��aCj°WS ap A a g N y 2 C `• N Y'��a •fir �: tl >� Y e ;r a 3 7�' O 0,w �. n n 3 � 0, 1� o- FL AO 5' S� v y a• � n S hg a=�s 0 0 O, �• g g O O O O O T O 9 y _s Aff n 11 11 11 11 W O W In 11 11 11 n 1+ W W N V §'' � M ■ M1] II o M IL A G ral N I �YS W W Y yi �Q» W N ; w- p I « n Y ^ r r Ip a Ir w r Y = is 3 3 a la r o p O S � � 3 Iloi n � = O zs 3 C � Ol N Ol F+ � O e a'a o O R r c ^ g .l-3 s vqq w a u w a a_0it a n £ a y oa y 0 a °a a n S g w a S7. S � n 3 ~ g _ Y a w s » a i Y L s � _ O n IN g 3 Y 11 9 p o n 11 II II 0 a I+ N G A A A A A A Ly N N N IN+ N aoD��0. g c n n o i n s v_ l c O r—• ^p n $ 5 n Y » 3 o fa Q a'ni a a R c no r » n » o ti a c a �_n n ° �• s a o a : R 0 R c � �Ms w xn p n n n n O O Az O z O O D n 0 I. 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 r1� v » LI 4 n n+ S p 3 q T m = V 7i 8 a ° A 0 p a s a s s s m S ro a_ = - I� 11 S C 41 = D_ O N .7 •+ � ; 3 a T o, a O Y W a 11 r � n c n p S 1�•. 9 o o a_ a 8 a O « ^ a 11 It 11 n O o n r O O O 2 � II 11 11 p p n Y O p .7 = .RT a a 0 0 n n M iY �• N i n S i -1 Y a a Y z 0 0 0 D R n Y Y O S 2 c a- ££ Fo.g w>§§>§§ v d n n £ n £ e n s�- o a v � 0 r 6 � o � v R w y 7; 71 e w 8 R o. ? £ c m 7 10 4 � Qr X <. 0 0 0� •• O W b Y o A N A A O aoo a go o�- p 4 �: p 1"2r F' N M. F' « Y Y i Z a 9 O m w Ea X n4 0 g�o .ai o j O A a D Y A n b£S- 3 g2 3 w v d n Ita = "5 0 . W" z Y Y �oaMt 2Lf a goQ r a w n e @ to an M D n° a o It " o 9 n I o F F tiF n IT - a n 171 v p S.. o A 0 'R'R �xa'aaa'R pp 0 B 0 0 0 S Y '. II 11 II � O a" II II II II 11 A ,�• �--- O :i Z 2 y O. T O m D 1 O 2 in � A ' c ° d 8 a c 3 n c a ~ 3 u 3 s '5: I 3 � g n v O A I o r a a. — a s s. i S Q c a o � 3 n o g a c 3 n n w v j II II 11 O ` O S a °n Ij F. I.1 O O 57 51 s s 9 9 9 D 4 _ 3 1� �G G Qv� $a -3 3 3 a fea "aaN2gg0 cr s d a a w G n Y a 8 A; •w �l n n�� Yi ,,�• m o m° E 3 3 m }jO� O n° s o $a a y � D ^ n q o a „_8888,0 �gs2800 gir'G�a'aa n xaaaa C 11 II 11 II II 11 S 11 II II II Ir t+ 9 V V V tr N S a Q a Q � a n o p 3 ° ° d a IT;y <' ` ala12 $a Wx'YS4�a. 0 3 3 0 s a w ° n � n � FL o a o- g o II o II ° GGGGG c II 11 II II II 2 O O O O O N A A N 3• _ 3 n M - - v a 1°o n u° n - d 7 6 m 3 rD ti C rr m W W IN_ W N 1+ t7 0 a « ; N w n sm n. n � 'a � s c n �$ �' ¢ a a 3 !x S o a Da » c o. _ Y o i e a $ z � c � z m g w Y n ° w c n N Y n N v o n o w o w o ° wn o m N n o � n o N 2 9 b • 0 N iN Y "7 iu ,ice •D O O O O S O S c 0 N N N O ' e o n s° j gF o W. I�'a'S or E§> > c m 3 Q w� `ri N w v v N A e S N 2R Y X R .^ n �^, '� 0 Fri' N o 0- u pa_n n n ,�,XXo Ro a S X o v w m V ` X x. 2 ^ £ v n n S r Y p 2 �� � •- ss i-i � s a :a� s oG c n n. p s � m n p � Ila M w 1`: D a= Q w w O n n 2 Y Fair is it To o RaR n'•3 gn m IY u n n 'OS ° 0 N W q n II n Yi a IW •2 O O N ol O dT N q N m Y i o=i 2 C Y O 9 6 Y gg c 3 a i o C a q + Y m o �oo o j d :.S C. O S a R w Q a a c n g n s ^ w 3 � D a n � O A o � a s o 0 � W s n O s ° wo II p =3 a z •� = O O S 9 - - ate S O p a G R d O II O li II II O Y+ N 0 Q3 i N r a d A O •y 3 m irIN b W _ x ' sLv i- I� a o Y Q A N N' ^ N Fw n O 2 O O�• v A ^ 1p w a SO: IL a s F G a e a 8 0 3 3 g- 3 o a F q> - .. M1 n go � a � S� � a$ 8 a �� 4� � e a b❑ � O G O^ • ed S �• O M g �= W D � aO p 7 V n o o � � e � � � E. � a •i � - a R n I�j• n o a � F � 3 c n p �' �: 1.4 a•�o 04 3 0 °►+ S3� 8 av $g'$'� o h ovo ova ag„ � •C II II 11 � > > 11 11 11 II ~ � 0 11 11 11 S ,0= W W. e n o _� a Y� SON, w e w i n 3 0 S ! 2� G o� M -• v Y sI�$ .. rr i 0 3 a 3 CCi G 3 a a I • ��• A q � O' � v e n o f'�- J » � ] �LL xr all $ �T�<i's vsoaa = S. IR 9 F W ^ G vo 0 i e Y N c pia o n v a ^ a �•G o „ a 10 '� 's x n a a S j i i 11 lye 11 O p OO F� 4i N Ij n � n R N IY N N Y y N V C C C C C^ C 6 d ir O n O F A N V- tl D p O 4` nO- O N 7C NG .i F F s C X IUD � •R � W C P m ss 3 317 $1$$IZ^ mM$,Wq v � 0 00 a 3 3 9 S O 0 z � o s �• el j' � _ W C o �t. IN C � e e w C a. a [� 'R G R -- O 11 II 11 N 11 II 11 II -- u z S a a^ n s<3Cy 7 Z� y� CC- v v a n x » x S v ojr a 3 � ° � n °1 `x3• �' W S rr 3 A 3 Y Ir pr � � 3 e �i las Ha I I I I 04 II I I I I Itc a n * 3S �R o Nn F o 3 f y c�'a c�a o0 m,a M� �m I � m w m e 4a inA £ m 6a' w m•2 a na _if¢m Gv q oo Co� o n e a s S _ oq� �m Qfir� S �� s5 b°, aas a ff ng Dc o - c T ir ea—i a p7o n o 5> " a o 3? N n �G "e o `^p w naQ rn d R eo m o.�^a £ n'e gV RYa c �o•m m.`�.-, o ?fnne e� N 9 a �o �a�� = M. R'aSi S? E 3 ao eg m c y a spa a n n? o n�+' m $rHn �Fr 43 �v m 7 -°n `9e o o�A v' n 'fin 0 eon _O o_c n 3 Z g? S SL Er w v � Q n � � :' A � a x• �' " o a � � ng N " m a r7 ja ^ a o r - ii 0 n ii n K' no n W W W V W N N N N N Y Y �dtl yo S4 I I Is a" a c o 21, F m M v° a a ono 0n n m u '• d a E 2�-` e o E �', n $ 0 3 ii v ,^T �2 o m c as a n O' b''• Y YS �• n C L L ~ N °' ^ Y C , -� y .� S O S V M a�� q � a» °, 9� A m •D a yp 6 d> > :" u A a ¢. A? n N o' R � '" K S � g � o f .�, f=] �• a� a x � .zi x c.c.y� =a r AEoa« 2g «n���°o X_ — 1N yyy T R, n -'� O d O R O d N w -�', O„ b y Q ; -.. = n ,fin w 'O• j w— �' !� n S S I y O d R N n O i yl O N o�<a ogN ate, n ti » 6 o S 3� D — O N D .°rd S� SD pn 1S�lu eai In 7 C tl 0. 0 m m 0 y C 3 m l� io i3 Z K N w I I 17 I I I A I I A S I I A a m O �. � u �° :s s O 41 Or � �•� osi a' n c � o w n � F o i E n c� y� ,� 2 S F m a 3 .Y � C o g O a n n ie a o a.6 n'a. F n P m G 19i n � 6.1 * .` a n ss n�Zn n�...,�F� It `' N n N M 1� 1p �Y Id n'an 2! %d I" EA A3g ary 9 u no"�=8' ' ` S a&-jj � ''� s 9S'iMo:i w -] N^` O W O N19 Y A d F a y n <. Q.3F O KA BAR S� N x F M a�, N 'Y w 9 f^1 O L 3 F Y A w a Y O A _^ Q S O Y Y P N R O O u .Y O s N y A Z d a N» m Y Y O P n o - 8 st a ya N aFi a ,u. o c o- e A o K �• O� GT X OR SOw o a u� N ' O �e �e c" �n g 1.+ n ra �M » C A �2E eYi 3< .Y.o Gu I I x n— s 1II Y o O= y n .". o o n g o ON 7 1 I A Welland' y: i7 t �.INetland� ...- WC1r1I1Cj11, Figure 1a - Hydroperiods Legend Wetland 6 Map .... Estimated Wetland Boundary Delineated Wetland Wetland Delineation on Gethsemane Boundary .Awr Cemetary, Federal Way, WA f' "l Wetland Area Gethsemane Cemetary Ordinary High Water L X l Data Point Wetland 6 Note :Municipal provided by ArcGIS Online. -Municipal and wetland data is from City of Federal Way. -All project specific data was made by Otak,Inc. 1 inch = 100 feet 0 100 — Date- 7r212M r 7n Lo C: CD A i CD '�^ .`.� .. � �•N,1Y g J �a.. L � I t I r r r I rr-', I r i'1�by } i? Q ^� 2 IL f a a �! 03M Ave NE r ^ . m 1591J,AVOCIE Gld9AviE '� 4 56lh Ave NE Qb' AV.E 62nd'Ave NE I � GGth Ave E r --- �r IL -6fUl AV, E- lie Ave Sw M AfcIGC Suc+YG I I �a I I I w a E 8 n Vep 11fyr Avr (• L {•�'' 1�6vh AvcE i ry•G C. Nihon Rri$ - - 171fIRYe�. -_ d 0"? 5 L71 r Ap k s 3 I , 2811r Ave9� 0{ i G + J2nd Ave S � f I 3lth AveS I Sellr Arcs h W 42nd Avo 5 r v= —SS W AJe s N W ;I 52nd AveS 551h Ave S r x I MA -n �. � CD 01 - ` ° • • ■ - - �� ;i ■ �� R � i g L■ 'J ! I A ! ) � � 2 � } � { § ■ � f f ■ E � f � o Q 9 $ 9 ■ � § ) E) ` �k \ v7 ■7} !±� § � � \ 2 § z 7! « 2 ■; g i a §f� I��IlQ|e2 Er & § E , In |73 - a/ ��if § § ( •�� .,. \ ■§� % - k |a} g | |§{ E � § £ � - k � `�� � ] � ■ \ ER ¢ � � ! _ $ E , ■ �B k m j z 5 Sf �ifiCL O Y ^' , o Fs' & , 40, n 1,2 R 0 Y C Er n m� w a � c3 c 3 a e = z 3 ? as a 3 � ' n � n c— " A w r W W � S •� 2 S N YI � ^ � c w a• r r r i 3 r n a � r r AA W Aux in mmVM r33x3xxxxx �rgr333xxx ❑�, a � S I•+ n i� I D W S x .N •Y� � Vl+i . G '�^o.pN g 5.3 o �x h •� E £ ca n F " A Cy ^ iW W N Al A 'N Y N y� A~ W x N A N A A 2 y x N A N y, IJ a r 0 mcxi W d D 3 m 3 a(D r Z n -Oi. cm S a n v e { a �` � n V CO) m S 9 O ^JC 3 � O � C w � cr m CL C a CML 5 ' U. a B @ 7 � w y�lo� n N ry Sir- ct ` �� L2 V as#'ate»"a a.4 W13 gg } 'xa n p FW^o ¢� o. 4a a O O �• 3 g � n D' m a •.y a £ S rto g � Gov x0Io13 oIo v W iv�va VP x N x:i A IN fl+ 2 N lu 1+ A 1 W �g0 G 00 d m DI C. IDd -310 a N � cm S C N J2 S. a a O 0 N .s ja c O Ul a O nm A 0 7 9 ° ro n d Q O I I O m O I o p -a m On� in 2 1-� N y Z o a .J tl• ti�;.T rn:.o": •�� A .may{ fD fSD S �C O 1lSD d W R % >o m m o i OQ C 0 O Q (D I error.:°. S .a. .d �!• 1a O d a ro r1 uwi F O W 7 `a i"' ,�A .roj o r`r 0.71 Nam¢� a . CD obi e% , L' C O .••iF n ro 9p �.fn .� d R. F9 a� �h Z CL�.fiz dom To~ 4 S0.S fb Vl N n y N� a, q 0 7 O y w y O y OR O O O$ O A T 1p n T o O Fr0. in R A.A� eCi ,d�yy N a n N �' � R .o.� Q R a• 1c y y � � 0. �. F� ti� O ro 0 O O T fpy��� !d A a O (M• -oTZ i p: O R. io in' 4 O `[ N O^ ❑dy O 'S. O OQ ro O co — O ";• Oq Vj' vdi ^ T0O0 O N7 Z A, CLV U.; aF'-n i avm `e°��', I*cPH CL y � o wo a5 ro y aC5,_ 1�.• _?.v C N � � rr � � � � lA n � � 0 u y �[. py^1. VI3• as g ° 10 ao_� d -�� q dam' oo' =a �• A d p S A O n• y�. . G. n' .J .�. �, OO 0 v h C1 n � Er OC d O O 6 7 Jrr. CL d N fS ill •V R rP n .. v � - N O 'i �• ID L� p 7 d .O p O a ro w f0 ro 7 + G. 31 + + + d d r v+ g NN 1D WO*• 3 d gyp, � afvfv� CL 'D 7 ro o w M d T ro ct j a O N R fD 3 70 fl v v m ro O ro d ro d O O❑ ro ;02O Z r O C N iy Yn`''a of 'o,nw n i Ip Q ra fErZ. tp •�, n ,,,1%"• O� 6. a y y m O OOq O �p �� N n- T T� �• O� y � 4 7 N V � N� a cr o d �Tj 7 �i S 2 CY n UQ m LL d �rw �' ^i Q� ag'•as o ro a C d7 A 7 N 0 0. .O•. 9 O co d m a.�° cm � a_a , N �aYg' o n v II+ C 'V o p� a c x �_. O. ro a ❑O9 I o1 �� i � rreoa Ta co S n m a '* m c o ro ^ w £ Pr ry �• O S G. .ra S~ G n !1 � N [1 n H d� N N N h a •j � N 7n 9- }F K�n-aro O 7 y o p T'a 745 a C1 a m c" 1 �• a ip s a } 3 0 W 0 k 01 CL NC �pG N 1 N U2 O n 0 O 6' 7 A �o a 9 d 6 4 ro al m y CL S w w n n g a � N m � C m ry, N N n G J 9 O w Y I+ IJ F! p g an a n —ur a—Zi xVxnaaaa�f I pp Y � � �• O m p' n + 0 R z: '- a ur D c v j_ O B o• O o O o• � A� B O� B_ 0 wit! II 11 11 O N A 11 II 0 II O !+ W UI M O 1+ Y N W •' A A A W it i+ o a� d Y 3. m e �, s E �. .'�. G� •` 'o. = °' o• o �m d o of a :i 'n n a `.l si •+ E aai eai a O•°•°^•1�5� °. °. u aIr'n a n n nC o �� S n» — C m Y�� ^ .y O• S N a�6 i3. y Ra b'so UaZN�3 3 ear_» �. [ o et 7- occ�n x�o�_•;GY �Tc a,o 0 0 o S oA o a^ a s " n n o 5 IN n 0 2 � �aaaa aaaaGr III II II II II N o w u II 11 II II II w io I+ w W N V o a u n't u N 'So-Ts Im V x � m W ■ £ S � r O o r f 1 ti R O O- Y Y � O n 0 n s v q Y ' w 8 Y „ a �• � � O w a w S ^ g r u y M n G ^ u E G N ► ° r Y n n o II n 3 A A • � � N Y o o g m n 7 a ^ o Q '� q e Y r C E � rli i a s•+ � x o ip � m s a I w n $ c O V W � 0 w c 8 ' 9 v v n li 0 0 QQaa n 1� n Io O N ° 0 n N V Qo I ^ Y O » `atrtr s � r asp C .- Q S dl R 4 p n S d a F T o C c D C c � 61 r Y N e o a ms• a 2 l? lo A o 3 � o A (1 y O ^ G N G M N w +! Y N M Y r N Y ^ z A 0 n o z 0 u 0 z c. n� 0 z 0 u 0 z o. n 0 I K A r :u ^^ S i a C C O V 9 a f 9. ^ZZnnn „„ V V. A W W C Sl F 8 s v aC w^ ^ o n u ^ A 4 jF n a d o W y 6 Y R - 3 Q o. c � A . CE. A r O O O. 08o88�°boos � n 11 11 II 11 O W pl T O 11 Al 11 G N A W �l ' 4 M � a N o 0 0 } 3 » ^a ooA�oa»w;, Vcr v rn � m 3 n G a �y n ^ •• � �k �y i Ig, n o Ci ti F 3 ° $ o n o F Z' &� AL SQt RAG n n n ° a Q R Q Q R a ^�" u n n n 11 '•: 4 0 A J 1+ N A A b c'k iy 9 FW z O m m 0 m en m C O z vl �V1. o w a a b 01 d a'o a �•� ;4' � � a a Y w •ii � 6 Y 'spry. N Q x x a f w — � O 3 m e a a a a = A S �8S8o= a-- 's 3 S F G II II II Y Y+ N 9 'S % S S M• >> 7 a a a a% 7 'O a• O x9 M W a a K Y a O w e"" Y 'e ^� .� IX Y Y M C C t S a Y Y d =j• ; fi ;aa9aY�°=9 V OO W� � Raaaaan�.Al ii4 NNE;-� y w _ II � V S S (-(��•Z S � u pp wa n�� •la'•1 N W G S IV oyq ^�gl�OaP�1pn `�I.Wiu ae e d = rl y O M Q O 11 a F � A obi o. v O R d to m 8 's Z 01 C CL v 0 m 1 0 z vl G J S a c e 2 Q A n E n w 11 oa o O a = ' s'1 2 2 P m 3'a3 .Sn. 39 w $ Y m n e co. C S �g R b ii . $ V O M m 3 v $ o a j 3 ° a a A ■ ° v 0 m N G R Li C n Y •4 ii I+°�e N A lyj O yNpp N O Z � C• n �,. A .n �• 4 Y O n O' I■; �i Cn0 � Y L L n n m � S� � 2 1 � G ■ N+ S =o- a g y p g� 5• a a E 3' a � i-�. c a ut+ sr c n eC:•: � c Vo n c33 .� o 1 V S { o 3 '3 ° a n w v 3 R u n V o — S a • n o m cr Et �aNN b a O O• �• b y, m O R :, n a V' b n 1,�1, Y, w 11 �3 W 9 1 2 ° N N N YN V C C C C g C n a � FL 3 3 p y 4 u n u d V V P V Q o yy P '"N o T 'Fir 3 �S S° SQrtoi Som S. o qq 53 19U s v o Y } ^ C. .�. S I�•Y � IN s8 �8� j it o.000 11 eoo8 gc" iraair' aa�% IY n n n n �r iw r o A. G1. G. w 0 '1 0 T I_e �i a � � � �� SQ �� a �•OS• a l0"c Y � C1p, � � > > 5q: a'Gi ^a ul .'. 3 _ 5 �� n wA� [f'a S' � °� Ed��� as 7' �� �F a � •'ot'� ��'• �� ,�i• � g a. . yyN O Y V i m o m N a O w' OO.. � `C Q S N nn � n •��I o Y a N G O s 3 C O pry¢ry n d „ a 3 p^ O Cp1 qj w '- xo'� c �° °al3 .n 0 8 h a 0- •`"• o a $$ 2^ op a a s v c 3 % p'Fg dw oo BQ =g am miYn Vc oaA ,• m of o= s 991�m � an .cr y YO =`= o ��' mm o.3 0•, °° '°gg�'�nm o 'm " �� m� m � � •��°i, ,lon W m s : ^ a + '� ''+ 3 e n � 1 >• `' o ° `t mNa �. jpy��r �1 p O �AN tin. ^-3 or g$ 8 m m � •� c� r b a � a a ii o d a o �n y a m a a o m a c $ � Pr 12. 'o. W o ? A 0 cn n n n n IL W W Pb r W N N F+ v �� p.xN9ss oo I I I 1 110� ?, r o$ o, S£ E v £ F l a $ c .De s i ^7 s e" a o °' �q a Y wY�e trZ�'ne 1 3 S n �� <a 3 x- ^ "F F �E o 2� a c c rxX1=u ar O �i Q S A O S N O a , 6 e 'Z r^ir Y a c ao s e « wgw7.� ^ Y n tis 7 s e n it-• ,� 3 A n h C. v s o w » [I F� % a S M Q 51 ^ c_a3.nF or q y C.t o n a 6 M 0 r. v �dPL awE�a.^. X •�w o�'.s. M2'Fg T ^.S Nox2 0= c M;n2 50 ..^Nso<ny �QQQ'Qn Y v $OW o E` ii' S nM oB g ryl[ 1 N- 3 F °E w a s e < nn� » �{C �A O �'�' �p Y yr � a .Z n u •Z p w $ •� �7b' o �woo0 0�z d 1 rr g ' 1 a 3 li 1 a S m O a Gl n- v GI4 x- 2 2 $ �s �Y S x ., �Y Y a�, Y •�� wg�'� Y S . ngqYY6 3� F x dim o god n i SIF D v n M 0 p1 wcr W G r V G m �z *e FIR, rb S i., a R; . , I • • ❑.l � r� ��r•'•' �ri� 1 f• ! •,r �r.�'��t,-f4'; S_a _ i• "'ii•.1�•- r7- a •S �� fir,• r`�., � `�•' ... .. ,',-� " ' ,..P•' �,_�� -�, .a' t 4.7..E 1 - �"r #' ",�• � .� I l '� � y 7� ' • ty I S . .ry �"1•.I 'l-` I i'i IRe �' . r{` 1 " L � FSI 0 k ly LA 9 > ClrdAve PJL fA IPI AVm Nf $4th Ave E --�kr k 14 4' —56MAVe V" dAve E 6bid Ave 620 NE 66thAVOE Olth Ave E _rSid AveSLY 7091 Ave E '�: n 9 , a , 4, 5 4 -4 --A I: n T Fill m 0 I p — 341h AVOS 3M. A- S el 42o (P AVG S, --45 01 4G's II 491 h Ave S 'A 52ndAV&S 55thAvag p Fai x # 7IW -n (C). � CD (Yl ■ }[� � - � £•.•- � �_ ! k � � - E] ! !I k ) ) ) k § $ Er / -f � •B �Q EC? � $ E) 2\ }�\ �� �, � ■ m � ae ■■■.a §f § ) & \ � ( 2 £!ƒ2 ■ E » | ( !|J § a * «-! � ■`� r �/§ f I _ 77■ \!a v a!§ J !§! E / El, 2 s ( § � j Appendix E Plant Species Observed within the Study Area Table E-1. Plant Species Observed within the Study Area Genus Species Common Name WI3* Acer circinatum vine maple FAC Acer macrophyllum big -leaf maple FACU Agrostis capillaris bentgrass FAC Alnus rubra red alder FAC Anthoxanthum odoratum sweet vernalgrass FACU Athyrium filix-femina lady fern FAC Carex obnupta slough sedge OBL Cirsium arvense Canada thistle FAC Cornus sericea redstem dogwood FACW Dactylis glomerata orchard grass FACU Elymus sp. ryegrass, wheatgrass NI Epilobium sp. willowherb FACU Equisetum arvense field horsetail FAC Festuca rubra red fescue FAC Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FACW Gaultheria shallon salal FACU Geum macrophyllum large -leaf avens FAC Holcus lanatus common velvetgrass FAC Ilex aquifolium English holly FACU Juncus effusus soft rush FACW Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass FAC Lysichiton americanus yellow skunk cabbage OBL Oemleria cerasiformis Osoberry FACU Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass FACW Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass FAC Polystichum munitum sword fern FACU Populus Trichocarpa black cottonwood FAC Potentilla anserine ssp. pacifica Pacific silverweed OBL Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir FACU Pteridium aquilinum bracken fern FACU Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup FAC Rosa nutkana Nootka rose FAC Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FACU Rubus laciniatus evergreen blackberry FACU Rubus spectabilis salmonberry FAC Rubus ursinus trailing blackberry FACU Rumex crispus curly dock FAC Salix lasiandra Pacific willow FACW Gethsemane Cemetery Wetland and Stream Delineation Report January 27, 2017 and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Salix sitchensis Sitka willow FACW Sambucus racemosa red elderberry FACU Scirpus microcarpus small -fruited bulrush OBL Spiraea douglasii Douglas spirea FACW Stachys cooleyae Cooley hedgenettle FACW Symphoricarpos albus Common snowberry FACU Taraxacum officinale common dandelion FACU Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC Urtica dioica stinging nettle FAC Veronica americana American brooklime OBL * Wetland Indicator Status (W1S) per Lichivar, et aL (2014): OBL = occurs in wetlands > 99% of time FACU =occurs in wetlands 1-33% of time FACW = occurs in wetlands 67-99% of time UPL =occurs in uplands > 99% of time FAC = occurs in wetlands 34-66% of time NI = no indicator Gethsemane Cemetery January 27, 2017 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan